 |
| Satellite View of GFH Statement of Changes in Shareholders' Equity |
The sad story of wasted shareholder money continues here.
First, a technical note to ground
the analysis that follows. In line with
accounting standards, gains and losses on sales of treasury shares don’t pass
through GFH’s income statement so technically they are not “income”. But since this decline in value is the
result of deliberate actions by GFH, it’s hard for AA not to consider this the
equivalent of an income statement “loss”.
And I shall use the term “loss” in that sense in this post.
Now
to the analysis.
In his Shareholders
Report in the 2018 audited consolidated financial statements, GFH’s Chairman
stated: “Also of note during the year, GFH took active steps to support its
share price and market capitalisation, acquiring treasury shares up to 7% of
the Group’s total issued shares.”
Indeed,
it did!
But perhaps the results weren’t
so good for GFH’s shareholders.
In
short (1) a lot of money was spent and lost and (2) the impact seems to have
been minimal.
As per AA’s analysis,
it appears that the net result of GFH’s buying and selling of its own shares in
FY 2018 was a reduction in equity of some USD 27.9 million. If you’ll look at Statement of Changes in
Shareholders’ Equity in GFH’s 1Q19 interim unaudited report, you see that GFH
admits to losses of USD 24. 8
million on treasury share transactions in 2018.
AA believes the roughly USD 3 million
difference between AA and GFH relates to the USD 3,058 million 2018 charge to
the share premium account which zeroed it out.
It appears that GFH considers that “loss” to be covered by earlier
years’ gains.
You will also note
in the 1Q19 report that GFH has continued its treasury share transactions in
1Q19 for an additional USD 9.6 million “loss”. And three more quarters left this year. That's a time reference not a monetary one.
So a total of USD 34 million by GFH’s accounting and USD 37 million
by AA’s.
But you might ask AA: Yes, but what about the impact on the share
price? Surely, this was a small price to pay for “supporting GFH’s share price
and capitalization”.
GFH’s closing share
price on 2 January 2018 was AED 1.520 and on 31 December 2018 was AED 0.902,
according to investing.com. Looking at share price performance only,
that’s a decline of approximately 41%.
The share price at the end of March and May this year was in a similar
range to the FYE 2018 price.
I suppose in defense of GFH one might argue
that absent their efforts the price would be even lower. AA will not.
The central question is why GFH is spending shareholders’ money to
prop up the stock price?
And perhaps
whether regulators think that the method employed is “sound practice”?
We don’t really know what is motivating
GFH’s board and management.
But what we can do is take a detailed look at
their actions and try to guess (note that word) what is going on.
In the recent past, GFH had minimal
treasury share transactions. It was only
in FY 2017 that break was made with past moderate efforts. FY 2018 saw a real break with the past as
this chart demonstrates.
| GFH Financial Group Holding of Treasury Shares | ||||||
| FYE | Number of TS | Total Issued Shares | TS as % TIS | |||
| 2013 | 5,283,272 | 3,161,889,967 | 0.17% | |||
| 2014 | 5,204,536 | 4,730,665,467 | 0.11% | |||
| 2015 | 24,503,697 | 2,256,583,403 | 1.09% | |||
| 2016 | 2,211,891 | 2,256,583,403 | 0.10% | |||
| 2017 | 106,467,804 | 3,681,450,441 | 2.89% | |||
| 2018 | 255,455,953 | 3,681,450,441 | 6.94% | |||
Source: GFH Annual Reports
- Clearly, FY 2017 was a transitional year from the pattern of the previous four years.
- FY 2018 saw an “explosion” of Treasury Share transactions.
Let’s look a bit closer at FY 2018.
GFH
Financial Group Treasury Share Transactions
| ||||||||
by Quarter for FY 2018 -Millions of US Dollars
|
||||||||
| TS BOP | Buy | Sell | Net = B-S | TS EOP | G/(L) | |||
| Q1 | $58.4 | $5.4 | $3.2 | $2.2 | $60.6 | ($0.9) | ||
| Q2 | $60.6 | $10.8 | $20.6 | ($9.8) | $50.8 | ($5.2) | ||
| Q3 | $50.8 | $56.1 | $17.9 | $38.2 | $89.0 | $0.0 | ||
| Q4 | $89.0 | $88.7 | $92.3 | ($3.6) | $85.4 | ($21.8) | ||
| FY TOTAL | $161.0 | $134.0 | $27.0 | ($27.9) | ||||
Source: GFH 2018 Quarterly Financials, Amounts in
Thousands of US Dollars
- TS= Treasury Shares BOP = Beginning of Period, EOP End of Period. G/(L) = Gains/Losses.
- Buys in 4Q18 were 55% of the FY’s total and 69% of sales.
- It appears that these (4Q) sales were undertaken to either fund new purchases or because of imposed limits on the amount of Treasury Shares GFH was allowed to hold either from its regulator (CBB) or the GFH Board itself. Or perhaps some combination of both.
- 78% of FY 2018’s loss on Treasury Share transactions occurred in 4Q.
- That suggests, but does not prove, that GFH was frantically trying to stave off a decline in share price for the “all-important” FYE 31 December reporting date.
Just how frantic that activity
was can be seen from the next two charts.
First, let’s look at 4Q18 transactions in GFH shares on the BSE, KSE,
and DFM.
Trading in GFH Financial Group
Shares 4Q2018
|
||||
Local Currency
|
USD Equivalent
|
|||
BSE
|
BHD 6,379,970
|
USD 16,906,921
|
||
KSE
|
||||
Oct
|
KWD 1,013,881.569
|
USD 3,335,137
|
||
Nov
|
KWD 311,267.257
|
USD 1,023,905
|
||
Dec
|
KWD 4,119,336.652
|
USD 13,550,450
|
||
DFM
|
AED 1,363,936,328.99
|
USD 371,644,776
|
||
TOTAL
|
USD 406,461,188
|
|||
Sources: BSE,
KSE
October, KSE
November, KSE
December, and DFM.
- With the DFM, you’ll have to do a bit of manual tinkering to select the time period. Click on the orange box on the upper left hand side of the Bulletins Page. Select 2018 and then Q4.
- What emphasizes the “frantic” nature of GFH’s efforts is the percentage of their Treasury Share transactions of the above total as detailed in the chart below.
GFH
Financial Group Treasury Share Transactions 4Q18
|
|||
Amount
|
%
Total 4Q18
Transactions
|
||
Buys
|
$88,662,000
|
22%
|
|
Sales
|
$92,267,000
|
||
Loss on Sales
|
-$21,780,000
|
||
Net Sales
|
$70,487,000
|
17%
|
|
Total Transactions
|
$159,149,000
|
39%
|
|
Sources: Previous Two
Charts.
- Percentages are calculated using the Total Transaction from the previous chart, i.e., USD 406,461,188.
- Net sales transactions are estimates of cash proceeds = Cost – Loss = Cash.
- Chart is based on the assumption that all of GFH’s Treasury Share transactions took place on a stock exchange.
- If the above analysis is correct—and AA invites readers to point out any mistakes—then GFH had an outsized share of transactions. Does AA dare use the phrase “حوت الخليج“ ?
What are we to make of all of this?
Here
are some thoughts of what might be going on. Not proofs, but rather conjectures.
Some of you out there may have other thoughts. Please post a comment. Share your views. Point out AA's mistakes.
If we assume
limits on GFH’s holding of Treasury Shares (as a percentage of shares rather
than a USD amount), then it would seem likely that GFH’s management would be
aware that attempting to continue to prop up the share price in 4Q18 would
require selling some of the existing Treasury Shares to make room for new
purchases.
And that selling those shares would lead to
losses.
If one looks at the average
Buy/Sell ratio by quarter (adjusted for the cash losses on existing Treasury
Shares), it’s 1.7 in Q1, 0.7 in Q2, 3.1 in Q3, and 1.3 in Q4.
Clearly, the
“bang for the buck” in Q4 is rather limited.
Each USD 1 of existing Treasury Shares sold only increases demand by USD
1.3. Hard to see that having a material
effect on the price.
Perhaps that
explains GFH’s whale-sized share of total trades in 4Q. Trying to use volume to move the price in a favorable direction.
But taking on that volume of transaction caused
substantial losses.
AA is at a loss to understand why GFH did not stop
trading in its shares when the losses began to mount. If this were FX or other trading, a stop loss
limit would have been triggered.
GFH’s
shareholders were bleeding substantial cash.
And consequences of continuing in 4Q18 are highly likely responsible for
some of the pain in 1Q19. Overall a loss to the tune of USD 37 million for FY 2018 and
1Q19.
We don’t know what GFH’s
reason for continuing Treasury Share transaction but they certainly evidenced
determination to proceed David Farragut style at a level that AA interprets as
“frantic”.
All this leads AA to
conjecture that there seems more to this behavior than merely propping up the
share price because it appears management accepted the large amount of losses incurred.
What could motivate this behavior?
As noted above we don’t know.
But if we want to conjecture, what
could be possible motives?
Was GFH
propping up the shares to “help” those investors who financed their share
purchases using the shares as collateral?
And were exposed to lenders calling in the loans or asking for more
collateral? If so, who might those shareholders be?
If Homer can nod, surely AA can. In early August 2018 as reported by Gulf News, GFH advised the market "that on Thursday that its shareholders Abu Dhabi Financial Company (ADFG) and Integrated Capital (IC) have transferred 102,094,573 and 79,905,427 of GFH’s shares respectively from their NINs to Al Hilal Bank for a financing facility." Coincidence?
If Homer can nod, surely AA can. In early August 2018 as reported by Gulf News, GFH advised the market "that on Thursday that its shareholders Abu Dhabi Financial Company (ADFG) and Integrated Capital (IC) have transferred 102,094,573 and 79,905,427 of GFH’s shares respectively from their NINs to Al Hilal Bank for a financing facility." Coincidence?
Or perhaps to help
investment funds who bought GFH’s shares “high” and would have to report a loss
to their investors based on FYE 2018’s much lower price? Who might those funds be?
Well, according to press
accounts, Goldilocks acquired a 4.9% stake in GFH in January 2018. At that time shares were trading around AED
1.5 per share. As noted above with the
share price at AED 0.902 at year end, Goldilocks would have to have reported a
41% loss on the investment considering only movement in the stock price over
the year.
 |
| AA in the Press Again as Usual with Similar Effects, Sadly |
Reporting “Rant” Questions
In previous years,
GFH’s Statement of Changes in Consolidated Equity clearly labeled the results
of Treasury Sales transactions which resulted in a Loss or a Gain by using
those exact words. That changed with the
2018 FYE report. The loss amounts appear
but there is no descriptor.
Those who
know their IAS/IFRS would understand that there was a loss in 2018. But AA believes that certainly not all of
GFH’s shareholders are accounting experts.
And it’s highly likely that only a handful are. And how many of the accounting experts are reading GFH's financials?
2018
was coincidentally a year in which the loss was quite large.
Questions for GFH:
- Was this change designed to avoid drawing attention to the loss?
- Or a simple oversight? If this is the case, what caused the change in the existing template? Or in other words, why change the tried and true?
Interestingly, the term
“loss” to describe 2018 was used in a footnote to the 1Q19 interim financial
Statement of Changes to Consolidated Equity.
But in the same note on page 4 in the 1Q19 financials, the 1Q19 "loss" was again not used as it had been in past as part of the main
text? Why is this?
Questions for external auditors,
- Did they “miss” this rather important change in 2018 AR?
- Or did they approve it?
- Additionally, when a bank loses an amount this size (some 20% of net income) is this not a material piece of information that needs to be highlighted? And not buried in a note? Which is unclear except to accountants?
- Would auditors consider this level of "trading" in a firm's Treasury Shares as constituting "material information" as well?
More posts to come on GFH’s 2018 results.
Posts
