Gulf Finance House - Draft Terms on New Sukuk = 23% Annual Return

 Choose Your Door Carefully.  Some Deals are Better than Others.

As you recall, GFH announced with great fanfare its plan to raise up to US$500 million in new capital.  If you don't, here's an earlier post.

I've just gotten a copy of the draft term sheet for the Sukuk from a reliable source.

First, a recitation of the terms:

1. Type - Convertible Murabaha Facility
2. Status - Senior Unsecured Debt
3. Maturity - 3.5 years
4. Profit Payment (aka Interest Rate) - Indicative 12% per annum!
5. Conversion Price - US$0.31 per share
6. Incentive Structure - If conversion election made before 31 December 2010, last 2.5 years Profit Payment in shares at US$0.31 conversion price.

Before the commentary, two very important caveats:

1. GFH's shareholders have not approved the issuance.  GFH's first OGM and EGM failed for lack of a quorum.  
2. The terms sheet is marked "indicative" meaning it's not binding, but rather serves as a basis for discussion/negotiation with potential investors. 
3. Nonetheless, these terms provide a window into what GFH's board and management believe will be necessary to secure investor interest.  In that regard, I'd note that the accompanying investor presentation (a future post will comment on that) states:  "Some commitments already received from Chairman, strategic investors, and related parties".  So you can be pretty sure that GFH has drawn on these disinterested parties to set market-based terms.

Now to the commentary.

1. Assuming a take and hold investor who does not elect conversion until after 31 December 2010, the promised return (IRR basis) is roughly 23% per annum. 
2. 12% of that return composed of cash (the "interest payments").   It's hard to see GFH earning sufficient returns to have much left for shareholders after the interest payment is made.
3. 11% of that from the discount on the shares (assuming the shareholders approve the 1:4  reverse split and GFH trades at 4 times its current US$0.125 per share.  A rather substantial dilution of existing shareholders.
4. The total promised return reflects the weak financial condition of the company when it has to offer essentially private equity like returns for its debt.  Of course, the actual return will depend on GFH's performance which may indicate a market judgment on the probability of such performance.
5. It also establishes what might be considered an "unfortunate" benchmark for GFH's debt issues. Particularly, when one considers this is apparently an early offer to potential investors.  And as we all know the first price in the suq is not the last.

Gulf Finance House to Ask Sukuk Holders for Three Year Extension

Reuters is quoting an unnamed GFH spokesman that the Bank intends to ask the holders of its US$200 million Sukuk issue (US$137 million outstanding) to roll the Sukuk on its original terms for three years.  That is, to extend the maturity from 2012 to 2015.

I'm not sure if "chuzpah" is an Islamic banking term, but it would sure seem to apply here.  The Sukuk is currently trading at around just a whisker over 50% of face value.

I'd also note that earlier this week GFH formally stated that it had not issued the information the Gulf Daily News report that it intended to either (a) sell assets to  US$90 million in debt next year or (b)  reschedule debt.   If you recall the original GDN article, there was a third alternative mentioned - which was extinguishing debt via asset transfers.  Interestingly enough, what is mentioned in the GDN article is precisely what I see  on page 13 in the copy of GFH's October 2010 "Return to Growth" Presentation to investors which I recently obtained. 

It is, I suppose, indeed sad that someone is issuing presentations using GFH's highly respected name in such a fashion.

As to pricing for GFH debt, please see my soon to be issued companion post on the draft terms for GFH's proposed new Sukuk.

Gulf Finance House 3Q10 Financials: A Train Wreck

Studio Lévy & fils  1895
When You Turn the Corner Make Sure the Track Goes There

Get out your magnifying glasses and join me in reading the full 3Q10 financials that GFH submitted to the Dubai Financial Market Wednesday morning. Since I've got my soapbox out for a later tirade, I might as well take this opportunity to suggest to the  DFM that they invest a few dirhams in upgrading their electronic imaging system for faxes they receive. There really is no good reason in this day and age that the output cannot by A4 size.

Looking at the financials we see from Note 12, that GFH's US$115 million loss was primarily caused by provisions. Some US$101 million of them. But not provisions for investments. Rather US$60.5 million for an investment banking service receivable. And US$36 million from the sale of investments. I guess if one sells assets of "volatile" quality, one might expect some "volatility" in the receivables from the sales.

That being said, GFH has continued to maintain in its Other Assets the US$134 million "magical asset provision" and US$161.8 million in "Financing to Projects".

Another unfortunate trend is operating income which is running US$60.7 million negative for the first nine months of 2010 as compared to US$36.7 million for the comparable period the previous year. This is due to a collapse in revenues. On the cost side GFH has actually done quite nicely in bringing costs down.  But, if one can't pay the light bills from operations, it's hard to see a bright future.

As a result of the net loss, GFH's CAR has slipped below the 12% minimum set by the CBB. In the financials, KPMG coyly states in Note 2: 

"Further, the capital adequacy ratio of the Group as at 30 September 2010 was below the minimum required by the regulatory ratio …"

No quantification is given. We don't know if GFH just missed the ratio and has a CAR of 11.99%. Or, if it's CAR is 1.9%. You might think that the auditors would consider it important to quantify this shortfall. It certainly is a bit of "material" information that stakeholders would like to know. And more importantly should know.

If like me that's what you think, you're disappointed by KPMG's apparent lack of action on this point. They were silent on this topic. And they did not force GFH to disclose this information in a note to the financials. It's unclear if this is due to desire not to embarrass its client. Or slavish adherence to some accountant's taqlid as to the wording used for "emphasis of matter".

Note to Central Bank of Bahrain: It might be a good idea to specify in Module PD that when the CAR regulatory threshold is breached, the Licensee state the resulting ratio with details of the calculation. And if anyone from the CBB is reading this, I'd reiterate my earlier suggestion that Module PD be amended to require that Licensees report on the BSE the more detailed of (a) what Module PD requires and (b) what they are required to report on other exchanges. There is no reason that Bahraini investors should get second rate incomplete information which is available to investors in Dubai or elsewhere.

We don't have all the information required to calculate GFH's CAR at 30 September 2010. But we can make some estimates which should give a pretty good directional sense of the CAR.

The Table below summarizes these:

	30-Jun-10	Case A	Case B
Regulatory Capital	US$   363,220	US$   248,220	US$   114,229
Total RWA	US$2,811,417	US$2,683,417	US$2,549,417
CAR	12.92%	9.25%	4.48%

Notes & Assumptions:

1. 30 June 2010 CAR is as per GFH's Basel II Pillar 3 Disclosure. 
2. The key assumption is that there is no real significant change in Regulatory Capital or Total Risk Weighted Assets (Credit, Market and Operational Risk) except for the adjustments specified in the two "cases". These adjustments are made from the 30 June figures reflected above. This is a simplifying assumption so the ratios derived will not be exact but should be "close enough" to get a good sense. 
3. Case A: US$115,000 (the 3Q10 loss) is deducted from Regulatory Capital and US$128,000 is deducted from Total RWA at 100%. 
4. Case B: US$134,000 (the "magical asset" provision) is deducted from both Regulatory Capital and Total RWA. And again at 100%.

And if you have any doubt about the realisable value of any of GFH's other assets, like those Project Financings which may very well be to the same firms whose financial condition caused their bankers to pull the GFH guarantee, it's not too much of a stretch before the CAR is negative.

