Indian Banks: Sadly Things are Looking More “Subdued”

It's Not Cricket!

Bloomberg reported 3 March that “India Needs `Bad Bank' to Clean Up Soured Debt, Rating Firms Say”

Things are looking mighty “subdued” as careful observers might say.

Some quotes from Bloomberg followed by (AA) comments.

Bloomberg

Stressed assets -- made up of bad loans, restructured debt and advances to companies that can’t meet servicing requirements -- have risen to about 16.6 percent of total loans in India, the highest level among major economies, data compiled by the nation’s Finance Ministry show.

AA is puzzled.  I would think that “advances to companies that can’t meet servicing requirements” would qualify as “bad” loans.  And that restructured debt that was performing, i.e., meeting servicing requirements would not be bad debt.  On the other hand if restructurings were “cosmetic” in nature, then they are indeed bad loans.  If loans aren’t performing, they’re “bad” loans.  If loans are restructured at lower rates perhaps even below market rates but are performing, shouldn’t banks bear this cost? 

Bloomberg

Ratings companies including Fitch Ratings Ltd have come out in favor of setting up a state-backed “bad bank” to tackle India’s ballooning stressed assets problem, a move resisted by Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India.

Seems to AA if banks’ “bad” loans are ballooning, the country probably already has more than one “bad” bank, particularly when one factors in the comments in the article about “hiding” bad loans, failing to take tough decisions.   

Bloomberg

The RBI completed its audit of the nation’s 50 lenders last year, forcing them to lay bare previously hidden non-performing loans.

That sounds like rather “bad” behavior to AA.

Bloomberg

Banks had been reluctant to offer discounts to offload bad loans even where they are clearly worth much less than their book value because such sales “invite the attention of anti-corruption agencies making bank officials reluctant to sign off on them,” Fitch analysts including Guha wrote in a Feb. 23 note.

AA wonders if the anti-corruption agencies should look earlier in the loan cycle, e.g., at initial underwriting and subsequent “hiding” stages?  Also are bankers looking for the “bad” bank to make “bad” pricing decisions and buy the duff loans at prices higher than their fair value?  Thus, bailing out the banks’ previous bad behavior?  Perhaps this explains former Governor Rajan’s reluctance.

Bloomberg

Bankers selling bad loans to a national bad bank won’t be questioned, as this institution will be empowered by the government to take tough decisions,” said Rajesh Mokashi, managing director at CARE Ratings Ltd. in an interview. A bad bank will also bring to an end to fear of “witch-hunting” of lenders, if any, by anti-graft agencies, he said.

Is this an admission by bankers that they are restricted from taking “tough” decisions?  Or that they are incapable or unwilling to take “tough” decisions?  If either, then a sale to a bad bank does nothing to change this “bad” behavior and is likely to lead to a repeat of bad loan creation by these same banks that can’t or won’t take “tough” decisions.

Bloomberg

With more than $180 billion in stressed assets, the government and regulators have to evaluate all avenues including a bad bank to drive better recovery rates,” said Nikhil Shah, managing director at Alvarez and Marsal, a firm that specializes in turnarounds.

AA wonders how selling duff assets to an asset manager--or “bad” bank, if you prefer--improves recovery rates.  Does this mean that banks are unwilling to take hard decisions or aren’t allowed to?  If so, what guarantee is there that the “bad” bank will?   If the fundamental problem is a slow moving erratic legal process, will the fact that the plaintiff is now a “bad” bank really speed up the legal process?  Or is the idea to buy the duff loans from the banks above market, thus improving their “recovery” rates and stick the “bad” bank with the losses?

All in all not a very pretty picture.  Subdued indeed.

But every situation has both positive and negative possibilities.  As this post about comments from the head of a distinguished bank in a  neighboring country shows, attitude can play a key role

India: Moody’s and ICRA See “Subdued” Prospects for India’s Banks

Sometimes Even When You See Something Clearly, You Think It Wise to be Indirect

Just when I was recovering from The National Bank of Ukraine’s festival of euphemisms about PrivatBank, along come Moody’s and its Indian affiliate ICRA to once again remind AA that his attempts are easily upstaged. 

