Posted on

Banking Crisis in Kenya

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]The Kenyan banking sector is in turmoil with vicious rumours swirling about the health of many banks and discerning where the truth is sandwiched between various shades of grey is remarkably difficult. It would be remiss to discuss a few banks without looking at the whole industry to begin with, and the macroeconomic environment that they are operating in that has led to the current state of dire illness in some banks. Mariana is a businesswoman. Since 2011, she has been running a small security guarding company, providing guards to small businesses. In 2014, she was encouraged to grow her business using the preferential supplier incentives that the government was providing for women and youth. She bid and successfully won a tender to supply guarding services for a government ministry that had multiple installations that required security. All of a sudden she had to recruit two hundred new guards and purchase uniforms and boots for them. She approached her bank and showed them the government contract against which they provided an overdraft facility for her, using her retired parent’s house as security. In the beginning, the cash was good, Mariana was paid on time and she was able to pay salaries and slowly start reducing the overdraft. But in 2015, her invoices to the Ministry started taking three to four months to be paid, and she increasingly turned to the ballooning overdraft facility to pay her guards’ monthly salaries. Within 3 months she had reached her limit on the facility and the bank was reluctant to increase it. She was desperately in trouble: hundreds of salaries to pay, an overdraft facility to reduce and her parents’ house in jeopardy. Mariana is not alone. This story is replicated hundreds of times at both national and county government level. Small business owners who have provided goods and services to national and county governments but experienced the sharp cash crunch that occurred in 2014 and 2015 which meant that their payments were significantly delayed. Some of these businesses had been responsible, cash was received and ploughed back into the business’s working capital cycle to pay for the goods and purchase more. Some of these businesses were irresponsible, and buoyed by the huge payments in their accounts for the first time in their lives, diverted some cash into non income generating assets like cars and land. Whatever the case, many businesses had used commercial bank loans to fund the sudden expansion caused by a large buyer of their goods and services. The slowdown in government spending has hit these businesses hard, and invariably impacted their ability to repay their loans. This is very apparent in the growth of the non-performing loan book amongst the banks as well as the reduced profitability of most of the banks judging from the 2015 end year financials.

Now let’s take a step back and look at the role of the regulator. That the government had slowed down its spending has not been a secret. The role of a banking regulator is to constantly monitor the financial and operational health of the banks under its watch. Basic economics: a slow down in money supply will cause the economy to contract and for businesses to start exhibiting financial stress. A basic prudent requirement therefore is for a central bank to require their licensees to undertake stress testing of their loan books for a number of reasons, key of which is to determine if the banks are making adequate provisions for the deteriorating loans as well as to establish how much of their loan book is exposed to the key economic metric that is causing the stress, in this case reduced government spending. In so doing, the regulator quickly establishes exactly what percentage of the banking industry’s assets are likely to be of a diminishing quality, what impact that will have on the respective banks’ balance sheets and whether discussions regarding additional capital injection need to be had with bank managements.

Do we have rogue banks? The recent events point to the fact that we do. The existential crisis that is emerging is that the regulator’s banking supervision unit is not on top of its oversight game. But it’s not only the regulator on the spot here. The audit committees of some of these banks have clearly not been holding their internal auditors to account. The internal auditors, who, together with the credit risk teams, are supposed to be regularly reviewing the credit quality of their loan books and have a duty to raise the flag on non-performing loans, or insider loans that do not have the appropriate documentation and requisite securities against which banks have recourse in the event of default. Some clever institutions know exactly how to manipulate the bank system so as not to reflect the poor servicing of bad loans at month end. They also know how to suppress non-performing loans by keeping them as overdrafts whose deteriorating quality is difficult to discern, as there are no monthly amortization repayments that would indicate non-serviceability. Section 769 of the new Companies Act 2015 requires shareholders of quoted companies to appoint members of the audit committee. The mischief that this is supposed to cure is to ensure that the shareholders take ownership of who is providing appropriate governance over the books of the company. Shareholders must ensure that the audit committee members are not only financially literate individuals, but, in the case of quoted banks, at least one should have some commercial banking operational experience and therefore know how to identify where dead bodies are being buried. The Central Bank prudential guidelines require bank audit committees to be chaired by independent non-executive directors. What is becoming crystal clear is that the oversight capacity of these audit committees is seriously wanting as there seems to be a lack of knowledge on how internal systems can be manipulated to hide bad loans. Nobody is blameless in this crisis at both regulator and board director level.
[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Posted on

Confluence of Political and Economic Risks

I recently dined with a European diplomat who asked the ubiquitous question that foreign residents in this country like to do: “What do you think will happen at the next Kenyan elections?” Before I tell you what I answered, I have to state categorically and most unequivocally that I am neither a political analyst nor commentator. I do, however, occasionally comment on the confluence of politics and economics as often happens invariably. That confluence is particularly necessary in the banking industry, where I spent many happy years, when analyzing credit risk of a customer for a term loan of not less than five years.