The results are to say the least not encouraging. It's hard to see how even the "Prettiest" words could convince even the "wisest" of investors to put equity into this firm.

The Gulf Daily News is reporting that they've seen a GFH "Investor Presentation" in which GFH states it intends to sell assets to raise cash to pay back some US$90 million in debt maturing next year or restructure that debt. In further discussions with GFH, the GDN was told that other options being considered were an IPO of some of its mega projects (North Africa and India) or perhaps giving creditors land, shares or other of GFH's highly valuable assets. There is a danger with the latter for creditors. As the choice assets are stripped from GFH's balance sheet, remaining creditors are left with lesser ones to settle their debts. The only option not mentioned here was putting a brick from one of these projects under EJ's pillow in the hopes that the Real Estate Jinn would put US$500 million under his pillow.

It's hard to imagine a "wise" creditor putting funds into GFH. 

And it takes a bit of "optimism" to see a real future for GFH. 

You can find more posts on GFH by using the Label "Gulf Finance House".

Gulf Finance House 3Q10 Financials: GFH Continues to "Turn Corner". But Unfortunately Into Oncoming Car

Not sure how GFH will spin this, but they've announced a loss of US$115.1 million for the 3Q10 making the loss for the first nine months of the year US$162.8 million.   And, no, the optimistic US$134 million of reimbursement rights remains on the balance sheet.  So this loss is due to other problems,.  The reimbursement problem has yet to be acknowledged - which means of course that GFH is in a "world of trouble".

As a result, Shareholders' Equity is at US$303 million, well below the US$400 million TNW covenant.  As well as breaching the Central Bank of Bahrain minimum  CAR requirement.

More later when I have time.

Footnote for the Central Bank of Bahrain.
As usual, GFH has released the absolute minimum on the BSE, while releasing its entire 3Q financial on the DFM.   It's unclear why Bahraini investors should be disadvantaged.  Perhaps time to revise the regulation to require that if a firm is required to disclose more on another exchange, then it disclose the same on the BSE.

I will make no comment about the ethics of a firm that engages in such selective disclosure, particularly one that claims to follow the teachings of a noble religion.

Gulf Finance House - Capital Reorganization and Raising - A Look "Behind the Curtain"

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain"

GFH published the agenda for its shareholders' general meeting on the capital reorganization/raising to be held 31 October.  So far only in Arabic on the DFM and on the KSE (copy below so you can follow along).  Strangely not yet on the BSE.

As the picture above suggests, by looking behind curtain we can get a real understanding of what's going on.

In brief the key points are:

1. The capital reorganization and US$500 murabaha are being structured to make them as attractive as possible to new investors.  That means that existing shareholders are being substantially diluted through a variety of clever means - which might not be apparent to most readers of the agenda for the shareholders' meeting. 
2. A share swap transaction between Mr. Janahi and GFH which seems designed to strengthen GFH's creditworthiness as well as provide some much needed "relief" on the CAR both in terms of risk weighted assets and potentially equity.

First, let's look at what's immediately visible:  the agenda for the shareholders meeting.   Shareholders are being asked to:

1. Approve a share swap between GFH and its Chairman/Executive CEO, Mr. Esam Janahi.  In return for his 104,923,734 shares in Khaleeji Commercial Bank ("KHCB"), GFH will give him 100% of its shares in AlAreen Company for Leisure and Tourism (whose main asset is the Lost Paradise of Dilmun Water Park in Bahrain) plus US$3 million.  The latter either in cash or Treasury Shares of GFH. 
2. Reduce the number of GFH's issued shares from 1,896,332,565 to 474,083,141 in a reverse 4:1 share split.
3. Reduce the paid in capital from US$625,789,746.45 to US$142,224,942.375.  A difference of US$483,564,804.075. 
4. Reduce the par value of shares to US$0.3075 from US$1.32.
5. Approve the issuance of up to US$500 million in a privately placed convertible murabaha through a special purpose company set up by the bank or established at its request.  (That is, the SPV will lend to GFH.  It will obtain its funding from various investors.)
6. The profit rate ("interest rate") on the murabaha to be the "market rate" according to the rate and formula established by the Board of Directors shortly before issuance.  Such profit rate to be payable in cash or additional GFH shares.
7. The conversion price to be between US$0.31 and US$0.40 per share - with the rate of discount not less than 20% to 40% of the market price of the shares - but not below the nominal share price.  The conversion price to be set by the Board shortly before issuance.
8. A tenor of 3.5 years.
9. Conversion at investors' option with right of Board to offer an early conversion "incentive" according to conditions the Board will set.  Note that means that the murabaha does not count as equity for either regulatory (CAR) or accounting purposes until it is converted.  For the latter, only the embedded equity option is counted as equity under IFRS.
10. Waiver of pre-emptive right of shareholders to new equity.
11. Authorization for Board or whoever it appoints to take necessary legal steps to implement and for Chairman or whoever he appoints to sign the necessary legal documents.
12. Conversion of GFH's share register to electronic form according to the rules of the Central Bank of Bahrain and the BSE.

Now a look behind the curtain via some hopefully informed analysis:

A.  Share Swap - KHCB for GFH

1. GFH gets several benefits from this transaction.
2. Immediate strengthening of GFH's creditstanding.  KHCB is a better asset than the Water Park, which is why the West LB syndicate asked for the former.  Probably better earnings and better future.  The Water Park like the Riffa Golf Course, no doubt, looked like a very "wise" idea on paper.  In the real world, it's probably not.
3. Regulatory relief on the CAR - a matter of great importance to GFH who sit right on the edge.  The first way this comes is by moving this "puppy" (the water park, which is risk weighted in the GFH's CAR calculation) to someone else's kennel (balance sheet).  In return GFH gets KHCB, increasing ts holding from 36.99% to 46.99%.  Currently, GFH partially consolidates  KHBC, and, thus,  it doesn't have to worry for CAR purposes about fluctuations in KHCB's share price - which has dropped by roughly 50% since last year this time.  Since KHCB's CAR is roughly 31% as at 30 June 2010, the impact on GFH's Risk Weighted Assets and thus its CAR should be positive.
4. As you'll notice, the US$3 million owed to Mr. Janahi can be paid in cash or GFH shares.  So there's a potential boost to equity if the latter can be used to settle this amount.  Treasury Shares are deducted from Shareholders' Equity at their cost. What this means is that if GFH gets more than zero in proceeds from the sale or conversion of Treasury Shares, the amount of its Shareholders' Equity will go up by the amount of the proceeds received.  This happened in 2Q10 where GFH sold US$29.1 million (original cost) of Treasury Shares for US$7.6 million and recognized a US$7.6 million consequent increase in Shareholders' Equity.  While admittedly a small card in the scheme of things, this could be just the thing that helps GFH keeps its head about the 12% threshold in a close situation.   As I suspect the 2Q10 Treasury Share sale was.
5. And, to round things out, a footnote on KHCB.  Without qualifying my opinion about the  credit benefit of acquiring KHCB, I call your attention to Note 3.4 in KHCB's Basel II Pillar 3 Disclosures as of 30 June 2010, which shows that some 24% of its Islamic Financing Assets are past due.  According to that information, some 42% of the past dues (BD47,385 - which is the total amount of the past due loans not just the past due installments which  are BD10,487) are up to 30 days late.  Proceeding cumulatively, 51% up to 60 days, and 72% up to 90 days.  According to KHCB's risk classification system, some 59% of the past dues are rated Credit Grades 1-6.  Personally, I would have thought a past due loan  would automatically go on the "watch list" (Credit Grades 7-8) but then I don't have the details of KHCB's loan portfolio including collateral.  In any  case those concerned with KHCB should keep an eye on this area to see if there is deterioration or improvement in the future.

B.  Capital Reorganization

1. Under the Bahraini Commercial Companies Law of 2001, GFH is obliged to take action now that accumulated losses are 75% or more of paid in capital. Approved methods for rectifying this situation are:  (a) reducing paid in capital by an amount sufficient to offset the losses and/or using other equity reserves (share premium, statutory or voluntary reserves), (b) raising additional capital and (c) a combination of (a) and (b).  Generally, financial institutions use Method (c).  In some cases a bank might get away with merely offsetting the losses against existing capital - assuming its pre-reorganization CAR were robust.  GFH's is not so it must do both.
2. As you'll notice, GFH is not using its reserves.  Why? Very simply put:  the path it has chosen is designed to make the murabaha more attractive to investors.  Under GFH's plan, they will get more of the total shareholding of the Bank for each dollar they contribute.  
3. 1H10 financials  provide the details of the components of GFH's capital.   If GFH were to use its US$206 million share premium and US$85 million statutory reserve  (total US$291 million), it would only have to "use" US$192 million of paid-in-capital.  Thus, leaving original shareholders holding US$433 million in common equity instead of US$142 million. 
4. To take control, the new money would have to put in US$433 million plus $1.  Under GFH's reorganization plan it only needs to put in US$142 million plus $1. 
5. Similarly, if the new investors put in the full US$500 million, under GFH's plan they get 78% of the total equity.  If the reserves were used as outlined above, they would only get 54%.
6. Clearly, there is a conflict here.  Existing shareholders want to be diluted as little as possible.  New shareholders want the most value for their new dollar.  Sadly for the existing shareholders, including the even "wiser" ones who invested in late 2009, their money is already spent.  The new and presumably much wiser investors need to be persuaded to part with their money.  GFH has set  the reorganization and the terms of the murabaha to make it as easy as possible to get the money that it desperately needs.

C.  US$500 Million Murabaha

1. Use of an SPV as the lender can be quite a useful device in shielding the identity of the new lenders/shareholders, particularly if the SPV is not incorporated in Bahrain.  It will depend on how much transparency the CBB wants to demand here and how far it can push this Bank which has an important and powerful friend in Bahrain.
2. One would expect the market rate for unsecured GFH debt to be rather hefty.  And the value ascribed to the option on GFH shares much less so.  The Board will price "at market" - which will mean in effect what investors demand. 
3. The approval also provides for a discount from market price of between 20% to 40%.   This is where the reverse split comes to play.  There is nothing in the Bahrain CCL that requires this as part of the capital reorganization.  I suspect GFH is hoping that  the reverse split will work a bit of magic on their market price.  Over the past two weeks, GFH has traded at KD0.033 (roughly US$0.11) per share.  A 4:1 reverse split should bring the price to say US$0.44 per share - allowing the Board to discount the conversion price to say just a whisker over par to make the transaction even more attractive. 
4. "But wait there's more" as they say on the late night TV ads for the ShamWOW!  The Board is allowed to offer an incentive (terms unspecified in the approval) for an early exercise.  That allows an even greater discount to attract new investors.  So, if the conversion price is set at a whisker over par, can the Board issue shares below par through this device? 
5. You ask about the hapless existing shareholders?  Well, GFH already has their money and needs more.  So they are out of luck.

KSE announcement below.

[12:17:53]  ِ.اجتماع الجمعية العمومية العادية و غير العادية لبيت التمويل الخليجي
يعلن سوق الكويت للأوراق الماليه بأن بيت التمويل الخليجي أفاده بأنه
سوف يتم عقد جمعية عمومية عادية و غير عادية للبنك في الساعه 9 من
صباح يوم الاحد الموافق 31-10-2010 في فندق منتجع و قصر العرين
وقد طلب البنك ايقاف التداول على اسهمه في السوق اعتبارا من اليوم
الاحد الموافق 17-10-2010 وحتى اشعار اخر حيث حصل على موافقة ‏
مصرف البحرين المركزي على ذلك .‏
هذا وسوف يتم خلال الجمعية العمومية مناقشة ما يلي
أولا : جدول اعمال الجمعية العامة العادية
ِ1- المصادقة على محضر الاجتماع السابق .‏
ِ2- المصادقه على معاملة استبدال الاسهم بين بيت التمويل الخليجي و رئيس
مجلس ادارته السيد /عصام جناحي و التى سيتم بموجبها تحويل حصته في المصرف
الخليجي التجاري ش.م.ب بالكامل (104.923.734 سهم ) الى بيت التمويل الخليجي
مقابل الحصول على حصه البنك في شركة العرين للترفيه و السياحه ش.غ.خ و ‏
البالغه 100% (جنة دلمون المفقودة) بالاضافه الى مبلغ 3 ملايين دولار تدفع
اما نقدا و / او بواسطة اسهم خزانه بيت التمويل الخليجي .‏
ِ3- الموافقة على تغيير سجل مساهمي البنك من سجل عادي الى الكتروني ‏
وفقا لاحكام مصرف البحرين المركزي و سوق البحرين للأوراق الماليه .‏
ثانيا : جدول اعمال الجمعيه العامه الغير عاديه ‏
ِ1- المصادقه على محضر الاجتماع السابق .‏
ِ2- التباحث في والمصادقه على دمج الاسهم الصادرة لبيت التمويل الخليجي ‏
بمعدل 4:1 لينتج عن ذلك تخفيض عدد الاسهم الصادرة من 1.896.332.565 سهم
الى 474.083.141 سهم .‏
ِ3- التباحث في والمصادقه على تخفيض راس المال المدفوع من 625,789,746.45 ‏
دولار امريكي الى 142,224,942.375 دولار امريكي بسبب الخسائر المتراكمه ‏
ِ(سيقدم المدقق الخارجي السادة كي بي ام جي بيانا مستقلا يتعلق بتاييدهم لهذا
التخفيض ) .‏
ِ4- التباحث في والمصادقه على خفض القيمة الاسمية الجديدة للاسهم والتي ‏
ستبلغ 1.32 دولار امريكي بعد الدمج و تخفيض راس المال المدفوع المشار اليه
في البندين 2 و 3 من بنود جدول الاعمال الى 0.3075 دولار امريكي .‏
ِ5- التباحث والمصادقه على قيام بيت التمويل الخليجي من خلال اية شركة
غرض خاص يؤسسها البنك او تؤسس بناء على طلبه لاقتراض ما يصل ‏
الى 500,000,000 دولار امريكي من خلال مرابحة تمويليه قابلة للتحويل
الى اسهم بناء على البنود و الشروط التاليه :‏
ِ- معدل ارباح يحدد وفقا لسعرالسوق ووفقا للمعدل والصيغه المحددة من قبل مجلس
الادارة قبل وقت قصير من تاريخ السحب . يمكن دفع  هذا الربح نقدا او في صورة
اسهم عينية في بيت التمويل الخليجي .‏
ِ- سعر تحويل يتراوح من (0.31 دولار امريكي الى 0.40 دولار امريكي) ‏
ِ(بمعدل خصم لا يقل عن 20% الى 40% من القيمة السوقيه في اعقاب
الدمج بحيث لا تقل عن القيمة الاسمية للسهم) فيما سيتم تحديد السعر النهائي ‏
من قبل مجلس الادارة قبل فترة قصيره من تاريخ السحب .‏
ِ- مدة تصل الى ثلاثة سنوات و نصف .‏
ِ- غير مضمونه و لكن قابله للتحويل بمحض خيار المستثمر الى اسهم في بيت
التمويل الخليجي قبل انتهاء المدة ووفقا للشروط التى يحددها مجلس الادارة.‏
ِ- حافز التحويل المبكر لتشجيع المستثمرين على التحويل الى اسهم قبل
نهاية المدة وفقا للشروط التى يحددها مجلس الادارة .‏
ِ6- منح التنازل عن حق الاولوية الخاص بمساهمي بيت التمويل الخليجي ‏
فيما يتعلق باصدار اسهم عادية جديده سيتم اصدارها عند تحويل تمويل المرابحه
وفقا لبنود الفقرة 5 من جدول الاعمال .‏
ِ7- تخويل مجلس الادارة و/او من ينوب عنه للقيام بجميع الاجرءات الرسمية ‏
المطلوبه و الصحيحه لتفعيل تمويل المرابحه بما في ذلك دون حصر تحديد و/او
تعديل شروط المرابحه والمستندات الاخرى ذات العلاقه .‏
ِ8- تخويل رئيس مجلس الادارة او من ينوب عنه بالتوقيع على تعديل عقد
التأسيس و النظام الاساسي نيابة عن المساهمين امام كاتب العدل فيما يتعلق ‏
بالتغييرات في راس المال لتعكس ما تقدم .‏
علما بأنه في حالة عدم اكتمال النصاب القانوني لهذه الجمعية سيكون الاجتماع ‏
الثاني يوم الاحد الموافق7-11-2010 في نفس الزمان والمكان وفي هذه الحاله ‏
ستسري احكام الماده 57 من النظام الاساسي للبنك. وفي حالة عدم اكتمال النصاب
القانوني في الاجتماع الثاني ، سيتم عقد اجتماع ثالث يوم الاحد الموافق ‏
ِ14-نوفمبر-2010 في نفس المكان و ذلك بسريان احكام المادة 57 من النظام
الاساسي للبنك . ‏

