AA was in grave danger of slipping further into his
monomania on Dana Gas, until Gulf News (Dubai) rode to his rescue with this
timely 8 August article: “Qatar banking system
faces grim outlook as sanctions bite”.
“Grim outlook” sure sounds serious. If Indian banks are facing “subdued” prospects, then Qatar has to be in even worse shape.
The article’s argument appears based on the following:
Moody’s has placed Qatar’s banking sector on ratings watch negative, a change from stable. The other rating agencies have taken steps as well. S&P bumped Qatar’s sovereign rating to AA-. Fitch has placed Qatar’s AA sovereign rating on its watch list. In case you don’t know, investment grade extends all the way to BBB- or Baa3. Qatar banks are more dependent on external funding than earlier.
External funding may be withdrawn and the Qatar government’s ability to support its banks has weakened.
Qatar’s banks have a “lot” of cross border assets in the GCC and MENA. AA isn't sure if this is a credit warning about these borrowers ability to repay or about government action to prevent payment.
Moody’s expects non-performing assets to increase from 1.7 % at FYE 2016 to 2.2% by FYE 2018. Moody’s also expects ROA to decline from 1.7% for fiscal 2016 to 1.4% for fiscal 2017.
GN’s assessment seems to be based on two things.
First, some negative things might occur, e.g., external funding withdrawal, ratings drop, etc. At its current rating Qatar could drop a notch or two and still comfortably be investment grade. More importantly, things that might occur do not necessarily occur. Or when they do, there may be solutions. Those with long memories or mentors who lived in exciting times will remember that when international banks cut off funding for the Kuwaiti-owned banks in Bahrain following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the KIA rode to the rescue.
Second, there is negative trend in two metrics: ROA and ROE. It’s not clear to AA if GN believes that the change in NPA (a 30% increase) or ROA (an 18% decrease) is driving Qatar banks to “grim” territory or whether it is the absolute levels of these figures.
Let’s put those metrics—ROA and NPLs— into context with a chart drawn from pages 10-11 in the KPMG report on GCC 2016 banking performance.
Two things to note about that report.
It covers listed banks and not all banks. Despite the sample composition, the report should provide a directional idea about relative performance.
That presumably explains much if not all of the difference between KPMG’s figures and Moody’s who are including unlisted banks in their calculations.
GCC
Banking Performance
ROA
NPL
Country
2015
2016
2015
2016
Bahrain
1.0%
1.1%
10.7%
9.8%
Kuwait
0.9%
1.1%
2.1%
2.1%
Oman
0.5%
0.8%
1.9%
2.0%
Qatar
1.8%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
Saudi
2.0%
1.7%
1.1%
1.3%
UAE
1.4%
1.3%
4.1%
4.0%
GCC
Banking Performance
ROA
NPL
Country
2015
2016
2015
2016
Bahrain
1.0%
1.1%
10.7%
9.8%
Kuwait
0.9%
1.1%
2.1%
2.1%
Oman
0.5%
0.8%
1.9%
2.0%
Qatar
1.8%
1.5%
1.7%
1.9%
Saudi
2.0%
1.7%
1.1%
1.3%
UAE
1.4%
1.3%
4.1%
4.0%
No comments:
Post a Comment