Bahrain Middle East Bank - Fatally Wounded Barring an Unlikely Miracle

Bring Out Your Dead.  And Your Near Dead Too.

Since last July ever so often I would check to see if there was anything new on The Curious Case of Bahrain Middle East Bank.

After some months, fatigue set in. I missed BMB’s release of its “missing” 2018 financials.

Belatedly I’m catching up.

Late November BMB released its 3Q18 unaudited financials and its FY 2018 audited financials. BMB’s auditors did not issue an opinion.

Why?

Two factors: massive losses and apparent fraud.

Losses

Through 3Q18 net losses were some USD 193 million, reduced slightly to USD 189 million for the full year.

At FYE2018 Total Liabilities exceeded Total Assets by some USD 113 million due to provisions on USD 195 million in non-performing related party exposures.

A rather dismal picture summarized in the following (all figures as of FYE 2018):

1. USD 189 million loss represents 95% of Total Assets.
2. Negative equity of USD 113 million.
3. CAR is a negative 142.9%.
   

Apparent Fraud

So was this the result of a few bad commercial decisions? Investing in WeWork, taking a flier on Softbank?

No.

According to Ernst and Young, during 2018 the new Board discovered that certain exposures were to or for the benefit of a related party and not to independent third parties.

As of FY 2018 that USD 190 million in exposure was composed of direct loans, interbank placements, and securities.

While the latter two amounts were with independent third parties, there were side agreements that secured benefits from them to the related party. No further details. Perhaps as collateral?

There is an additional USD 4.6 million in accrued interest not included in the amounts above, bringing the total to USD 195 million.

Related Party Exposure

What do we know about the related party exposure?

From Director’s Report in the English version of the FY2018 AR, we know that the related party is related to a major shareholder not a member of management.

There are only two major shareholders AN Investment (ANI) (owned by the Turkish “Three Amigos”) and Al Fawares Kuwait.

I believe the related party is AN Investment (80.77%) not ALF (14.48%).

1. Recall that the ALF directors appear to have been warned—presumably by the CBB--and were able to resign before the CBB “fired” the Board. Unlikely if ALF is the culprit.
2. In the Directors’ Report in the 2018FY AR, the parties under investigation are listed as the former Vice Chairman (Mr. Solak), CEOs and CFOs. No investigation of the Chairman (which ALF held) is mentioned.
3. It would seem unlikely that ANI as the predominant shareholder would allow ALF to engage in self-dealing at a level that would risk ANI’s entire investment.
4. The related exposures are all in Turkey. I don’t believe ALF has any ventures in Turkey.

Who is the related party?

The terms “TFC” or “TFC Group” are used to refer to the related party in the Directors’ Report cited above.

I assume “TFC” is an abbreviation for “trade finance counterparties” which was the term used in BMB's press release in 2018 regarding the CBB prohibitions on the bank.

Why?

Not only does the CBB have restrictions on related party transactions but also has a limit on the maximum amount of risk that can be taken on a single entity or group. 

BMB’s exposure to "TFC" is well above that limit.

One might be able to make a case that a single entity or group wasn’t a related party, but it would be pretty hard to disguise exposure of this amount to a single party. The exposure would have to be divided among several ostensibly “independent” entities with each entity’s exposure below the single party limit.

From the “Minutes” of BMB’s 2018 AGM held 6 January 2020, we learn that:

1. The entire exposure is in Turkey.
2. There are multiple exposures to various trade transactions. Not to a single obligor.
3. BMB is working “alongside a consortium” of other creditors to recover the amount, hoping to secure a pledge of collateral. But that no restructuring agreements have yet been signed. And it is too early to determine ultimate recovery.

BMB FY2018 AGM and EGM

The first two AGM meetings proposed for 23 December and 30 December 2019 did not reach a the required quorum of shareholders attending and so did not take place.

Under Bahraini law, there is no minimum quorum required for a third AGM.

That’s good because the 6 January 2020 AGM was attended by just 0.04% of shareholders. You read that correctly. Not even 1%.

Clearly, ANI facing potential legal exposure wasn’t interested in attending. Nor was ALF or the ultimate beneficial owner of the ALF shares as it would no doubt face questions on how it “missed” the fraud.

Thanks to the question of Shareholder Khalil al Mirza (162,000 shares) we learned more about the related party exposure (as outlined above). With 162,000 shares he appears to represent almost all of the shares attending at the AGM save for holders of very small amounts.

There was one other significant-but not unexpected-bit of “news”.

Typically at AGMs, the shareholders vote to discharge the Board Members from liability for their actions during the fiscal year in question.

BMB’s Agenda Item #7 specifically referred to the discharge of the current directors. Shareholder Mohammed Abdul Rahman (1 share) asked if the prior directors were being discharged and was advised that none of the previous directors (this would include ALF’s two directors) were being discharged.

The EGM was not held because of lack of a quorum at all three meetings proposed: 23 December, 30 December, and 6 January.

The key item for the EGM was to take a decision on what to do in light of the losses which trigger compulsory remedial action under Bahrain’s Commercial Companies Law and the bank’s Articles of Association. 

With losses this large as a percent of equity, there are only two options for BMB: raise capital or wind-up the bank.

BMB Prospects- Little to None

The Bank is wounded very likely fatally.

This is now the second scandal resulting from fraud that clouds the Bank’s name. And BMB’s reputation never quite recovered from the commercially related losses in 1999 and the subsequent multi-year restructuring that followed.

Hard for me to imagine any serious equity investor interest.

There is no obvious institution that might be compelled to step up. For example, an existing shareholder. 

Rather an entirely new investor will have to be enticed to commit capital.

Other than the banking license, there don’t seem to be any positive enticements at the Bank.

BMB doesn’t currently have a viable line of business, a significant market position or a valuable customer base. 

Its reputation is less than sterling.

A new investor will have to make a significant capital contribution.

First to meet the CBB’s minimum shareholders’ equity requirement. That will involve at a minimum some USD 213 million to restore equity to CBB’s minimum of USD 100 million for a wholesale bank.

Second, cash will also be required to fund the creation of a new LOB.

While BMB may recover of all or a good portion of the related party exposure, on a best case basis that is likely to be a multi-year exercise.

It may well be that the Bank's auditors and the CBB may accept a write-back of some of the loss after a restructuring is signed, thus, lessening the required capital contribution.

But that will not alleviate the need for cash now to invest in its business.

Customers and financial institutions are likely to have little interest in dealing with the Bank. Lack of FI support will limit BMB’s ability to use leverage to increase its assets and ideally ROE, conduct trading activities etc.

Speaking of banks, recall that there is a single “regional” financial institution (SRFI) that BMB owes some USD 127 million for interbank deposits taken. The SRFI is in line to bear the brunt of any shortfall in recovery.

It seems pretty clear that this SRFI has been “legally” trapped in BMB.

That leads to the suspicion that it is not an FI that most financial investors would want to do business with.

The size of the amount owed by the Bank to the SRFI also presents a problem.

Paying it off either in full or in stages would require a significant commitment of cash. That would reduce funds for investment in BMB’s LOBs.

A potential new investor is likely to consider all of this more unwelcome “hair” on an already hirsute BMB.Or the final straw on the camel's back.

At this point barring a miracle, BMB’s fate appears sealed.