Within the duration of that loan such a customer is bound to cross the Kenyan election cycle. Depending on the nature of the customer’s business, the company is likely to have difficulties in loan repayments due to cash flow constraints occasioned by poor sales, deplorable debt collections or, heaven forbid, destruction of the company premises therefore impacting on the ability to produce the goods and services that are being procured. My answer to the diplomat saw him imperceptibly swallow and he leaned forward in interest.

“There will be bloodshed in 2017 as the historical patterns demonstrate it.”

“What do you mean?” he whispered.

“In banking, we look at historical behavior as a strong barometer of what future behavior is likely to portend. To understand our history of political violence, you have to start in 1992 when the first multi party elections were held,” I began. “In that year, you had an incumbent who was running against a very strong and credible opposition. That was when Kenya endured the first of several bloody episodes of tribal clashes.” I went on. “In 1997, the same incumbent was running for his second and last term as president. He had the benefit of the state machinery behind him, as well as a fragmented opposition. This time, the political waters were muddied in the coast region, where the pre-election clashes were largely centered. The coastal tourism economy very nearly collapsed and the hotel industry underwent massive bankruptcies.”

“Well what do you make of the peaceful election in December 2002?” the diplomat asked. “Doesn’t that destroy the pattern of electoral violence?”

“Actually, therein lies the pattern,” I responded. “Every time an incumbent is stepping down, there has been a peaceful transition in Kenya. It happened in 2002 and in 2013. But whenever there’s been an incumbent fighting to maintain the status quo, there has been bloodshed; ergo 1992, 1997 and 2007. The 2017 elections are a status quo event. The pattern will be the same.” My lunch partner mulled over this for a few minutes and promptly changed the subject.

In 2008, a few banks took advantage of the politically instigated clashes in the beginning months of the year to blame the growth in non-performing loans. Some of this was not entirely true and was a slick way of reporting previously suppressed bad loans. But you’d think that the regulator would have cottoned on to the games being played. It didn’t. It is not difficult to see why, when you look at the kind of pedestrian analysis the banking supervision department at the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) undertakes. In the recently released 2014 Bank Supervision Annual Report, the Central Bank dedicates the monumental amount of three sentences to analyze the 2014 asset quality of the entire banking industry. I will pick two of the three sentences as an illustration:

“ The lag effects of high interest regime in 2012/2013 and subdued economic activities witnessed in the period ended December 2014 impacted negatively on the quality of loans and advances. As a result, non performing loans (NPLs) increased by 32.4% to Kshs 108.3 billion in December 2014 from Kshs 81.8 billion in December 2013.”

When your non-performing asset book increases by a third, it requires a fair amount of explaining beyond the vanilla high interest rates and subdued economic activities reasoning. There should be a fairly robust amount of granularity around the specific industries driving the poor performance of loans. It is an open secret that the central government endured inordinate cash flow challenges in 2014 that impacted key suppliers of services, particularly in the construction industry. This would invariably have a knock on effect to the suppliers of construction companies such as cement, cable and ballast for example. But this is what should be of concern as we hurtle towards an election cycle in the next two years. The retail loan book across the banking industry is the single largest loan segment with 3.6 million accounts grossing Kshs 516 billion and accounting for 26.6% of total loans in the market. This is ahead of trade at Kshs 375 billion (19.3% of total loans) and manufacturing at Kshs 237 billion or 12.2% of total loans. Retail loans, codified by the CBK as personal/household loans, are consumer loans and in this market represent the largely salary check off loans that pepper many banks’ unsecured loan offers. It’s highly likely that the bulk of these loans are used to purchase consumer items such as cars, furniture and electronics rather than investment in income generating activities. A political event such as post election violence, followed by an economic downturn caused by reduction in productive capacity of Kenyan companies will lead to retrenchments. You can also never underestimate the capacity of cheeky borrowers to take advantage of politically volatile environments to stop repaying loans due to destruction of work places and such like sob stories. I saw it happen in 2008.

A notable risk therefore sits in the banking industry come 2017: any delays in government payments (partly occasioned by tax collection difficulties on the part of Kenya Revenue Authority) together with probable election related violence will negatively impact bank loan books. Don’t be surprised if you find difficulty getting an answer on your loan application that year. Your bank is just not that into you in an election year.

[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka