Chapter-5
Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision
5.1 Bangladesh Bank (BB) continued to measures initiated by BB for banks and financial focus on strengthening the financial system and institutions and also the industry statistics of the improving functioning of the various segments. banking sector and the performances trends. The broad parameters of the reforms undertaken during the year comprised ongoing A. Banking Sector Performance deregulation of the operation of institutions within the BB's regulatory ambit, tightening of 5.2 The banking sector of Bangladesh prudential regulation and improvement in comprises of four categories of scheduled supervisory oversight, expanding transparency banks. These are state-owned commercial and market disclosure, all with a view to banks (SCBs), state-owned development improving overall efficiency and stability of the finance institutions (DFIs), private commercial financial system. The following paragraphs banks (PCBs) and foreign commercial banks highlight the recent regulatory and supervisory (FCBs). The number of banks remained
Table 5.1 Banking system structure (billion Taka)
2006 2007 Bank Number Number of Total %of Deposits % of Number Number of Total %of Deposits % of types of banks branches assets industry deposits of banks branches assets industry deposits assets assets SCBs 4 3384 786.7 32.7 654.1 35.2 4 3383 917.9 33.1 699.7 32.6 DFIs 5 1354 187.2 7.8 100.2 5.4 5 1359 201.7 7.3 115.6 5.4 PCBs 30 1776 1147.8 47.7 955.5 51.3 30 1922 1426.6 51.4 1150.2 53.5 FCBs 09 48 284.9 11.8 150.8 8.1 09 53 227.7 8.2 183.4 8.5 Total 48 6562 2406.7 100.0 1860.6 100.0 48 6717 2773.9 100.0 2148.9 100.0 unchanged at 48 in 2007. These banks had a commercial banks held 8.2 percent of the total number of 6717 branches as of December industry assets in 2007, showing a declining 2007. The number of bank branches increased trend by 3.6 percentage point over the previous from 6562 to 6717 owing to opening of new year. The DFIs' share of assets was 7.3 percent branches by the PCBs during the year. Structure in 2007 against 7.8 percent in 2006. of the banking sector with breakdown by type of banks is shown in Table 5.1. 5.4 Total deposits of the banks in 2007 increased by 15.5 percent to Taka 2148.9 billion 5.3 In 2007, the state-owned commercial from Taka 1860.6 billion in 2006. The SCBs' banks (SCBs) held 33.1 percent of the total (comprising largest 4 banks) share in deposits industry assets as against 32.7 percent in 2006. decreased from 35.2 percent in 2006 to 32.6 PCBs' share rose to 51.4 percent in 2007 as percent in 2007. On the other hand, PCBs' against 47.7 percent in 2006. The foreign deposits in 2007 amounted to Taka 1150.2
39 Chapter-5 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision
Chart 5.1 Chart 5.2
Aggregate industry assets (Dec, 2006) Aggregate industry liabilities (Dec, 2006) (billion Taka) (billion Taka) Loans & Deposits, advances, 1860.6, 1543.6, 77.3% 64.1%
Govt. bills & other Other bonds, Capital & Deposit assets, liability, 252.1, 10.5% Cash in tills, reserves, with BB, 454.0, 18.9% 423.2, 135.2, 5.6% 21.8, 0.9% 122.9, 5.1% 17.6%
Aggregate industry assets (Dec, 2007) Aggregate industry liabilities (Dec, 2007) (billion Taka) (billion Taka) Deposits, Loans & 2148.9, advances, 77.5% 1724.3, 62.2%
Govt. bills & other Other bonds, Deposit assets, Capital & liability, 381.0, 13.7% with BB, Cash in tills, 479.6, 17.3% reserves, 445.0, 159.4, 5.7% 29.7, 1.1% 180.0, 6.5% 16.0% billion or 53.5 percent of the total industry Bank were Taka 159.4 billion or 5.7 percent; deposit against Taka 955.5 billion or 51.3 other assets were Taka 479.6 billion or 17.3 percent in 2006. FCBs' deposits in 2007 rose by percent and investment in Government bills and bonds accounted for 13.7 percent (Taka 381.0 Taka 32.6 billion or 21.6 percent over the billion) of the assets. previous year. The DFIs' deposits in 2007 were Taka 115.6 billion against Taka 100.2 billion in 5.6 Liabilities: The aggregate liability 2006 showing an increase of 15.4 percent over portfolio of the banking industry in 2007 was the year. Taka 2773.9 billion of which deposits constituted Taka 2148.9 billion or 77.5 percent and Aggregated Balance Sheet continued to be the main sources of fund of banking industry. Capital and reserves of the 5.5 Assets: Aggregate industry assets in banks were Taka 180.0 billion or 6.5 percent of 2007 registered an overall