Gulf Finance House to Seek US$500 Million in Additional Equity

SWI (Search for "Wise" Investors) Project 

The Large Array at Jabal Dukhan Bahrain

Asa Fitch over at The National reports that GFH has issued a press release in which it advises that it intends to call a shareholders' general meeting to approve:

1. A reduction in paid in capital (4 old shares for one new) in order to absorb accumulated losses in retained earnings.  Like other GCC states, Bahrain has a law that when a company's accumulated losses reach 75% of paid-in-capital, it must take action to eliminate those losses.  That can be done by raising new capital.  Or by reducing paid in capital and using reserves (if available) to offset the losses.  As a financial institution, GFH, has to maintain a minimum 12% CAR and so unless it could reduce assets (which it cannot without incurring more losses), the bank has to raise new capital.
2. The issuance of US$500 million in new equity.  This is up from the US$300 million originally mooted by GFH.  It's unclear why the increase.  It may have found that there is substantial demand for its new shares.  I find that hard to believe.  It seems to me that with its track record and current market conditions, raising even US$300 million would have been a very hard sell.  Hence the picture above.  Alternatively, it may be that the additional amount is designed to cover the US$137 million in 2Q10 provisions that GFH magically turned into an asset. 

At 30 June 2010, GFH's capital structure was composed of:

1. Paid in Capital US$626 million
2. Share Premium US$206 million
3. Treasury Shares (US$23 million)
4. Reserves US$88 million
5. Accumulated Losses (US$480 million)  Equal to 77% of PIC.
6. Total Equity of US$417 million.  
7. If the "magic" provision assets of US$137 million are factored in, Accumulated Losses are (US$617 million), resulting in Total Equity of US$280 million.

GFH are savvy enough to know that a failed rights offering would be an extremely unhelpful event.  So either this is an act of desperation (perhaps motivated by its auditors awakening to the US$137 million charade) or GFH has found some wise investors to carry the issue.   And that may become evident if the Board proposes that shareholders approve a structure under which any shares unsubscribed for in the Rights Offering be placed by the Board with "strategic" investors.

One tactic the Bank can use is to mitigate its deal failure risk is to obtain shareholder approval to issue up to US$500 million over a period (usually the maximum is two or three years I think but am not certain).  In this way it could issue multiple tranches so that the amount it brings to the market at any one time is more digestible. 

As to the motives behind the raising of new equity, I think these include more than just funding operating expenses:

1. Regulatory compliance.  GFH's CAR is "on the wire".
2. Market credibility.  New equity would be a demonstration of confidence in the future, though a failure will be a major setback.
3. Funding for upcoming debt repayments.
4. Funding for operating expenses.

 

Gulf Finance House - Back in the Game with Tunis Financial Harbour

Today on the fringes of the IMF/World Bank meetings in Washington, GFH announced the addition of a Financial Harbour to its existing project in Tunis.

This takes me back to the heady days of 2005 and 2006.

Can the US$10 billion Suq Al Mal Financial Harbour Cafe & Blog be far behind?  Get in on the ground floor, while you still can!  The Turkish coffee and baklawa concession could be easily worth twice that.  But be sure to scotch-guard those carpets.

Gulf Finance House - Ted Pretty Sees Pretty Good Times Coming

Al Watan has an interview with GFH"s Group CEO Ted Pretty.  They noted that he was a bit more optimistic with them than with the Western media he had met with.  Perhaps, things have improved.  Perhaps, it's a bit of market segmentation.

Here are the main points. My comments are in italics and contained within parentheses.

1. GFH faces difficulties but will regain health at the beginning of 2011.
2. In the past we bit off more than we could chew.
3. The current strategy is to focus on existing investments and projects, complete these and realize value. (AA:  More on strategy later this is not the complete picture).
4. GFH took action early and is starting to see the benefits.  Our 1H10 loss is smaller than 2009's.  Because of its wise actions, the bank is well positioned for profitability and growth in 2011.
5. GFH's 2010 priorities are:  restoring its operating model, reestablishing sources of income, cost control and rescheduling debt.
6. Going forward business activities will comprise as well raising financing, providing consulting services, managing assets, and the development of private capital (private equity), particularly in forming Islamic financial institutions.  He then noted that GFH had raised some US$2.5 billion in capital for a variety of firms:  First Energy Bank, Khaleej Commercial Bank, Bank Q Invest, First Leasing Bank, Asian Finance House, Arab Finance House and others.
7. He said that new capital is not required for and  will not be used to repay debts.   There's no need because the WestLB syndicate and LMC syndicate have been rescheduled.  (AA:  No doubt wishing to reassure investors.  The proceeds of the 2009 new capital were used to repay debt).

