Fitch Publishes 5M15 Russian Banks Datawatch
Fitch notes the following key developments in May 2015:
-Sluggish sector nominal corporate loan growth of RUB173bn (0.5%) in May was actually a moderate contraction of RUB90bn (-0.3%) if adjusted for 2% rouble depreciation against the dollar. The decrease was more or less even across the sector, although there were a few outliers. Most notably, Credit Bank of Moscow's corporate loans grew by RUB48bn (14%; mainly in FX) funded by FX repo with the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). B&N Bank and the related ROST Bank grew by, respectively, RUB17bn (12%) and RUB30bn (31%).
-Retail lending dropped RUB46bn in nominal terms (-0.4%), or RUB54bn (-0.5%) if adjusted for the FX rate change. Among retail banks only Tinkoff showed moderate 1.6% growth, Rencredit and OTP were stable, while Russian Standard, Home Credit, Sovcombank, Orient Express and Svyaznoy deleveraged by 1%-5%.
-Customer funding (excluding from government entities) nominally increased by RUB297bn (0.7%), but net of FX effects marginally fell by RUB66bn (-0.2%). Customer funding change net of FX effects comprised RUB214bn (-0.9%) outflow of corporate funding and a decent, albeit lower than in the previous month, RUB148bn (0.8%) inflow of retail deposits. Corporate funding was reduced mainly at Sberbank (RUB166bn, -2.9%) and Gazprombank (RUB171bn, -5.8%), but rose notably at Unicredit (RUB75bn, 13%) and Russian Agricultural Bank (RUB98bn, 14%). Retail funding growth was more or less even across the sector, although a few medium-sized banks were more aggressive in deposit collection: Jugra (9.5% growth), Vneshprombank (11.1%), and VBRR (11.7%).
-Although CBR decreased the base rate to 12.5% from 14% in May, the sector saw reduced state funding by RUB570bn nominally, or by RUB614bn net of rouble depreciation, as 26% of CBR funds were in dollars at end-May. Specifically, RUB721bn (RUB647bn in roubles and RUB74bn in FX) was repaid to the CBR, while RUB107bn was raised from the Finance Ministry, federal budgets and other state entities. In mid-June, the CBR further decreased the base rate to 11.5% and there may be further cuts in the medium term, provided oil prices do not fall again. However, the decrease of banks' funding costs will only be gradual, as CBR funding is about 11% of liabilities, while customer deposits may take longer to re-price.
-CBR's FX funding decreased marginally by USD1.5bn to USD34bn at end-May. The largest repayments were made by Russian Agricultural Bank (RusAg, USD450m, zero outstanding balance), Otkritie (USD710m, USD18bn outstanding) and Sovcombank (USD197m, USD848m outstanding). Credit Bank of Moscow borrowed an extra USD617m, raising its total outstanding with CBR to USD1.7bn, probably for refinancing of large corporate(s).
-The sector reported marginal RUB12bn net profit in May (2.2% annualised ROAE), but reduced to zero if net of Promsvyaz's one-off RUB12bn profit, which was due to RUB13.8bn of financial aid from its shareholders (this is reported as income in Russian regulatory accounts). Of state banks only Sberbank had a reasonable profit (RUB11bn, 6% annualised ROE), VTB Group and RusAg were moderately positive due to deferred tax gains and Gazprombank broke even. Considerable losses were reported by the bailed-out ROST (RUB14.5bn, equity became deeply negative), Alfa-Bank (RUB6.3bn, 4% of end-April equity), Uralsib (RUB1.6bn, 4%) and Raiffesenbank (RUB3.8bn, 4%). Among retail banks, decent positive net income was recorded by Sovcombank and Orient Express, although the latter was mainly due to deferred tax gains. Russian Standard had a more modest positive result, while Tinkoff was marginally above break-even. Home Credit was loss-making (RUB1.8bn, 5% of end-April equity), as were OTP (5%), Rencredit (3%) and Svyaznoy (33%, also reflecting a small equity base). Orient Express, Russian Standard and Rencredit remain vulnerable to weak performance due to tight capital buffers. Svyaznoy is already in breach of capital ratios and at risk of licence withdrawal.
- The average total capital (N1, 10% required minimum) and tier 1 (N1.1, 5% required minimum) ratios of the 100 sample banks on average decreased only marginally by, respectively, 14bps and 6bps in May. FC Otkritie and Petrocommerce significantly improved their total capital ratios (by over 400bp), as they received, respectively, RUB55.6bn and RUB9.6bn of Tier 2 capital in May under state programme of sector recapitalisation through OFZs. This not being Tier 1 capital makes it a less robust support measure, because it does not improve the banks' going-concern loss absorption capacity.
- We estimate that capital buffers of 57 of the 100 sampled banks (of those reporting capital ratios) were sufficient to absorb only up to 5% of potential loan losses, and of this 10 could only absorb less than 1%. These are Bank of Moscow (0.7%); AK Bars and Rosinterbank (both 0.8%); Promsvyazbank and Uralsib (both 0.9%); Orient Express (0.6%); Rencredit (0.1%), UBRIR (0.3%), Moscow Industrial Bank (0.4%) and Svyaznoy bank (0%, as the bank is already non-compliant).
Комментарии