increase by 15.3 aggregate liabilities in 2007, as against Taka percent over 2006. During this period, SCBs' 122.9 billion or 5.1 percent in 2006. assets increased by 16.7 percent and those of the PCBs rose by 24.3 percent. Loans and Performance and Rating of Banks advances played a major role on the uses of fund. Loans and advances amounting to Taka 5.7 Performance of the banking sector under 1724.3 billion out of aggregate assets of Taka CAMELS framework, which involves analysis, 2773.9 billion constituted significant portion and evaluation of the six crucial dimensions of (62.2 percent). Cash in tills were Taka 29.7 banking operations, has been discussed in this billion (1.1 percent); deposits with Bangladesh chapter. The six indicators used in the rating
40 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision Chapter-5
system are (i) Capital adequacy, (ii) Asset Table 5.2 Capital to risk weighted assets quality, (iii) Management soundness, (iv) ratio by type of banks Earnings, (v) Liquidity and (vi) Sensitivity to (Percent) market risk. Bank types 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Capital Adequacy SCBs 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.1 -0.4 1.1 7.9 DFIs 3.2 3.9 6.9 7.7 9.1 -7.5* -6.7* -5.5* 5.8 Capital adequacy focuses on the total PCBs 10.9 9.9 9.7 10.5 10.3 9.1 9.8 10.6 position of bank capital and protects the FCBs 18.4 16.8 21.4 22.9 24.2 26.0 22.7 22.7 depositors from the potential shocks of losses Total 6.7 6.7 7.5 8.4 8.7 5.6* 6.7* 9.6* that a bank might incur. It helps absorbing major * Denotes the adjusted CAR after adjusting the cumulative financial risks (like credit risk, market risk, losses of DFIs since 2005. foreign exchange risk, interest rate risk and risk involved in off-balance sheet operations). Banks Chart 5.3 in Bangladesh have to maintain a minimum Aggregate capital adequacy position Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of not less than 10.0 percent of their risk-weighted assets (with 1800 10.5 at least 5.0 percent in core capital) or Taka 2.0 1600 9.0 1400 billion, whichever is higher. 7.5 1200 5.9 Table 5.2 shows that as on 31 December 1000 6.0 800 4.5 Percent 2007, the SCBs, DFIs, PCBs & FCBs Billion Taka 600 maintained CAR of 7.9, -5.5, 10.6 and 22.7 3.0 percent respectively. The CAR of SCBs showed 400 200 1.5 7.9 percent in 2007 after transferring the 0.0 cumulative loss for Taka 87.9 billion by creating 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 goodwill (valuation adjustments account) at the Capital RWA Capital/RWA time of corporatization of 3 SCBs. The valuation adjustment account will be amortised within 10 years. Meanwhile, the CAR of DFIs stood at -5.5 percent in 2007 after adjusting the Table 5.3 NPL ratios by type of banks cumulative losses of Taka 24.8 billion of BKB (Percent) and RAKUB. The adjusted CAR of DFIs in 2005 Bank types 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 and 2006 also stood at -7.5 percent and -6.7 SCBs 45.6 38.6 37.0 33.7 29.0 25.3 21.4 22.9 29.9 percent considering their cumulative losses of DFIs 65.0 62.6 61.8 56.1 47.4 42.9 34.9 33.7 28.6 Taka 21.9 billion and Taka 24.4 billion PCBs 27.1 22.0 17.0 16.4 12.4 8.5 5.6 5.5 5.0 respectively. 5 PCBs (including 2 problem FCBs 3.8 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.7 1.5 1.3 0.8 1.4 banks) also could not maintain required CAR in Total 41.1 34.9 31.5 28.0 22.1 17.6 13.6 13.2 13.2 2007. FCBs maintained 22.7 percent CAR in 2007 though 6 FCBs out of 9 FCBs could not maintain minimum capital for Taka 2.0 billion but advances (62.2 percent as of December 2007). they were permitted to adjust those shortfall within 30 June 2009. The CAR of the banking The high concentration of loans and advances industry was 9.6 percent in 2007 as against 6.7 indicates vulnerability of assets to credit risk, percent in 2006. The CAR of the industry especially since the portion of non-performing showed downturn in 2005 due to the adjustment assets is significant. A huge non-performing of cumulative losses by the DFIs and thereafter it has increased further positively. loan portfolio has been the major predicament of banks particularly of the state-owned banks. Asset Quality In the total assets the share of loans and 5.10 The asset composition of all scheduled advances is followed by the investment in banks shows the concentration of loans and Government securities covering 13.7 percent.