He also commented that fear was depressing economic and market activity.  However, he noted that several countries had proven that they were able to restart their economies without being dependent on recovery of the US economy.  And called for SWFs to do more to support and develop economic activity in the region noting that the average investor had a predilection to invest in Europe or the USA.

If you believe his pitch, this would be an excellent time to buy GFH shares.  They're selling below par.  Way below par.  US$0.125 on the BSE versus a par value of US$0.33.  The upside potential is unlimited as they say.

And since GFH has yet to publish its Basel II Pillar 3 disclosures as of 30 June 2010 as mandated by the Central Bank of Bahrain, many of you may be forgiven for assuming this means the bank has no risks to report - which, if true, could be a very positive "buy" signal.

Bahraini Regulatory Quiz: When Do Bahraini Banks Have to Publish Their 30 June Basel II Pillar 3 Disclosures?

As if there weren't enough excitement here at Suq Al Mal with compelling analyses of zakat payments, magical provisions, we're going to have a contest to liven things up a bit more.

My understanding was that locally incorporated banks in the Kingdom of Bahrain are required to publish their Basel II Pillar 3 disclosures concurrent with their 30 June financials.

But one firm noted for its unwavering verbal commitment to disclosure and transparency has yet to do so.  That obviously means that my understanding is wrong.

Hence, this competition.  

The first one to post the chapter and verse from the CBB's Rulebook will receive the grand prize --  a slightly worn "proven business model" formerly the property of a self-proclaimed world class "Islamic" investment bank.  Early responders may be eligible for a bonus prize - a half baked business plan for a US$4 billion energy city/financial and day care center.

Multiple entries are permitted.

Gulf Finance House - 1H10 Financials: Now You See It Now You Don't -- The Magical US$137 Million Provision

GFH has finally posted its 2Q10 interim report.

Let's get straight to the heart of the analysis and our headline, Note 15:

"During the period, the Group's credit enhancement amounting to US$ 102 million issued to financial institutions against credit facility arrangements for a project managed by the Group were enforced by the lenders due to contractual defaults by the project company.  Further, based on the Group's assessment of the likelihood that another project will be able to meet the financing when they fall due, the Group has estimated that its financial guarantee of US$ 35 million may be enforced.  In accordance with the requirements of IAS #37, Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, the Group has recognised a provision of US$ 137 million towards these liabilities until revised/ renegotiated terms are agreed with the lenders of the project companies.  The Group has recognised an equivalent amount of reimbursement right which has been included in other assets (note 8)."

Presto, changeo with a bit of Accounting Magic a potential US$ 137 million addition to 1H10's net loss is transformed into an asset!  What's even more astounding is that these projects that cannot meet their debt commitments (to the apparently impatient lenders) will nonetheless be able to honor GFH's reimbursement claim upon them.  Now that is truly magical!

(Side Note:  According to my copy of KPMG's Third Edition of "Insights into IFRS" page 635 commenting on IAS 37.35 (about the recognition of Contingent Assets), KPMG states:

"When realisation of a contingent asset is virtually certain, it is no longer considered contingent and is recognised.  In our view, virtually certain generally should be interpreted as a probability of greater than 90 percent."

Unfortunately, I don't have the latest edition so I would caveat that there may have been some new thinking on the topic of what constitutes "virtually certain".)

Taking this amount to the income statement would roughly triple GFH's loss.  It would also breach the US$400 million minimum shareholders' equity covenant.  But there's one more adverse effect making this US$137 million truly a "triple threat".

As we learn in Note #2 during the discussion of the going concern issue, GFH's capital adequacy ratio at 30 June was 12.92% - leaving little room for maneuver or in the words of KPMG "which restricts the Group's ability to absorb further losses or undertake additional exposures".   (Note to KPMG:  You need to amend the reference in your report to the matter of emphasis from Note #1 to Note #2.)

And I suppose -- to add a fourth reason -- such a loss and such consequent events might make a difficult capital raising exercise just a "wee bit" more difficult.

Where there is a need and a will, there is a way -- as the old saying goes.

Turning to the rest of the financials:

1. Note #5: US$115.4 million (95%) of 1H10's US$121.4 million of Placements with Banks and Other Financial Institutions is pledged against commitments and facilities of projects of the Group.   And so should be excluded from liquidity.  You'll notice it is in the Cashflow Statement.  Some might suggest that proper presentation would be to have these amounts in Other Assets.  And well they might but to no apparent avail.   Some of this cash may be pledged to those adversely affected projects discussed in Note #15.
2. Financing Receivables US$14 million decline (which took place between FYE09 and 1Q10) is still a mystery to me.  It's not in the cashflow statement so it must have been offset against something else?
3. Receivable from Investment Banking Services declined from US$85.3 million at 1Q10 to US$40.5 million at 2Q10.  I can find a provision of US$20 million but am unable to locate the remaining US$25 million in the cashflow statement.  Another magical offset?
4. Note #6:  Assets held for sale include Bahrain Financial Harbour Company (US$175 million), $50 million of GFH's long outstanding Receivable from Sale of Investments (now reduced to US$44.5 million and carried in Other Assets) plus US$35 million of Financing to Projects.  The first two items will be settled "against receipt of consideration in the form of cash and land plots."  Well, when you can't pay cash why not settle your obligation with a highly valuable piece of (no doubt) blank land.  The upside potential is, well, enormous, especially at current depressed prices! 
5. Other Assets - As noted above there are reductions of some US$85 million (See Point #4 above), against the introduction of reimbursement rights of US$137 million whose collection is no doubt at least virtually certain if not certain to a much higher degree.
6. Note 9 updates on the financing.  The LMC US$100 million facility (US$80 million outstanding) carries a "profit rate" (read interest rate of 8.5%!).   The rescheduled West LB facility a 3.75% profit rate (reduced from 5%).  This facility is now secured by GFH's shares in Khaleeji Commercial Bank, which no doubt explains why the promised sale of this asset suddenly was postponed.  Perhaps, the collateral will be sufficient cover to prevent an impairment under IAS #39. Also of note during 2Q10 some "wise" and brave lender has provided a US$16.64 million Murabaha financing due in November 2010.
7. Note #10:  Some 69% of Other income (1H10: US$8.6 million) is composed of income declared because certain liabilities were no longer payable (US$4.2 million) and from recoveries of project expenses (US$1.7 million).  

All in all quite a performance in 2Q10.  For those curious that's not a reference to financial performance but the magic of accounting.

Gulf Finance House - Esam Janahi Appointed Executive Chairman More Details on Capital Raising

GFH announced on the BSE today that:

1. Esam Janahi had been appointed Executive Chairman meaning that he would have a role in management presumably superior to that of Ted Pretty, Group General Manager.  (The CBB's Rulebook #2 (Islamic Banks) Module High Level Controls (Module HC) Section HC-1.3.10 expresses a preference that the Chairman be non executive.)
2. "The Board of GFH has also resolved, subject to relevant regulatory and shareholder approvals, to seek a further re-capitalization of GFH by way of issuing equity linked convertible murabahas or similar instruments to raise up to US$300m. Such money will be used solely for acquisitions and growth initiatives. Further details will be made available to the market shortly."
3. Deutsche Bank had been appointed as GFH's "restructuring advisor".  

