Wednesday, July 2, 2014
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
Bank of the Bahamas is bracing for a $2.4 million fourth quarter hit from the 3 per cent ‘bank tax’ unveiled in the 2013-2014 Budget, its managing director yesterday expressing “cautious optimism” it would return to profitability in its 2015 financial year.
Paul McWeeney told Tribune Business that the BISX-listed institution’s results for the quarter to end-March 2014, in which the net loss for shareholders was cut by 53.5 per cent to $2.533 million, were again hit by high loan loss provisions.
This took the net loss for Bank of the Bahamas International shareholders for the nine months year-to-date to $9.88 million, a 150 per cent increase over the $3.947 million worth of red ink incurred in the same period during the 2013 financial year.
Mr McWeeney said Bank of the Bahamas results were again being impacted by the weak overall economy and high unemployment/non-performing loan rates, telling Tribune Business that a 0.7 per cent growth rate “doesn’t cut it”.
“We just have to recognise the weakness of the economic climate” he said. “A GDP growth rate of 0.7 per cent is not going to cut it. What is that when technically you need GDP growth of 7 per cent to get out of this? With a softening real estate market we have to make a decision. It is where it is.”
Bank of the Bahamas incurred a further $2.311 million in loan loss provisions during the quarter to end-March 2014, and Mr McWeeney hinted that more were to come.
In his message to shareholders, he indicated that the tepid economy, coupled with the difficulty in finding new buyers for delinquent properties, meant the BISX-listed institution was set to become even more conservative on its lending and loan loss provision policies.
Mr McWeeney said: “Given the fragile state of the economic recovery and a deepening softness in the real estate markets, the bank is taking an aggressive look at its current provisioning models with the view of taking an even more conservative approach to recognising realistic recovery values.”
Suggesting that any changes would occur this calendar year, the Bank of the Bahamas chief said its tighter policies would also apply to the extension of credit/loans as well as provisioning.
Still, sounding an optimistic note, Mr McWeeney told Tribune Business that he could see ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ when it came to the bank’s emergence from two successive years of net losses.
“We’re optimistic it will be in the next fiscal period,” he told Tribune Business of the recovery timeline. “We’re cautiously optimistic it will happen then.
“We’re confident we’re making the right decisions now to accelerate the return to profitability. Every bank has done what we have done. We have to take an outward look, leapfrog over it and make the necessary decisions. Once the market returns, the recovery is going to be great.”
After suffering a $6.217 million net loss in 2013, Bank of the Bahamas’ investors are currently staring at a collective $16 million-plus net loss over the past 21 months.
Most of that loss has been absorbed by the Bahamian taxpayer, via the National Insurance Board (NIB) and the Public Treasury, which hold a combined 65 per cent equity stake in the bank. The remaining 35 per cent is held by Bahamian institutional and retail investors.
Bank of the Bahamas may find it tough to reverse the loss-making trend in the quarter to June 2014 that has just ended.
Mr McWeeney disclosed that as a result of the new 3 per cent Business Licence tax imposed on the commercial banks in the 2013-2014 Budget, the bank was facing $2.4 million of extra costs prior to the year-end.
“That’s coming in the next (fourth) quarter,” he told Tribune Business. “It was recognised after the previous period. It’s significant. You have to adjust your business model, and don’t have advance notice to do that.”
While Bank of the Bahamas was doing that now, Mr McWeeney said business model adjustments were not as easy as “switch and click”.
Increasing charges and fee-based income had to be done against the backdrop of a competitive commercial banking sector, and Mr McWeeney said much of the loan loss provisions booked by the bank had resulted from the weak economic environment.
He added that Bank of the Bahamas would only resume dividend payments to shareholders once it returned to “sustained profitability”, but pointed out that last year’s capital injection by its government shareholder had enabled it to repay debt worth $24 million, including its mortgage-backed bonds.
In his message to shareholders, Mr McWeeney said: “Total operating income for the quarter and year-to-date decreased from prior year by approximately $2.7 million or 21.44 per cent, and $7.1 million or 19.18 per cent, respectively, and is primarily owing to a net decrease in interest income and interest expense.
“Despite an increase in license fees, the bank was able to contain the growth in operating expenses to 3.81 per cent over prior year-to-date, and we recognised loan loss provisions of $13.3 million year-to-date.”
Mr McWeeney said Bank of the Bahamas’ capital ratios remained strong and ahead of regulatory requirements, with net equity standing at $128.639 million. Deposits were down by just over $12 million for the nine months to end-March at $710.954 million.
On the operational side, Mr McWeeney told Tribune Business that the bank’s e-notifier service had been “a hit”, while it was “making really good progress” with the roll-out of its mobile card merchant terminals.
“We’re pleased with the direction of the electronic arm of the bank,” he added.
Comments
Well_mudda_take_sic says...
McWeeney is telling all stakeholders in BOB to brace themselves as BOB's financial condition and results of operations for its fiscal year 2014 will be much worse than the previous fiscal year. This is a very bitter pill for many to swallow given BOB's very poor state of affairs as reported in it audited financial statements for fiscal year 2013. By BOB's own admission in footnote 7 to those financial statements, only $152.4 million (2012: $331.4 million) of its total loans of $735.1 million (2012: $687.6 million) were considered to be a "satisfactory risk". All other loans were either past due or impaired as of June 30, 2013. Footnote 7 to last year's audited accounts also disclosed that this situation existed after having already written-off loans totalling $17.2 million and having already made additional provisions for further possible write-offs totalling $21.2 million (one can only wonder how many of these loan write-offs involved politically connected borrowers!). Restructured loans for fiscal year 2013 also increased by 56% compared to the previous year. The very significant deterioration in the quality of BOB's loan portfolio was further evidenced by the very significant spike in non-accrual loans as a percentage of total loans and total equity (non-accrual loans are poor risk loans for which no interest can be accrued as earned). Meanwhile footnote 24 to BOB's audited accounts for fiscal year 2013 disclosed that directors' fees had increased by 51% compared to the previous year and loans and advances had been made management at a low average interest rate of 2.6% per annum. To help BOB in fiscal year 2013, Christie, Gibson and McWeeney arranged for $32 million of National Insurance funds belonging to the hardworking people of this country to be injected into BOB as additional needed capital. With McWeeney warning us that BOB's financial situation for the coming fiscal year 2014 will be much worse than 2013, one can only wonder how much more of the peoples hard earned National Insurance money will be ploughed by Christie and Gibson into BOB to support its practice of making loans to politically connected persons that frequently are defaulted on and later written-off according to recent revelations in the local press.
Posted 2 July 2014, 1 p.m. Suggest removal
Reality_Check says...
This bank seems to have become a cookie jar for Christie to send his friends to, and the Central Bank would appear duplicitous by not having changes made to senior management and the board that would result in BOB being free of political interference in its lending activities. If this cannot be accomplished, the bank should be privatized or shut down in an orderly manner. McWeeney should be made to move on, or at least step down from the board so that the management team can have some semblance of independence from a government dominated board that is no doubt responsible for BOB's increasingly perilous financial predicament. ITS NOT JUST THE ECONOMY CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THIS BANK, and everyone on the street knows it!
Posted 2 July 2014, 1:25 p.m. Suggest removal
John says...
This is sickening. The entire banking system needs reform. In 2011 RBC was paying 4.5% on a fixed deposit. In 2012 it dropped to 2.5 % on the same fixed deposit.. Then that rate dwindled to 2.0 then 1.5 then to 1.0 and .75%. Then the rate went down to .25 in December 2013, 0.20% in March and in May, 2014 to 0.10 percent! So they decreased the interest rate on deposits by 4,000 percent but plan ti INCREASE THE RATE ON LOANS AND BANKING FEES!
Posted 2 July 2014, 6:44 p.m. Suggest removal
John says...
BOB problems will, in fact, be worse in 2015 than in 2014 or any of the previous years. When VAT is introduced in January 2015, this will spell an automatic 7.5% decline in economic activity. With the growth of the economy expected to be around 2%, there will be a net decline of at least 5%. A number of medium businesses plan to close before January 1, because they simply do not want to be bothered with the headache of VAT. Other businesses will close within 6 months of VAT being introduced if it causes the expected decline. Some of these business owners have signed payment agreements with BEC, National Insurance and for property tax. WHILE many have politicized the issue, these people will be losing the shirts of their backs, because some have mortgages, even at BOB, that they will not be able to pay. So they will also become homeless. They did not get to raid the cookie jar.
Posted 2 July 2014, 7:14 p.m. Suggest removal
Puzzled says...
I assume that Mr McWeeney got his full pay and any bonuses owing to him despite the bank results. Or I may be mistaken and in fact Mr McWeeney has hit all the targets set for him after the cookie jar has been raided.
Posted 4 July 2014, 12:12 p.m. Suggest removal
Log in to comment