41 Chapter-5 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision
5.11 The most important indicator intended to Chart 5.4 identify problems with asset quality in the loan Aggregate position of NPLs to total loans portfolio is the percentage of gross and net non- performing loans (NPLs) to total advances. 1050 50 900 FCBs have the lowest and SCBs have the 40 highest ratio of NPLs. SCBs have gross NPLs to 750 30 total Loans of 29.9 percent whereas in case of 600 450 20 Percent PCBs, FCBs and DFIs, the ratios are 5.0, 1.4 Billion Taka 300 and 28.6 percent respectively. Similarly NPLs 10 150 net of provisions and interest suspense to the 0 0 total loans is 12.9, 1.4 and 19.0 percent for 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 SCBs, PCBs and DFIs respectively. FCBs are Total Loans NPLs NPL Ratio having excess provision for loan losses.
5.12 The ratio of NPL to total loans of all the Table 5.3(a): Ratio of net NPL to total loans by banks shows an encouraging trend since its type of banks decline from the peak (41.1 percent) in 1999, (Percent) although the aggregate ratio was still as high as Bank types 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 13.2 percent in December 2007. The reason is SCBs 41.3 34.1 32.8 30.1 28.3 17.6 13.2 14.5 12.9 being very high NPL of the SCBs and the DFIs. DFIs 58.5 54.6 54.5 48.0 38.3 23.0 22.6 23.6 19.0 5.13 The SCBs and DFIs continue to have PCBs 21.2 15.5 10.5 10.5 8.3 3.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 very high NPLs mainly due to substantial loans FCBs 0.9 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 0.1 -1.5 -2.2 -2.6 -1.9 provided by them on considerations other than Total 35.6 28.8 25.6 22.6 18.8 9.8 7.2 7.1 5.1 commercial and under directed credit programmes during the 70s and 80s. Poor Chart 5.4 (a) appraisal and inadequate follow-up and weak Aggregate position of NNPLs to total loans (net of provision) supervision of the loans disbursed by the SCBs 1050 40 and DFIs in the past eventually resulted in large 900 35 amount of poor quality assets which still 750 30 25 continue to remain significant in the portfolio of 600 20
450 Percent these banks. Furthermore, the banks were Billion Taka 15 reluctant to write off the historically bad loans 300 10 150 because of poor quality of underlying 5 0 0 collaterals. Recovery of NPLs however 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 witnessed some signs of improvement; mainly Total loans (net of provision) because of the steps taken with regard to Net NPLs NNPL ratio internal restructuring of these banks to strengthen their loan recovery mechanism and Chart 5.5 recovery drive and write off measures initiated Comparative position of NPLs by type of banks in recent years. 160 137.9 140 122.3 121.8 128.9 117.3 115.0 105.7 5.14 It appears from the Table 5.3(a) and 120 99.6 100.2 Chart 5.4 (a) that the net non performing loans 100 80 63.3 63.7 66.7 61.6 to total loans after adjustment of actual 60 48.5 44.7 49.2 Billion Taka 38.4 43.7 provision and interest suspense stands at 12.9 40 54.8 45.3 46.2 45.7 47.3 41.4 37.2 20 41.9 35.4 percent (SCBs), 19.0 percent (DFIs), 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.9 percent (PCBs) and 5.1 percent (banking 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 sector) in 2007. SCBs' and DFIs' non- performing portfolio were still high after SCBs PCBs DFIs FCBs
42 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision Chapter-5