In a report released on 9 January, Moody’s and ICRA summarize their conclusions about the country’s banking sector with the phrase “see subdued prospects for India's banks“.

Why is AA “skeptical” and inclined to a stronger term than “subdued”?  Perhaps “dismal”?

Three factors.

First, Indian banks—particularly public sector banks or PSBs—have a reputation for under-reporting NPAs.    Favorite techniques were refusal to recognize NPAs, disguising bad loans via restructuring and/or making new loans to pay interest on past due loans.   Former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan launched a “crackdown” in 2015 to curb under-reporting of NPAs. 

Performance suffered.  The decline was chiefly due to increased provisioning in 2016 and the related impact on net interest margin.   According to RBI’s Report on Trends and Progress of Banking in India,  Operations and Performance of Scheduled Commercial Banks Table 2.1, banking sector return on assets for 2015/2016  was 31 bp and ROE 3.59% compared to 2014/2015’s ROA of 81 bp and ROE of 10.42%.   Public Sector Banks—some 70% of banking assets--fared even worse with negative ROA and ROE in 2015/2016.  

Second, Indian banks have also traditionally under-reserved their declared NPAs with provisions averaging roughly 40% of total NPAs.   According to RBI Handbook of Statistics of the Indian Economy Table 65, 2015 reserving levels were at 46%.   Unreserved NPAs were some 20% of 2015 capital (Table 64). 

It’s hard to tell what happened in 2016.  Much higher provisions were taken, but more loans were recognized as NPAs and restructured loans are now to be included in that figure.  What’s the net effect?   

Sadly, RBI data on NPAs is available with a roughly 12 month lag.   See Table 65 in the RBI’s “Handbook of Statistics”.  Latest figures are from September 2016.  Other RBI reporting has detailed bank-by-bank analysis but the latest data appears to be March 2016. 

Without RBI statistics on both NPAs and provisions, it’s not possible to determine if the provision coverage has increased because both NPAs and provisions have increased.  

Third, low provisioning levels are particularly important because NPA recovery is traditionally very low in India.  According to RBI’s Report on Trends and Progress of Banking in India,  Operations and Performance of Scheduled Commercial Banks, Table 2.2,  in 2016 Indian banks recovered roughly 10% of NPAs versus 12% for the previous year.  

What this means is that recoveries are unlikely to make up provisioning shortfalls to any meaningful extent.   Provisions then are more critical than in jurisdictions where average recoveries are in the 40 to 50% range. 

It’s hard for AA to imagine that during 2016 Indian banks cured decades of bad practice and bad underwriting.  Trump Tower like Rome wasn’t built in a day, though it is by some Twitter accounts better.  And banking sector cleanups generally take more than a single year. 

Moody’s/ ICRA seem to agree. In their press release, they project single digit ROE for 2017 and 2018 and note large capital needs particularly among PSBs. 

A case of JPMorgan “Jakarta” fever?  Or euphemism?  

And finally a tip of AA’s enormous tarbush to ICRA SVP Karthik Srinivasan for combining “dent” with “profitability matrices”.  See link to Moody’s / ICRA press release. Shabash!

Insolvency of PrivatBank Ukraine: Euphemisms Abound

Моя Україно,За що тебе сплюндровано, За що, мамо, гинеш?

Would his anger be tempered today by knowledge that the perpetrators are Ukrainians? 

AA doubts it.

Now to the post.

AA prides himself on his skill in using euphemisms to describe financial weaknesses and ethical slips. 

This Tuesday The Bloomberg lit up with news that The National Bank of Ukraine—the country’s central bank—announced it had declared PrivatBank insolvent and that Ukraine’s Government would assume complete ownership. 

By way of background, Privatbank is the largest bank in the country.  It is privately owned with two biznesmen—described by some as “oligarchs” but always as “pro-Western”—holding over 90% of the bank’s shares. Besides his many business ventures, one of them, Mr. Kolomoiskyi, has been accused of funding the Azov Battalion.

