why consolidation and mergers in ua banking is a must by vlad rashkovan, partner, sd capital
TRANSCRIPT
Why Consolidation and Mergers in UA Banking is a Must to Survive and Grow
Vladyslav Rashkovan, PartnerKyiv, 21/10/2016 1
Ukrainian Banking Forum 2016
Why to merge? Definitely not only due to the regulator’s requirements
2
Consolidation is needed for the local banks not only to survive but to increase the efficiency & effectiveness
§ Synergy (2+2>4)§ Economies of scale§ Economies of scope§ Elimination of
inefficient management
§ Entry to new geo or product markets
§ Market share and power (monopoly gains)
§ Mean and speed for growth
§ Cost of capital/funding lower (financial synergy)
§ Target undervaluation
§ Diversification§ Tax considerations
§ Empire building§ Hiding inefficiencies§ Security due to size§ Hubris
§ Capital requirements§ Bank resolutions
Banks M&A motives in UA
Economic Financial Managerial Regulatory
Increased capital requirements to be a driver for the further consolidation of the market
3
Capital requirements and number of banks which comply now
Owners to invest 23.3 bln uah of fresh capital to the banks by 2024, including 16.2 bln by 2019
+3.5 bln +5.8 bln +6.8 bln +7.1 bln
Majority of local banks are quite small and still not faced NBU capital stress tests and related parties lending questions
4
§ Top 50 banks count for ~98% of the banking sector; with top 5 = 56%; In order to be ranked in top25 bank should have assets >200 mln eur eqv;
§ Majority of 68 local banks are quite small; many of them have problems with capital and capital adequacy;
As of 30.06.2016
Note: for the purposes of this scheme Privatbank (local SIFI) recognized as a member of local banks
Different groups of banks experienced different risks during the 2014-2015 crisis, but small/mid local banks were hit the most
5
Foreign banks
Russian banks
State banks
Local SIFIs
Local banks
Insolvent banks
Related party
lendingCapitalneeds
Liquidity(deposits outf low)
NPLsNBU refinancing
Corporate gover-nance
UBOTranspa-
rency
Local banks passed through
the latest crisis in the most painful
way loosing players and MkS
Due to incapability to face fight with crisis, MkS of local banks significantly shrunk
§ During 2014-2016 the UA banking sector experienced the most sizable shake up, led to closure of 82 local banks (3 banks returned to the market being acquired from Deposit Guarantee Fund by new investors);
§ None of foreign banks has collapsed in 2014-2016, but many of them left the market after the 2008-2009 crisis;
§ MkS of local banks sizably decreased in the last 2 years (till 12.8% from 57.1% 10 years ago). 6
Number of banks by groups Assets MkS by groups of banks, bln uah
Local banks loosing MkS both in loans and deposits
§ Due to the closure of local banks and continuous deleveraging and provisioning by Russian banks, MkS of foreign banks increased in 2014-2015, but still below the levels of end of 2008;
§ Foreign banks also experience better and more sustainable growth of yields on assets (not only loans, but mostly Government securities and NBU deposit certificates) 7
Net loan portfolio MkSby groups of banks, %
Deposits MkSby groups of banks, %
Majority of the local banks are really small (avg MkS on corporate loans 0.1%, 0.07% on Retail loans)
8
Retail / Corporate Loans MkS of individual local banks as of 30.06.2016
There is no way to ensure the economy of scale / scope with such a positioning
Most of the local banks are under provisioned comparing to their foreign banks peers
9
Loan provisioning of individual local banks as of 30/06/2016
Forthcoming stress tests will bring the call for the capital
Cost of funding of the small local banks is much higher than for the larger banks
10
Cost of funding and Yilds of individual local banks as of 30/06/2016
Consolidation may bring to the financial synergy (lower costs of funding)
Many local banks have very poor efficiency ratios, below their foreign banks peers
11
NIM, CIR of individual local banks as of 30/06/2016
Consolidation is one of the tools to increase efficiency
We looked at small and mid local banks through three dimensions: sustainable ownership, business model and risk assessment
12
Ownership
Business model
Risk
Owner 48 Transparent16 Semi2 Low
Capital risk12 Low8 Mid37 High9 Very high
Related party16 Low22 Mid24 High4 Very high
Risk4 Low25 Mid21 High16 Very high
EWS27 Low20 Mid11 High8 Very high
Business model3 Retail3 Corporate41 Typical Ukr3 Universal11 Frozen5 AML
Supervision cluster1 Retail32 Market9 Not market14 Captive5 Frozen5 AML
Then we run the neural network (self-organized Kohonen map) to cluster analyzed banks according to seven indicators
13
Worst clusters# 3 & # 4
Best cluster # 1
• 22 banks in Cluster #1 – local banks which have a high probability to survive until 2020 (backed by the necessary capital increases from the shareholders, implementing the proper business models and not compromising on risks
• Other owners need to start thinking about the consolidation
Key fears of the current owners of the bank owners
14
Los
e of
con
trol
Skel
eton
s in
the
clos
etPa
rtne
rshi
p ri
sks
Dea
ls m
echa
nics
All risks are manageable – lets start developing the consolidation learning curve
2 key formulas worth to memorize for the owners of small banks
15
50% x 1 > 100% x 0
50% x 1 = 25% x 2
Better to be open and prepared for the mergers than to prepare for the exit
Our contacts
16
SD Capital LLC
Business Center TorontoVelyka Vasylkovska 100Kyiv – 03150, Ukraine
Tel: +38 044 363 0000Email: [email protected]