Posted on

Chasing The Truth In Parliament

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]Last week, an unlikely source in the form of a Parliamentary Committee helped to unseal the tightly held lips of the Chase Bank’s board of directors. The directors had been summoned to assist the Committee to understand the challenges that faced the Bank, resulting in the same being placed under receivership by the Central Bank of Kenya. This was an opportunity for the board to give its side of a controversial story, a tale that has as many versions as there are heads to the Greek mythical hydra. The story caught my attention for one reason only: The directors called the auditors professionally ignorant. Actually let me quote the exact statement here: “The Musharakah Agreements for each of the SPVs clearly show Chase Bank’s 99% interest in the Musharakah assets. Deloitte’s insistence on treating this as a normal loan or advance can only be labelled as professional ignorance at best.” Part of the dispute between the auditors, Deloitte in this case, and the board of directors has been on the treatment of a series of real estate transactions either as internal loans to a key shareholder (according to the auditor) or as Musharakah assets (Islamic financing terms according to the directors). So I pored over the submissions made by the directors in their vigorous defence of these assets.
Banking is premised on the fact that there are depositors who want a safe place to put their money, and there are borrowers who require to borrow funds for consumption. The bank is simply an intermediary. In the case of Islamic banking, the institution applies Sharia compliant procedures in the booking of those deposits and loans. The key point here is: there must be a customer. Period. Finito. Whether it is mainstream or Islamic banking there must be an individual or an entity who is the customer. But the directors state thus in their parliamentary submissions:
“Subsequently, Deloitte rejected the Musharakah Agreements and Deloitte insisted that the Musharakah properties be charged to the bank, thus effectively classifying the SPVs as Loans and Advances rather than Islamic investments as documented. These loans would then become technical insider loans, as the shares in the SPVs were held by the two directors, albeit held in trust for the Bank. Chase Bank’s Management emphasised to Deloitte that treatment of the Musharakah assets as Loans and Advances would be in contravention of not only the principles of Islamic banking (and therefore a breach of trust with Islamic depositors), but also of Section 12(c) of the Banking Act and
would incorrectly treat these as an insider loan. It was evident that Deloitte were simply not interested in appreciating the nature and substance of the Musharakah Assets or the principles of Islamic banking.”

I scratched my head and read the report twice over. At no point did the directors say who the ultimate customer was. I mean, a bank doesn’t wake up and decide to give a loan out to a customer, whether Islamic or otherwise. Why was there no attempt to say that this was an unfair treatment of a yet-to-be-named customer who had borrowed from the bank in good (Islamic) faith? That the assets were bought in the name of the SPV is not in doubt. That the SPV has two Chase directors as the shareholders is not in doubt. But where the shareholders were holding the shares “in trust” for the bank is where it starts to get “grab-a-bag-of-popcorn” interesting. The directors fail to mention if a “deed of trust” was provided to the auditors as evidence of that understanding between Chase Bank on the one hand and the SPV shareholders on the other. I mean, one doesn’t assume trust falls off the back of the Kisumu express train, it must be documented somewhere, right? The directors beat their Islamic financing drum further by dragging in the regulator into their drama: “On 26th July 2012, Chase bank wrote to the Director of Bank Supervision at CBK requesting CBK to revise the Central Bank Prudential Guideline on Publication of Financial Statements and Other Disclosures to accommodate Islamic products and
specifically:
(i) the Islamic Banking Income received to be reflected separately in the Profit and Loss
Account;
(ii) The Islamic Banking Expenses also to be reflected separately in the Profit and Loss
Account;
(iii) The Islamic Banking investments or Financing Activities as a separate Asset line in the
Balance Sheet;
(iv) The Islamic Deposits or Liabilities as a separate Liability item in the balance Sheet; and
(v) A separate Off Balance Sheet line item for Islamic banking.
The CBK has not objected, in the absence of any changes to the Prudential Guidelines, to the classification and treatment in any of its reports to the Bank.”

I have to admit, that this submission by the directors stumped me. If you wrote to the regulator and asked to be reporting Islamic Banking products separately, and the regulator did not object, then why do your 2014 and 2015 financial accounts not reflect the same? I zoomed across to the only fully-fledged Islamic Banks in Kenya, Gulf African Bank and First Community Bank (FCB) websites to see how their Islamic assets are recorded. Their professionally competent auditors in the name of KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) respectively reported loans as “financing activities (net)” exactly as Chase had requested the CBK to do in (iii) above. (It’s noteworthy that PWC audited the FCB accounts in 2014 but the 2015 published accounts are silent on who their auditors were) If Chase directors had knowledge as far back as July 2012 on how “Musharakah Assets” should be recorded on the balance sheet why wait until June 2016, or four years later, to call their auditors professionally ignorant? And why are the Islamic depositor funds not separately recorded yet the directors have vigorously highlighted the potential breach of trust for the Islamic depositors if Musharakah Assets are treated as loans and advances?

The Chase Bank saga is a case study of corporate governance failure, weak internal controls, questions on the auditors’ scope and depth of review and a passionate to almost rabid love for the brand by its most loyal customers. But on the back of all of that are innocent depositors who must always remain in the minds of all bank directors whose oversight role gets heavier with each passing day.