As I read the speech by the Governor of The National Bank of Ukraine and other news, I was in utter awe at her and her colleague’s command of euphemisms. 

Professional honor compels me to acknowledge their skill.  Frankly my own efforts seem rather small and paltry in comparison.  Therefore, I offer a humble tip of AA’s enormous tarbush to Governor Ms. Gonatraeva and to NBU First Deputy Chairman Yakiv Smoliy.  

First, to the Chairman’s 19 December speech reported at The NBU website in English.  Strangely, AA was unable to find the Ukrainian language version. Italics courtesy of AA.

Inspections and stress tests carried out by the NBU revealed that PrivatBank had capital shortages. As of 1 April 2016, the bank had capital shortages amounting to UAH 113 billion, which, apart from crisis-related factors, were caused by imprudent lending policies pursued by the bank. As of 1 November 2015, related-party loans accounted for 97% of the bank’s loan portfolio, totaling UAH 150 billion.

Now for the comments: 

1. Capital “Shortage”:  As per its 3Q16 financials, Privatbank had some UAH 30 billion in capital and total assets of UAH 271 billion.   Given those amounts, calling a UAH 113 billion capital deficit— which is equivalent to 380% of equity or 42% of total assets—a “shortage” is like calling The Grand Canyon a “river valley”.  Or 2008 a “recession”.  Technically correct to be sure, but somehow the full picture is lost.
2. “Imprudent” lending policies:  When a bank needs to raise new capital equal to 380% of existing capital or equivalent to 42% of total assets, one doesn’t need a lot of financial analysis to figure out that lending standards left quite a lot to be desired.  The good folks at Bloomberg had a slightly different translation “ill-considered loan policy” which is an even better euphemism. 
3. “Related Party Loans”:  When related party loans are 97% of loans and 4 times the maximum limit set by The NBU, such behavior seems to rise to a level well above “imprudent” or “ill-considered”.  AA might apply descriptors such as “patently immoral” and perhaps even “criminal”.   That being said, AA is not familiar with the legal status of Ukrainian banking regulations.  It may be that they only rise to the level of “suggestions” sort of like the Pirates’ Code, which seems apt given the location.  On a positive note, lending to oneself has certain advantages in streamlining the underwriting process.

But at SAM we never fail to be “fair and balanced”. 

So let’s let Privatbank speak for itself.

As per its unaudited 3Q16 financials, Note 13 shows the bank’s related party exposure as minimal only UAH 8 billion down from about UAH17.8 billion at 31 December 2015.    

One note, there is no auditor’s review statement in the 3Q16 financials and so it’s impossible to know if they were reviewed (but not audited) and whether these are IFRS statements. I believe they are not.  

Privat’s IFRS AR for 2015 shows a higher figure for related party loans roughly twice the UAH 17.8 billion above (see note 31) but quite a long way from 97%.  PWC’s local firm did qualify its audit report but related to collateral seized on past due loans and the economic/security situation in the country. 

Beyond that Interfax Ukraine reported that

“Oleksandr Dubilet, who had headed PrivatBank (Dnipro) for a long time prior to the decision on its nationalization, has said the National Bank of Ukraine's (NBU) statement on 97% of insider loans in PrivatBank's portfolio of corporate loans is exaggerated.”

Also that

"At the same time, NBU First Deputy Chairman Yakiv Smoliy said the share of loans to related parties in PrivatBank exceeds 90%.  At the same time, he stressed this cannot be classified as withdrawal of funds from Ukraine."

What FDC Smoliy appears to be saying is that the related party lending scheme cannot be “classified” as a ruse to loot the bank and transfer the loan proceeds offshore.  This may be the biggest “euphemism” (one last attempt by AA to score a point) in the story. 

A side note on the dickering over percentages.  

Corporate loans comprise some 74% and 84% of total gross loans as of 3Q16 and 4Q15 so the key question is whether the percentage is of “total” loans or “corporate” loans and of course whether the percentage is being figured against net or gross loans. 

But when a bank is in this range, the exact figure is in some sense meaningless. 

What’s the practical difference between 75% and say 97%?   The bank is bust and its management and board have some explaining to do at the very least.