 |
| Happy Banker Counts His Legendary Saudi Fees |
AA thinks it will be even longer before banks get “rich” off
Saudi or MENA fees. (Editor’s Note: With this post SAM has adopted the Spicer
Style Book convention on the use of quotation marks.)
"Rich” is a relative term. A chap or chapette with US$10,000 equivalent
in Pakistan is doing quite well. That
same amount in Luxembourg not so well. AA is assuming talk of “riches” is in
relation to the latter, though ...
The 2015 net income figures cited by Bloomberg in the
article for net profits at HSBC KSA and JPMorgan
KSA (respectively US$75 million and US$10 million) indicate just how far there
is to go. For these banks this is "hobby" not mainframe LOB income.
A few quotes from the Bloomberg article to set the stage.
Saudi Arabia and its ambitious reform plans are the focus of all the hype in Middle Eastern financial circles these days, but it’s still in the United Arab Emirates where banks are earning most of their money.
Investment banking fees paid to lenders in the U.A.E. were 45 percent higher than in the kingdom last year, according to New York-based research firm Freeman & Co. Saudi Arabia has trailed the U.A.E. for fees earned from merger and acquisitions, equity capital market and financing deals since 2011, and is off to a slower start this year, according to the data.
Global banks are investing in Saudi Arabia in preparation for an expected fee bonanza.
Sounds fantastic. 45%
higher. Fee bonanza, albeit “expected”.
There is no sweeter song to banks and bankers than of
outsized fee revenue which carries the happy implication of the bonuses such
flows imply. Think on average near to
50%--at least in happier days—shared with self-professed hard working and “savvy”
bankers.
But let’s take a closer look.
First at the quantum of fees as per Bloomberg.
Banks earned $237 million in investment banking fees in the U.A.E. last year, compared with $164 million in Saudi Arabia, the Freeman data shows. Lenders secured $154 million from financing deals in the Emirates, compared with $121 million in Saudi Arabia, even after the kingdom raised $17.5 billion in the largest-ever emerging-market debt sale. M&A fees in the U.A.E. were $70 million, almost triple the $24 million earned in Saudi Arabia.
Just how big are these numbers in the global context?
Charitably speaking, rounding errors.
On that basis, parsing UAE and KSA fee levels either
individually or in total is like analyzing the relative positions of Sunderland
and Middlesbrough. Which is the better
team? Which of the two
will take home silver next season?
If that US$85 billion total hasn’t
already well and truly taken the luster off talk of KSA IB fee “riches”, or for that matter UAE
or MENA IB fee riches, let's drill down a bit further..
The charts below are compiled from Thomson Reuters individual
LOB reports on estimated full-year 2016 global investment banking
fees for just three IB revenue streams so they don’t total to US$85 billion
mentioned. Just three to provide a bit
more granular detail on where MENA fits in the global fee picture.
2016
Estimated Investment Banking Fees
|
Billions
of US Dollars
|
M&A
|
|
$30
|
Debt Capital Markets
|
|
$24
|
Global Syndicated Loans
|
|
$16
|
Total
|
|
$70
|
MENA
Share of Estimated Global Fees
|
M&A
|
|
0.083%
|
Debt Capital Markets
|
|
0.517%
|
Global Syndicated Loans
|
|
0.500%
|
Note: 0.083% is 0.00083 in decimal terms.
MENA fees at their highest don’t reach 1% of total global
estimated fees in any of the categories above.
Side note: You can
sign up for free copies of TR’s reports (which are quarterly) if you have a corporate
email or so AA has been told. Disclosure: I didn’t hear this from a Fox News
commentator, but the information is almost certainly as, if not more, credible,
if you can believe that.
Seems to AA that not too many banks or bankers are going to
get rich off this level of MENA fees.
These MENA M&A fees are less than the fees for some
single deals in the USA or Europe. Profit-oriented
banks and bonus-hungry bankers are likely to focus elsewhere, particularly
where the same or similar templates can be applied to a greater flow of
transactions.
Typical AA Irrelevant Aside:
Once some years ago in one of our weekly deal review meetings with some
of the highest life forms in the firm present ethereally electronically as
befits their exalted existence, one of my colleagues began touting a deal with
$6 million in revenue. A rather
distraught team leader jumped in to minimize embarrassment by noting the deal
was significant for “potential market development”. An unfortunate turn of phrase. The “big” man or others of nearly the same rarefied
stature would periodically ask how PMD was coming along when they wanted to
tweak a tail. PMD thereafter became a
sort of tag line in the group to justify “certain” behaviors. There was the case of a rather large beverage
expense incurred with several colleagues that AA successfully explained as “PMD
brainstorming”.
What could change to propel MENA into relevant fee
territory?
Fees are the product of volume and pricing. (Math pun intended).
US and Europe have volume. MENA doesn’t have the volumes. Even with KSA’s economic plans sustained
volumes at the US/Europe level are unlikely.
But there’s another problem.
Low fee levels, particularly in KSA, as Bloomberg notes.
Banks and advisers working on Saudi Arabia’s $6 billion National Commercial Bank IPO, the world’s second-largest IPO in 2014 after Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., received about $6.7 million in fees, or about 0.1 percent of the offering’s value. By comparison, Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley took about 1.2 percent of proceeds on the Alibaba sale.
"The Aramco IPO is likely to have fees hugely squeezed," said Emad Mostaque, chief investment officer of emerging market hedge fund Capricorn Fund Managers.
One might argue that MENA fees are depressed now because current
clients are predominantly public sector entities that generally pay lower fees.
Indeed.
What are the prospects for a local private sector
Alibaba (other than the one pictured above) and the sort of private sector
deals we see in the USA or Europe?
Off in the distant future if at all.
After the successful National Commercial Bank IPO, KSA state
entities retained some 60% of the bank.
The planned Aramco IPO targets placing a whopping 5% of existing shares,
leaving 95% in government hands. In
neither case are private sector fees likely to apply to follow-on deals. And if the initial performance holds (NCB was
wildly oversubscribed and Aramco is likely to be as well), market demand will
bolster client demand for lower fees.
That doesn’t mean that foreign banks will shun Saudi or
other MENA deals.
Fees aren’t the sole criterion for participating in a
deal.
Sometimes “maintaining relationships” or “creating” them is a
compelling motive. The mantra goes: Do a
cut-price deal, gain admission to the client’s magic circle of favored banks,
be repaid many times with subsequent richly
priced deals. But often the subsequent
“rich” deal is a mirage. If the client
is used to “cut rate” prices, future transactions are likely to be just as “fee
skinny” as the entrée deal.
Or if the deal is strategically important to the country, your
reward will be a fast track to a banking license in the country where you can
earn above average profits from private sector clients. That’s the theory,
though this also often doesn’t work out in practice.
Banks have other motives, e.g., doing deals to enhance league
table position to bolster their image and marketing. That’s why you’ll see more than the necessary
number of banks on very large or very prestigious deals often working for a
song. But without sustained substantial
fee revenue such efforts come to naught.
Also sadly, as history shows, despite self-proclaimed
“smarts”, IBs are prone to fads, fashions, and, yes, hype. See Lehman, Bear, Citi, et al. Or dotcoms,mortgages, whales, etc. If the music is playing, there is a strong
compulsion to get up and dance.
Posts