What's interesting here is that the capital raising does not appear to involve a Rights Offering but rather the offer of convertible securities similar to the one that Deutsche Bank raised earlier.  In which case keep your eyes open for possible discounted instruments as the DB issue was.  With all the implications for leveraged dilution of existing shareholders.  Presumably, the Board has determined that there is insufficient appetite for a straight common equity offer?  Also the comments about the "controls" are designed to reassure potential investors that the new issues won't be used solely for debt repayment, but rather for "growth". 

It's also not clear precisely what DB's role is.  Is GFH seeking to restructure its existing debts?   Or is DB going to focus on the capital raising exercise?  A combination of both?

In commenting on Esam's appointment Ted Pretty said many flattering things about the new Executive Chairman, as you might have expected.  One comment though does stand out:

We now need to aggressively pursue new business in new markets and Esam has an enviable track record in leading such initiatives.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Esam's prior initiatives that led to GFH's current predicament.  Unless of course one believes that the global (lower case "g" please) financial crisis is the sole culprit here.

Gulf Finance House - Plans to Increase Capital By Up To An Additional US$300 Million

GFH announced on the BSE today that its Board had decided to recommend that shareholders approve a n up to US$300 million increase in capital.   The Board has delegated executive management to take the necessary steps.  A shareholders meeting will be called in the near future as soon as the required regulatory approvals are received.

Gulf Finance House - 1H10 Financials: Reports of a Turnaround Greatly Exaggerated

On Friday I was quite excited to see that GFH had posted its 1H10 financials and press release thereon.  That is until I printed out the 2Q10 report and found it was actually that for 1Q10.  While the First Quarter was much much better than the Second, I'm assuming this is just a technical glitch, and not a desire to focus on relatively happier days of 1Q.  Hopefully by the time you use the link  above to the financials  all will have been corrected.

In the interim, here are some preliminary observations on the summary 1H10 financials printed in the newspaper, sans as is customary the all important notes thereto.  More detailed comments will follow when the full report is released. 

Income Statement

Revenues

1. GFH doesn't really have much to report for 2Q.  Like Global, GFH's first quarter was much better.  The second for both is rather disappointing to use a charitable term.  
2. GFH had US$7.4 million in revenues during 2Q10 (28.5% of 1H10's US$25.9 million).  In 1H09 the comparable revenues were US$68 million.  A decline of 61% for 2010.
3. 77% of 2Q's revenue was due to FX earnings. I don't believe that GFH has an active Treasury function and so this is probably FX translation gains - a non cash non business revenue. 
4. The US$5.2 million in revenue from "Investment Banking Services" was earned entirely in 1Q10 and as per that Quarter's report US$5.0 million was earned from related parties (Note #11).  That's  96%.  You can tell the economy's bad when when your own "relatives" have no business for you.
5. US$5.1 million in placement, arrangement and management fees, of which 79% was earned in 1Q10.  From the Cashflow Statement it seems that GFH has only collected US$0.2 million during 1H10.

Expenses

1. Staff costs at US$8.8 million are 34% of 1H09's!  Though there is an interesting spike in staff costs in 2010.  In 1Q10 staff costs were US$3.6 million and in 2Q10 US$5.2 million.
2. GFH took a US$20 million impairment provision in 2Q10 as opposed to zero in 1Q10.  This is down from 1H09's US$80 million.
3. The bottom line is that GFH's remarkable improvement in 1H10 versus 1H09 is due primarily to the reduction in expenses from 1H09's US$160.1 million to 1H10's US$73.6 million.  Chiefly reductions in impairment provisions and staff expenses.
4. You'll recall AA's test for a real turnaround in a business is the revenue line.  There is no evidence of any turnaround in the Company's core business. In fact compared to 1H09 core businesses are doing worse.  

Balance Sheet

1. Cash Positions -  Cash increased US$7.8 million largely it seems (though money is indeed fungible) from the sale of US$29.1 million of Treasury Stock for US$7.6 million.  That's a loss of US$21.4 million.  You'll see these numbers reflected in the changes in Treasury Stock and Statutory Reserve in the Equity Account.  An interesting transaction.  I wonder if this was through the market (presumably on the KSE) or a private placement to a wise investor?  Or to a related party?
2. Placements with Banks are down to US$121.1 million at 1H10 from US$156.7 million at 1Q10 and US$455 million at FYE09.  The large drop between FYE 09 and 1Q10 is due to  largely to debt repayments during the first three months of 2010.  In any case, as noted earlier the bulk of the remaining funds are pledged to secure GFH's commitments to make investments.  And so should (unless the 1H10 financials reveal otherwise) not be considered as part of the Bank's liquidity.
3. There was an approximate US$45 million decrease in the Receivable for Investment Banking Services from 1Q10, which I cannot find in the Cashflow Statement.  This may be responsible for the increase in Other Assets by a similar amount?
4. An intriguing new category "Assets Held for Sale" ("AHAS") with a balance of US$260 million makes an appearance in 2Q10.  Apparently a shift of assets from "Investment in Associates".  It will be very interesting to see the basis on which these are carried on the balance sheet versus Investment in Associates ("IIA").  If I remember correctly, IIA are carried at Fair Value Through Profit and Loss.  A change to a different basis for AHAS could have income statement implications., e.g. fair value through equity for one.  As well if they are no longer fair valued but carried at cost, that could potentially - but not necessarily - provide some relief on the recognition of changes in value as "impairments" have a different set of rules than "fair value changes".   The reason my antennae are up on this is because GFH chose 2Q to make this change at about the same time it has signalled that it wants to slow asset sales down.  So I'll be taking a close look at the note on this category in the 2Q10 report  when it is available to see if there is any potential Accounting Magic at work here.
5. Other Liabilities have dramatically increased from 1Q10 and from FYE09.   By US$124 million!!  Hopefully, unlike 1Q10, GFH will provide a note with a breakdown of this category for 2Q10.
6. 1H10 Equity was at US$416.5 million uncomfortably close to the US$400 million net worth trigger in GFH's Sukuk.  Without the 1Q10 remarkable conversion of the Deutsche Bank Murabaha which added US$25 million to Equity, GFH would have breached the covenant.  I use the term "remarkable" because I find it hard to understand why a rational investor would be converting debt in GFH to shares at this point.  Or why there would be a market to purchase GFH's Treasury Shares for that matter.  As I've written before, this transaction's structure allows capital to be infused into the firm without the time consuming process of an Ordinary General Meeting of Shareholders, a Rights Issue, etc.   With the selection of the amount and timing discretionary.  Then again perhaps a wise investor saw and continues to see something here that I don't.

As usual, GFH's Chairman and Group CEO have many favourable things to say about their  imagined turnaround.  And I suppose one would expect them to make these statements.  

However, to attempt to blame GFH's predicament on factors outside its control or to portray GFH as being in the same condition as every other "global investment bank" is a bit much.

First, GFH is not a global investment bank.  It was and is a regional investment bank.  Just as TID, Global, or Shuaa were and are.  In the grand scheme of things looking across the world, rather modest sized shops all of them.  

Second, the list of global investment banks in serious trouble is rather shorter than the list of all global investment banks.   Even if we were to grant GFH temporary hypthetical membership in the ranks of global investment banks, the Goldmine, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank et al may have tinkered with their strategies.  But they are not fighting for their lives.   Make no mistake GFH is in serious trouble.  Its rating, its share price and its financial condition clearly indicate that.

