ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES - The Case of Royal Bank Zimbabwe Ltd
Industry Shake-up
In
December 2003 Mzwimbi went on a well deserved family vacation to the
United States, satisfied with the progress and confident that his
sprawling empire was on a solid footing. However a call from a business
magnate in January 2004 alerted him to what was termed a looming shake-
up in the financial services sector. It appears that the incoming
governor had confided in a few close colleagues and acquaintances about
his plans. This confirmed to Mzwimbi the fears that were arising as RBZ
refused to accommodate banks which had liquidity challenges.
The
last two months of 2003 saw interest rates soar close to 900% p.a., with
the RBZ watching helplessly. The RBZ had the tools and capacity to
control these rates but nothing was done to ease the situation. This
hiking of interest rates wiped out nearly all the bank's income made
within the year. Bankers normally rely on treasury bills (TBs) since
they are easily tradable. Their yield had been good until the interest
rates skyrocketed. Consequently bankers were now borrowing at higher
interest rates than the treasury bills could cover. Bankers were put in
the uncomfortable position of borrowing expensive money and on-lending
it cheaply. An example at Royal Bank was an entrepreneur who borrowed
$120 million in December 2003, which by March 2004 had ballooned to $500
million due to the excessive rates. Although the cost of funds was now
at 900% p.a., Royal Bank had just increased its interest rates to only
400% p.a, meaning that it was funding the client's shortfall. However
this client could not pay it and just returned the $120 million and
demonstrated that he had no capacity to pay back the $400 million
interest charge. Most bankers accepted this anomaly because they thought
it was a temporary dysfunction perpetuated by the inability of an
acting governor to make bold decisions. Bankers believed that once a
substantive governor was sworn in he would control the interest rates.
Much to their dismay, on assuming the governorship Dr. Gono left the
rates untamed and hence the situation worsened. This scenario continued
up to August 2004, causing considerable strain on entrepreneurial
bankers.
On reflection, some bankers feel that the central bank
deliberately hiked the interest rates, as this would allow it to
restructure the financial services sector. They argue that during the
cash crisis of the last half of 2003, bank CEOs would meet often with
the RBZ in an effort to find solutions to the crisis. Retrospectively
they claim that there is evidence indicating that the current governor
though not appointed yet was already in control of the RBZ operations
during that time period and was thus responsible for the untenable
interest rate regime.
In January 2004, after his vacation, Mzwimbi
was informed by the RBZ that Royal had been accommodated for $2 billion
on the 28th of December 2003. The Central Bank wanted to know whether
this accommodation should be formalised and placed into the newly
created Troubled Bank Fund. However, this was expensive money both in
terms of the interest rates and also in terms of the conditions and
terms of the loan. At Trust Bank, access to this facility had already
given the Central Bank the right to force out the top executives,
restructure the Board and virtually take over the management of the
bank.
Royal Bank turned down the offer and used deposits to pay off the money. However the interest rates did not come down.
During
the first quarter of 2004 Trust Bank, Barbican bank and Intermarket
Bank were identified as distressed and put under severe corrective
orders by the Central Bank.
Royal Assault
Royal Bank
remained stable until March 2004. People who had their funds locked up
in Intermarket Bank withdrew huge sums of funds from Royal Bank while
others were moving to foreign owned banks as the perception created by
Central Bank was read by the market to mean that entrepreneurial bankers
were fraudsters.
Others withdrew their money on the basis that if
financial behemoths like Intermarket can sink, then it could happen to
any other indigenously controlled bank. Royal Bank had an advantage that
in the smaller towns it was the only bank, so people had no choice.
However even in this scenario there were no stable deposits as people
kept their funds moving to avoid being caught unawares. For example in
one week Royal Bank had withdrawals of over $40 billion but weathered
the storm without recourse to Central Bank accommodation.
At this
time, newspaper reports indicating some leakage of confidential
information started appearing. When confronted, one public paper
reporter confided that the information was being supplied to them by the
Central Bank. These reports were aimed at causing panic withdrawals and
hence exposing banks to depositor flight.
Statutory Reserves
In
March 2004, at the point of significant vulnerability, Royal Bank
received a letter from RBZ cancelling the exemption from statutory
reserve requirements. Statutory reserves are funds, (making up a certain
percentage of their total deposits), banks are required to deposit with
the Central Bank, at no interest.
When Royal Bank began
operations, Mzwimbi applied to the Central Bank - then under Dr Tsumba,
for foreign currency to pay for supplies, software and technology
infrastructure. No foreign currency could be availed but instead Royal
Bank was exempted from paying statutory reserves for one year, thus
releasing funds which Royal could use to acquire foreign currency and
purchase the needed resources. This was a normal procedure and practice
of the Central Bank, which had been made available to other banking
institutions as well. This would also enhance the bank's liquidity
position.
Even investors are sometimes offered tax exemptions to
encourage and promote investments in any industry. This exemption was
delayed due to bungling in the Banking Supervision and Surveillance
Department of the RBZ and was thus only implemented a year later,
consequently it would run from May 2003 until May 2004. The premature
cancellation of this exemption caught Royal Bank by surprise as its cash
flow projections had been based on these commencing in May 2004.
When
the RBZ insisted, Royal Bank calculated the statutory reserves and
noted that, due to a decline in its deposits, it was not eligible for
the payment of statutory reserves at that time. When the bank submitted
its returns with zero statutory reserves, the Central Bank claimed that
the bank was now due for the whole statutory reserve since inception. In
effect this was not being treated as a statutory reserve exemption but
more as a penalty for evading statutory reserves. Royal Bank appealed.
There were conflicting opinions between the Bank Supervision and Capital
Markets divisions on the issue as Bank Supervision conceded to the
validity of Royal's position. However Capital Markets insisted that it
had instructions from the top to recall the full amount of $23 billion.
This was forced onto Royal Bank and transferred without consent to the
Troubled Banks Fund at exorbitant rates of 450% p. a.
When
FML was demutualising, the executives were concerned about the
possibility of being swallowed by its huge strategic partner, Trust
Holdings. FML approached Royal Bank and other banks to act as buffers.
The agreement was that FML would fund the deal by placing funds with
Royal Bank so that Royal would not fund it from its balance sheet.
Consequently
FML would leave the deposits with Royal Bank for the tenor of the loan.
The deal was consummated through Regal Asset Managers and was to mature
in December 2004, at which time it was anticipated that the share price
of First Mutual would have blossomed, allowing Royal Bank to harvest
its investment and exit profitably. The deal resulted in Regal Asset
Managers owning 57 million FML shares. Royal Bank gave FML some
securities in the form of treasury bills as collateral for the deposit.
The
Reserve Bank and the curator wrote off this investment because at that
time FML was suspended at the ZSE. However the fact that it was
suspended did not invalidate its value. Recent events have shown that
this investment has generated huge capital value for Regal Asset
Managers as the ZSE rebounded. