Posted on

Banking Crisis in Africa

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]A few weeks ago, I quoted extensively from a speech given by the former Nigerian Central Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi, in February 2010 where he was explaining, with painful honesty what had gone wrong in the Nigerian banking industry following the global financial crisis which impacted the Nigerian economy hard. He could have been describing the Kenyan industry in many ways. Do we have a problem in Africa? Do we have a problem distinguishing customer deposits, from revenue? And further, distinguishing revenue from profits? The fact is that banks have only one product: cold, hard cash. That’s all that they deal with, and therefore a great responsibility is placed upon them as that cash, with the exception of the capital that shareholders put in, is largely from our pockets. Our sweat, blood and tears in the form of salaries, business revenues and savings is what we place in the hands of total strangers, believing with every fibre of our native beings that they will make it available to us as and when we need it. We trust that the management of these banks will make the distinction between what belongs to us and what belongs to them. A distinction that is clearly difficult to make once a rogue management crosses to the dark side. Sanusi explains the Nigerian experience thus:
“The original title of this paper was “Transformative Disruption: Relocating theNigerian Banking Crisis from the Economic to the Social.” The choice of title
was informed by a strong desire to articulate a correct narrative, in an
environment in which we are confronted by a multi-vocal opportunism
determined to subvert history through the fabrication of false narratives.
Among these, is the assertion that the actions taken by the Central bank are
part of a grandiose “northern” agenda against southern Nigeria. Or that
perhaps it is an “Islamic” agenda being pushed by a Muslim fundamentalist.
There are also other subtler and more sophisticated-albeit just as
opportunistic-narratives. For example the new claim by public officers and
politicians that there is really no corruption in the public service, that
politicians are not corrupt, and that the real corruption is only in banks.
What we have done in the Central bank, is to fire the opening salvo in what could potentially be a revolutionary battle against the nexus of money and influence that has held this country to ransom for decades. This would not be the first time banks
collapse nor are brought to the brink in our national history. And it will certainly
not be the last. But this time there is a difference.
In previous crises we said some banks had failed a passive and complicit
phrase that masked a gross irresponsibility and crass insensitivity. “The bankhas failed”.

……And that is exactly what happens when we refer to “failed banks” as if the
bank itself, some impersonal structure made up of branches and computers,
somehow collapsed on its own. By using-or abusing- the term “failed bank” we
are able to mask what is almost always a monumental fraud. But it is a
deliberate act of prestidigitation. Thousands of poor people, who have kept their life savings in the bank, lose it. Children’s school fees, savings for retirement, medical bills, gone into thin air. And who is to blame? No one really. Or maybe the poor people who were foolish enough to keep their money in a bank that “failed”.
How many people have died of heart attacks due to this tragedy? How many
honest businessmen have been rendered bankrupt? How many people have
committed suicide? How many have died because they were unable to pay
medical bills as their monies were trapped in these institutions? How many
children have dropped out of school? We do not know. Because we live in a
society in which they do not matter. They are anonymous. They are poor.
What we do know is that we have today, among those parading themselves
as role models in society, people who profited from failed banks. Owners and
managers who go on to become governors and senators. Bad debtors who
are multi- billionaires, having taken the money belonging to those poor dead
souls and not paid back.
So here is the reality. The owners and managers of banks, the rich borrowers
and their clients in the political establishment are one and the same class of
people protecting their interest, and trampling underneath their feet the
interest of the poor with impunity.
So this time we turned the tables and said “enough is enough”. The banks did
not fail. They were destroyed and brought to their knees by acts committed by
identifiable people. Do not say that government money has been
stolen. Name the thief. And so, in keeping with that tradition, we did not say
that banks had failed. We named human beings-the management that stole
money in the name of borrowing, the gamblers that took depositors funds to
speculate on the stock market and manipulate share prices, the billionaires
and captains of industry whose wealth actually was money belonging to the
poor which they “borrowed” and refused to pay back.
Fortunately, the President, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, understood from the first
day that this was an ideological choice we had to make. We could side with
the rich and powerful, and say the banks had failed. Or we could side with the
poor and save the banks but go after the criminals. And we chose the latter.”

That KCB has swung in to provide much needed stability in the wake of the Chase Bank fiasco is nothing short of a miracle pill engineered by Kenya’s Central Bank Governor. But this is not the time to exhale from a dodged bullet. There’s blood in the water and significant public goodwill to see the elite “financial accounting wizards” get what they deserve. A nice room with enough light that will allow them far more time to sit and reflect on the distinction between deposits, revenues and profits.

[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Posted on

Bankers are business people too

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]A distraught investor called his financial advisor. “Is my money really all gone?”
He wailed. “No, no,” the advisor answered calmly. “It’s just with somebody else!”
I need to disabuse some readers of the notion that banks are charitable institutions. The amount of energy spent chanting dirges about how “banks are out to fleece us” or the more recent, “banks want to finish Kenyans with interest rates” is energy better spent understanding that a bank is a business like the neighborhood kiosk, providing a service of convenience. The less than palatable solution to the purveyors of negative energy is this: put your spare cash under your mattress and go borrow your financial needs from the knee-cap breaking shylock two streets down the road from your house. Enough said: if you’re mildly irritated at my incendiary introduction, let’s keep rocking and rolling as I explain why you need to get over yourself.

The months of September and October 2015 were difficult ones for the Government of Kenya. Cash flows got mismanaged as more money was being paid out than was being received and they had to come to the domestic market to borrow funds to meet their obligations. Bank treasurers as well as savvy institutional investors smelt blood in the water. They had already done a quick back of the envelope calculation on the use of the proceeds from the now infamous Eurobond and figured out that the government had come up short when there were multiple domestic as well as international obligations to be paid. These things really don’t require a rocket scientist, after all, housewives have been calculating and balancing kitchen budgets for years. Word soon spread that the government needed money, and banks as well as institutional investors were happy to step up to the plate. But remember that banks place your deposits in two places: in loans to businesses and individuals or in loans to government via treasury bills and bonds.

Two things will always happen when the government suddenly becomes exceedingly thirsty for cash and dips its beak into the private sector. Firstly, the arbitrage sharks that are always looking for an opportunity will strike. If an individual or corporate with a good credit history at their bank can borrow at 12% as was the case with some, then they will borrow and take the money to the government via the T-bill auction that was giving rates above 22%. That 10% spread is easy money. So easy that the bank’s initial reaction will be to raise interest rates to reduce the arbitrage opportunities that it is providing to some of its clients. Which then leads to the next question, why should the bank be the only one allowed to make money from government borrowing? Well, the fact is, everyone who was flush with cash and spotted the opportunity jumped into the high interest rate bandwagon. Large depositors demanded that the banks give them double digit interest rates or they would withdraw their funds and open CDS accounts at the Central Bank themselves in order to buy government paper. I know an individual who got 19% on his large deposit at a multinational bank in September this year. Now if you recall, I did say that banks fund their loans from customer deposits. When a large number of deposits start to re-price, the obvious impact will largely be on the future loan book that will be funded from the re-priced deposits. There is also an impact on the existing loan book because a bank is constantly trying to manage the profitable bridge between interest received (from loans) and interest paid (on deposits). The net interest income will obviously be impacted from the re-priced deposits. And banks are accountable to shareholders you know, the owners of the business who are demanding a return on their heavily regulated capital.

A final point to the business of banking: contrary to popular belief, it is not all champagne and roses when banks have to consider raising interest rates. The credit risk director will typically sit through that Assets and Liabilities Committee -ALCO meeting (assuming he’s invited) with a furrowed brow and a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach. Why, you ask? The credit director knows very well about the elasticity of the borrower’s pockets. There is only so much stretching a borrower can do before he decides to throw in the towel and default on a bank loan that is causing more grief and sleepless nights than a private developer’s illegal boundary walls coming down. A borrower has typically submitted cash flow projections to his banks demonstrating that he can comfortably make the principal plus interest repayments over the lifetime of the loan. A minor rate increase will cause some level of digestive discomfort. A major rate increase will cause cardiac level discomfort. Which is why banks ask individual borrowers for their pay-slips and information about other borrowings so that they can tell what the “debt service coverage ratio” is for the individual borrower. How much of her disposable income is going towards servicing loans? The rule of thumb is that it should not be beyond 30% of one’s net income which allows one to pay rent, buy food and basically live decently rather than skating on the edge of financial despair. The same applies for business loans, as there is an ideal leverage ratio for businesses that are in the manufacturing or in the service industries (manufacturing businesses are permitted higher leverage ratios due to their propensity to use loans for purchasing capital equipment).

Therefore it’s not an easy ALCO decision to raise interest rates as the bank will be balancing a need to maintain the net interest spread while managing the increased risk of borrower default. Since the escalated government borrowing had cooled down in November, the banks last week could thus start to yield to the Central Bank Governor’s exhortations to stop loan interest rate increases. Total relief in sight for distraught borrowers!

[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]