Gulf Finance House - 1H10 Losses of US$47.7 Million

Asa Fitch over at The National has an article on the subject.  Funny how GFH was able to get the news out to The National and other media outlets but unable to get the announcement on the three regional exchanges it's registered on.  Or on its website for that matter.

Once they publish their financial report, I'll comment in more detail.  For now, I'd just note that with other firms who have announced dramatic improvements in their 1H10 over 1H09 results that once you've written the assets down to realizable value there are no further write downs and income "improves".  Real improvement comes of course when your firm generates sustainable revenues and cashflow.

Gulf Finance House Apparently "Hits the Wall": Delays Publication of 2Q10 Financials Until Study on Capital Reorganisation and Capital Increase Completed. Share Trading Suspended.

The Bahrain Stock Exchange announced this morning the temporary suspension of GFH from today until 23 August.

Yesterday instead of approving the Bank's 2Q10 report, GFH's Board met and took the decision that a  capital reorganisation and capital increase were necessary.  It  advised the BSE that it would therefore delay approval/issuance of its financials until it completed studies related to both and their effects on the financials.  It also requested the one week temporary suspension of trading.

From this rather dramatic last minute announcement it certainly appears that GFH has finally "hit the wall".   It had earlier received approval for a delay in issuing its financials with the deadline today.  Since it has not issued them, the news therein must be fairly grim.

There's a trading suspension announcement on the KSE (copy below, Arabic only).   Sadly, as you might have guessed,  it misses the important "bit" why the financials are delayed.  It just suspends trading because the financials were not provided.  Confirmation, if one were needed. that the news is not material to investors?  Or perhaps more accurately to Kuwaiti investors?

[10:25:14]  ِ.وقف التداول باسهم (تمويل خليج) لحين ورود بيانات 30-06-2010 ‏
يعلن سوق الكويت للاوراق المالية بانه تم وقف التداول باسهم بيت التمويل ‏
الخليجي(تمويل خليج) لحين ورود بيانات 30-06-2010 .‏

There is also an announcement at the DFM - where the exchange simply posted a copy of GFH's letter.

As of the writing of this post, there is nothing posted on GFH's website on this topic.

Footnote:  A "capital reorganisation" need not mean a rescheduling/restructuring of debts.   As of 1Q10 GFH had accumulated losses of US$440 million versus its legal (paid in) capital of US$621 million.  Under Bahrain Commercial Companies Law (as with some other GCC jurisdictions) when a firm has losses 75% or greater of legal capital, it's obliged to take action.  Either dissolve the firm, raise new capital, or use existing capital and reserves to offset the losses.  The latter can involve reducing legal capital.   So the capital reorganisation may be this process.  It may also include a debt rescheduling though with the recent West LB deal and earlier rescheduling of its LMC facility, the Bank shouldn't have an immediate debt repayment problem.  Unless of course things have really deteriorated.  On the debt front, don't forget that GFH's sukuk indenture requires them to maintain US$400 million or more of shareholders' equity.  So it's not too hard to imagine the Bank being close or below this trip wire as of 30 June 2010.

Gulf Finance House - Obtains Permission to Delay Release of 2Q Financials Until 16 August

GFH announced on the Bahrain Stock Exchange this morning that it had obtained the consent of the "regulatory authorities in Bahrain" to an extension of the time required to present its 2Q10 financial statements.  GFH has up to 16 August to issue the financials.  And since its Board will meet on 15 August to approve the financials, it appears that the release date will be next Sunday or Monday.

No reason was given for the need for the extension which is for a relatively "short" period.

There are two reasons that spring to my mind why such a delay would be required:

1. The extension of the roll-over of the US$100 million stub from the West LB syndicate which comes due this week has not been finally agreed.   If true, this could reflect some hard negotiating on deal terms and pricing.  Or perhaps a slow moving lender "thinking carefully" about its decision.
2. Its external auditors need for more time to complete their review of the 2Q report. This could be related to questions on the value of assets or income.  Equally clearly it could be related to the roll-over and the strength of the comments in their review "opinion" if roll over is or is not achieved.

These are not the only potential causes.

There could be some that are rather benign:

1. Inability to get a Board quorum until then for some reason, 
2. Unavailability of key audit firm personnel.   
3. The need to first finalize Khaleej Commercial Bank's 2Q report.  Though since its Board meets tomorrow the results should be known by now and could be included in GFH's financials for release the next day - Wednesday or Thursday.

However, I suspect these are not the cause but rather it's one of the first two above - which indicates the stress under which GFH is operating.

Gulf Finance House - S&P Ratings: The "Fix" Was In?

A second look at the recent ratings action.   

Was there a bit more here than met the eye at first glance?

Let's go back to S&P's happier ratings announcement of 3 March when it upgraded GFH to CCC-.  Like all things happiness is relative.  When you're SD, an upgrade to CCC- is an improvement.

Here's what S&P had to say in its Outlook.

The negative outlook reflects our opinion of GFH's very weak liquidity position from a rating standpoint, because it still faces challenges to meet debt repayments coming due in the very near term. It also reflects the uncertainty we perceive regarding the ability of the institution to implement its plan for improving its liquidity position and boosting its revenues.  Failure to meet any of the upcoming existing or restructured payments would lead us to lower the ratings to 'D' (default).   In addition, we would consider as another distressed restructuring any transactions by GFH to reschedule or restructure its debt, including unrated obligations, such that lenders receive less than the original value. This would result in a lowering of the ratings to 'SD', assuming GFH continues to honor its other obligations.

At this point, GFH has not defaulted.  The US$100mm rescheduled West LB stub is not  yet due.   It's due in August.  There has been no public statement that the payment cannot or will not be made.  Technically it has not re-rescheduled the already rescheduled US$100 million.   There are discussions but not yet finalized. 

Recall that under IFRS a reduction in interest rate in a rescheduling constitutes an impairment.  The US$100 million West LB "stub" is currently at a 5% margin for a six month transaction.  The renewed three-year facility is reportedly at a lower rate.

How to avoid what appears to be an inevitable "D" or  "SD" rating?

The US$100 million August payment is in a convenient ratings "limbo".

What if S&P were to issue an interim "limbo" rating now?  Perhaps unfortunately a bit lower than the current rating but still out of the dreaded "default" category?  A rating mutually agreed beforehand.

And then what if GFH were to terminate S&P's ratings engagement immediately?

Problem neatly solved.

And then again perhaps just a series of innocent events, though if one holds that view,  one  has to explain why S&P didn't wait the relatively short time until August to issue an updated rating based on an actual "event".

You be the judge.  AA has already made up his mind.

Gulf Finance House - Press Release on S&P Downgrade

Pass the smelling salts!

There it was today an announcement on the BSE.  None so far on the DFM or on the KSE - but it's still early in the day only 08:12 EDT here.  And Dubai and Kuwait are a lot further from GFH's HQ in Manama than the BSE.  

Oh, wait, I see.  

GFH is responding to a letter from the BSE asking about the downgrade. 

According to the press release, GFH's Board decided last week to terminate the ratings relationship but to allow Executive Management the discretion as to when to terminate.  

The press release clarifies:

"In the meantime the Executive management would like to focus on the recovery plan and the restructuring then will decide to implement the withdrawal".

Since GFH seems to have decided to implement the withdrawal on or before  the day the rating was released, less charitable souls than AA might infer some lack of communication within the firm about critical events.  