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

Posted on

Banking scandals are not unique to Kenya

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]In October 2010, I wrote a piece in this newspaper about a lady called Cecilia Ibru, the disgraced former CEO of Oceanic Bank in Nigeria. Prior to August 2009, Mrs. Ibru had been the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director at Nigeria’s Oceanic Bank International Plc since 1997. Cecilia Ibru, at sixty three years of age, was regarded as the First Lady of banking in Nigeria since she was the first female leader to raise her bank’s equity to N25bn, (approx $203m in 2010), the first female to head the 5th largest bank and the 9th largest company quoted on the Nigerian Stock Exchange and in the year 2000, the first female CEO to post over N1bn profit ($8m in 2010 value terms) in a financial statement.
Her sterling career came to a less than illustrious end in August 2009, when the Nigerian Central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi fired the CEOs of five of the country’s largest banks, including Mrs Ibru, for massive irregularities in corporate governance and lending. On the 7th of October 2010, a Federal High Court in Lagos sentenced Mrs Ibru to 18 months imprisonment without an option of fine for abuse of office and mismanagement of depositors’ funds. Mrs Ibru was also ordered to forfeit assets worth N191 billion ($1.5bn) comprising of 94 prime properties across the world including the United States of America, Dubai and Nigeria to the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria.
It’s useful to put context to what was going on in the Nigerian banking sector at the time. In 2005 the Central Bank of Nigeria initiated one of the most ambitious regulatory policies to date: an increase in the capital base of banks from 2 billion Naira (about US$ 12.5 million at the time) to 25 billion Naira (US$156 million) in order to improve their competitiveness in the international market. This led to a consolidation in the banking sector from roughly over 80 banks to just 24 banks. The global financial crisis of 2008 impacted the Nigerian economy hard, as international investors pulled out of the stock exchange to plug in gaps resulting from losses in other developed markets. By pulling out of the markets, local investors in the Nigerian stock market were left holding shares that had significantly lost value due to the fire sale activities of international investors, a fact that exposed the vulnerability of how those local investors bought the shares in the first place: through shaky, unsecured loans from a few unscrupulous banks. Nigeria subsequently suffered from a financial crisis of its own. Governor Lamido Sanusi, in a February 2010 speech at the Convocation Ceremony of the University of Kano, gave a bare knuckled synopsis of what went wrong: “The huge surge in capital availability occurred during the time when corporate governance standards at banks were extremely weak. In fact, failure in corporate governance at banks was indeed a principal factor contributing to the financial crisis. Consolidation created bigger banks but failed to overcome the fundamental weaknesses in corporate governance in many of these banks. It was well known in the industry that since consolidation, some banks were engaging in unethical and potentially fraudulent business practices and the scope and depth of these activities were documented in recent CBN examinations.
Governance malpractice within banks, unchecked at consolidation, became a way of life in large parts of the sector, enriching a few at the expense of many depositors and investors. Corporate governance in many banks failed because boards ignored these practices for reasons including being misled by executive management, participating themselves in obtaining un-secured loans at the expense of depositors and not having the qualifications to enforce good governance on bank management. In addition, the audit process at all banks appeared not to have taken fully into account the rapid deterioration of the economy and hence of the need for aggressive provisioning against risk assets.
As banks grew in size and complexity, bank boards often did not fulfil their function and were lulled into a sense of well-being by the apparent year-over- year growth in assets and profits. In hindsight, boards and executive management in some major banks were not equipped to run their institutions. The bank chairman/CEO often had an overbearing influence on the board, and some boards lacked independence; directors often failed to make meaningful contributions to safeguard the growth and development of the bank and had weak ethical standards; the board committees were also often ineffective or dormant.
CEOs set up Special Purpose Vehicles to lend money to themselves for stock price manipulation or the purchase of estates all over the world. One bank borrowed money and purchased private jets which we later discovered were registered in the name of the CEO’s son. 30% of the share capital of Intercontinental bank was purchased with customer deposits. Afribank used depositors’ funds to purchase 80% of its IPO. It paid N25 per share when the shares were trading at N11 on the NSE and these shares later collapsed to under N3. The CEO of Oceanic bank controlled over 35% of the bank through SPVs borrowing customer deposits. The collapse of the capital market wiped out these customer deposits amounting to hundreds of billions of naira. The Central Bank had a process of capital verification at the beginning of consolidation to avoid bubble capital. For some unexplained reason, this process was stopped. As a result, we have now discovered that in many cases consolidation was a sham and the banks never raised the capital they claimed they did.”
Subsequent Central Bank of Nigeria Governors, following Sanusi’s tough stance, have done a lot to restore the confidence in the banking sector. It is both noteworthy and admirable that Sanusi took a view of full disclosure of massive fraud in the industry rather than endorse the cover up tendencies of his predecessors thereby receiving international acclaim for his willingness to drag Nigeria’s financial industry through the mud in order to restore sanity, stability and much needed confidence.

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