adjustment of actual provision and interest Table 5.4 Required provision and provision suspense, whereas FCBs have excess maintained - all banks provision on their classified loans. (billion Taka) All banks 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5.15 Chart 5.5 graphically displays the Amount of 238.8 228.5 236.0 238.6 203.2 187.3 175.1 200.1 226.2 NPLs amounts in NPLs of the 4 types of banks since Required 100.2 98.4 101.6 106.8 92.5 87.8 88.3 106.1127.2 1999 through 2007. Amount of NPLs of the provision Provision 51.5 58.1 61.4 59.6 37.3 35.9 42.6 52.9 97.1 SCBs decreased from Taka 128.9 billion in 1999 maintained to Taka 115.0 billion in 2006 but again increased Excess(+)/ -48.7 -40.3 -40.2 -47.2 -55.2 -51.9 -45.7 -53.2 -30.1 shortfall(-) to Taka 137.9 billion. The PCBs also recorded a Provision 51.4 59.1 60.5 55.8 40.3 40.9 48.2 49.9 76.3 total increase of Taka 3.9 billion in their NPL maintenance ratio (%) accounts, which stood at Taka 49.2 billion in Chart 5.6 2007 as against Taka 45.3 billion in 1999. The Provision adequacy position of all banks amount of NPLs of the DFIs decreased to Taka 37.2 billion in 2007 from Taka 63.3 billion in 300 120 1999. The decline in NPL ratios in the recent 250 100 years can be attributed partly to some progress 200 80 in recovery of long outstanding loans and partly 150 60 to write-off of loans classified as 'bad' or 'loss'. Percent
Billion Taka 100 40 50 20 Loan Loss Provisioning of the Banks 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5.16 The Table 5.4 shows the aggregate Amount of NPLs Provision maintained amounts of NPLs of all banks, amounts of Provision maintenance ratio provision required to be maintained and the amounts actually provided by the banks from 1999 to 2007. Table 5.5 Comparative position of provision adequacy (billion Taka) 5.17 Table 5.4 and Chart 5.6 depict that in Year Items SCBs DFIs PCBs FCBs aggregate, the banks have been continuously failing to maintain the required level of 2006 Required provision 61.6 14.8 27.5 2.2 Provision maintained 18.2 9.1 22.6 3.1 provisions against their NPLs. During the years Provision maintenance ratio% 29.5 61.5 82.2 140.9 from 1999 through 2007, the banks could maintain 60.5 percent of the required provision 2007 Required provision 71.4 17.3 34.9 3.5 Provision maintained 56.5 8.7 28.2 3.8 in 2001, which increased thereafter to 76.3 Provision maintenance ratio% 79.1 50.3 80.8 108.6 percent in 2007. The main reasons for the continuous shortfall in provision adequacy is the inability of the SCBs and some of the PCBs Table 5.6 Weighted average deposit and lending rates (30/06/2001 - 31/12/2007) including those in problem bank category to (Percent) make sufficient provisions due to inadequate Weighted average Date Spread profits and also transferred provision for write- Deposit rate Lending rate offs. Notably the FCBs are much better in that 30/06/01 7.03 13.75 6.72 31/12/01 6.75 13.42 6.67 they have been able to make adequate 30/06/02 6.74 13.16 6.42 provisions in the recent years. A comparative 31/12/02 6.49 13.09 6.60 30/06/03 6.30 12.78 6.48 position as of end 2006 and 2007 is shown in 31/12/03 6.25 12.36 6.11 Table 5.5. 30/06/04 5.65 11.01 5.36 31/12/04 5.56 10.83 5.27 30/06/05 5.62 10.91 5.31 5.18 Out of 30 PCBs, 27 could make adequate 31/12/05 5.90 11.25 5.35 provisions, while other 3 failed to maintain 30/06/06 6.68 12.06 5.38 31/12/06 6.99 12.60 5.61 adequate provision due to their poor assets 30/06/07 6.85 12.77 5.92 portfolio and earning level. 31/12/07 6.77 12.75 5.98
43 Chapter-5 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision
Weighted Average Deposit and Lending Chart 5.7 Rates Weighted average deposit and lending rates
5.19 The weighted average deposit rate, 16 decreased from 6.85 to 6.77 percent and 14 12 weighted average lending rate of banks 10 decreased from 12.77 to 12.75 percent during 8 6 the first half of FY08. The spread between Percent 4 2 lending and deposit rate is the measure of 0 intermediation cost of banks, which has
increased over time. It was 5.92 percent at the 31/06/01 31/12/01 30/06/02 31/12/02 30/06/03 31/12/03 30/06/04 31/12/04 30/06/05 31/12/05 30/06/06 31/12/06 30/06/07 31/12/07 end of FY07, which increased to 5.98 percent in Depos it rate Lending rate the first half of FY08. Weighted average deposit and lending rates along with the spread during 30/06/2001 to 31/12/2007 have been shown in Table 5.7 Writing off bad debts in different bank Table 5.6 and Chart 5.7. categories (30/06/2004 - 31/03/2008)
Writing-off Bad Debts (billion Taka) Bank types 30/06/2004 30/06/2005 30/06/2006 30/06/2007 30/06/2008 5.20 To impede unnecessarily and artificially inflated size of balance sheet, uniform SCBs 26.3 29.7 35.7 42.8 48.4 DFIs 17.4 27.6 28.6 30.4 31.0 guidelines of write-off has been introduced in PCBs 21.2 32.9 40.7 45.5 49.4 2003. According to the policy, banks may, at any FCBs 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 time, write-off loans classified as bad/loss. Total 65.8 91.3 106.5 120.3 130.5 Those loans, which have been classified as bad/loss for last 5 years and above and loans for which 100 percent provisions have been kept, should be written-off without delay. The Table 5.8 Expenditure-income ratio by total amount of bad debts written-off from June type of banks 2004 to June 2008 in different bank categories (Percent) is given in Table 5.7. It is revealed from the Bank types 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Table 5.7 that banks have been able to write off SCBs 99.4 99.0 98.5 98.8 102.3 101.9 100.0 100.0 an amount of Taka 10.2 billion during 1 July DFIs 175.3 89.1 95.9 101.1 104.0 103.9 103.5 107.7 2007 to 30 June 2008. PCBs 90.8 88.1 91.9 93.1 87.1 89.3 90.2 88.8 FCBs 77.7 75.7 78.3 80.3 76.3 70.8 71.1 72.9 Management Soundness Total 99.9 91.2 93.3 93.9 90.9 92.1 91.4 90.4 5.21 Sound management is the most important prerequisite for the strength and growth of any Chart 5.8 financial institution. Since indicators of Aggregate position of income and management quality are primarily specific to expenditure - all banks 260 105 individual institution, these cannot be easily 240 aggregated across the sector. In addition, it is 220 200 100 difficult to draw any conclusion regarding 180 160 140 management soundness on the basis of 95 120 monetary indicators, as characteristics of a 100 80 Percent good management are rather qualitative in Billion Taka 60 90 40 nature. Nevertheless, the total expenditure to 20 total income, operating expenses to total 0 85 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 expenses, earnings and operating expenses per employee, and interest rate spread are Total expenses Total income EI ratio
44 Banking Sector Performance, Regulation and Bank Supervision Chapter-5
generally used to gauge management 5.22 It transpires from Table 5.8 and Chart 5.8 soundness. In particular, a high and increasing that expenditure-income (EI) ratio of the DFIs expenditure to income ratio indicates the was very high at 175.3 percent in 2000. This operating inefficiency that could be due to flaws was mainly because the DFIs made loan loss in management. provisions by debiting 'loss' in their books. The