Perhaps, certain information is shared on a "need to know" basis.  As with the shareholders?  A key issue may be in the determination of "need".  

As always AA stands ready to provide a public service.  

Here's the link to the Central Bank of Bahrain's Capital Markets Regulation "Disclosure Standards".   The appropriate "chapter and verse" is Article 32 "Ongoing Obligations Immediate Disclosure".    It does quite a nice job of defining "need to know". And the timing of "letting them know".

Gulf Finance House - S&P Downgrades GFH Terminates Ratings Services

5 July S&P downgraded GFH to CC.   This should come as no surprise as they had said that if GFH needed to restructure again they would do so.

More importantly, GFH requested that S&P no longer rate them.  S&P has complied.  It's website  shows NR for the rating. To add insult to injury - but not without cause - S&P expressed a negative view at this ratings action. 

GFH's termination of the ratings relationship is more telling than the rating action itself.   It is clear  that  they do not see near term potential for an upgrade.

Asa Fitch over at The National observes:

The move may mark a reversal for what has been one of the region’s most remarkable turnaround stories during the financial crisis. Since being brought in last year, Ted Pretty, GFH’s Australian chief executive, has aggressively marked down the company’s assets, restructured debts and announced plans to sell stakes in property projects and banking subsidiaries to raise cash. Under Mr Pretty, GFH posted $728m of losses for last year and revealed plans to raise $250m this year from asset sales.

In my view the story of any "turnaround" at GFH was largely a work of fiction.  And remarkable only because some believed it.

1. The cold hard fact is that debts are repaid by cold hard cash.  Not "pretty" words or unrealistic scenarios.   GFH's recovery, if any, will come when it is able to generate sufficient cash to service its debt and pay operating expenses.  
2. On that score it does not have a functioning business model and there has been no real cash generation from operations for over a year now.  It's also unclear whether the new model - at this point only an undeveloped plot - is any more viable.
3. That leaves asset realisations, largely sales to repay debt.   But make no mistake asset sales - particularly at the levels required in this particular case - do not build businesses.  They dismantle them.  Few if any companies have shrunk their way to greatness. Not more than a few months ago, GFH told quite a "fish" story of US$420 million in asset sales.  And often as happens in such stories the "big one" got away.  That reflects not only the state of the markets as well the quality of the assets on offer.  
4. As a case in point, you may also remember the "remarkable story" of GFH's US$262 million asset "sale" of its interests in Bahrain Financial Harbour Company to Emar Bahrain.  A sale which garnered only US$40 million in cash.  The remainder of the sale proceeds were land in the neighborhood of the BFH which will be "sold later" or so the story goes.  Interesting to speculate whether the land was owned by BFHC or perhaps by a local royal personage. 
5. A close scrutiny of other assets reveals the majority of the Company's liquidity is pledged for stalled projects.  Perhaps, itself less than a happy indication of GFH's ability to sell the project related "assets".   Besides the blocked liquidity,  there is the real danger that GFH will have to recognize some rather substantial losses when and if it extricates itself from these projects.  Not a cash drain, but something that would definitely cripple its balance sheet.  Possibly cause a breach of its Sukuk covenant to maintain a minimum US$400 million in equity and, thus,  a potential acceleration of  US$138 million.  Drive its Capital Adequacy Ratio below 12%.
6. Liabilities are in little better shape.  GFH's talent for rescheduling also appears to be another work of "remarkable" fiction.  The US$100 million stub on the US$300 million West LB syndicate was "rescheduled" for the lengthy period of six months.  Either because GFH's creditors wanted to keep it on a short leash.  Or because someone believed in an asset sales story which in light of asset quality and market conditions may make Dotcom irrational exuberance look like sober thinking.  Last February it was clear that barring a miracle there was no way that GFH was going to be able to make that payment.  Yet, quite a different story was spun.  And one has to really wonder about the use of precious liquidity to buy treasury shares and buyback portions of the Sukuk whose maturity is in terms of GFH's life span the equivalent of a decade away.

Credibility is a very key asset at any time for a financial institution.  During a restructuring it is even more so.  A cardinal rule of the restructuring process is for the debtor to never promise more than it can deliver as its credibility with creditors, shareholders, regulators and other market participants is eroded.

At some point even the most credulous audience will see through repeated tale tales and yarns.  When that day comes the debtor is in a much worse position that if it had stuck to reality. 

As always, we'll be up bright and early to read GFH's disclosure of this piece of  material information to its shareholders and other market parties via its website and announcements on the various exchanges it is listed on.  Based on past performance, I'm sure we won't be disappointed.

Gulf Banks: Some Wilt and Some are Apparently Ruder (At Least Healthwise)

A couple of interesting articles in the Financial Times over the past two days.

In one the remarkable recovery of Gulf Bank Kuwait is diagnosed.   Indeed quite a dramatic recuperation.  Its health much "ruder" than before.

Though with a third of its loan portfolio distressed, a need to provision just about all its earnings (except a cosmetic profit) to cover its currently recognized bad loans, and an ongoing fire sale of the ubiquitous but apparently solid "non core" assets to fund its core assets (the loan portfolio?), Gulf Bank is not yet out of the intensive care ward.

One does have to wonder how a bank achieves both a meltdown in loans and derivatives in the same time period.  Success in achieving just about every commercial banker's dream?  Building an investment banking business to rival its commercial business. 

Hopefully, Michel will be able to turn around the bank.  With a chronic case like this one, careful clinicians will want to ensure that (temporary) remission  is not confused with a (permanent) cure.  The surgical removal of the old Board  and elements of management by the KIA no doubt a necessary but not sufficient part of the treatment.  As to core competencies in commercial banking, - another element in the  cure - I'm assuming Michel is speaking prospectively and not retrospectively. 

Now to the next article:   a "blistering" analysis of defects in business models at the Gulf's so-called "investment banks".   You'll have to look rather closely in the picture immediately below to glimpse the wilted remains of some former investment banking titans of the GCC.  But I assure you they are there.

Sahara Desert

 Copyright fr:Utilisateur:Jgremillot 

  GNU Free Documentation License,

There has been a lot of soul searching at GCC investment firms to determine what went wrong.  

As I've pointed out before, many experienced and serious thinkers have come to the conclusion after no doubt very careful study that it was someone else's fault.  When the going gets tough, the tough find a scapegoat.  And an excuse.  The global financial crisis is generally identified as the villainous culprit.  As a matter of good form, I will again note that as a matter of definition that term is all lower case. 

In his article Robin Wigglesworth adds:

"The financial crisis has highlighted severe shortcomings in risk management, over-exposure to real estate and a reliance on paper gains on proprietary investments rather than recurring fee-based revenue, with disastrous results for some houses."

Some firms.  Indeed!  But not all.

While a generalized macro economic shock will lower all boats, it is usually the weakest links that get hurt the most. 

What then explains how the uneven effects on firms?

A study which considers "sharp" business practices and the state of ethics as causative factors might be quite enlightening.  A potentially "tricky" topic for discussion with financial firms that profess to follow the teachings of a noble religion, I suppose.

It would also have been informative to hear from some of the regional investment banks who emerged as "going concerns" after the crisis.   But then reporters cannot compel interviews.  With the summer months no doubt many have fled for more temperate climes.  Others may feel that discretion at this time is advised.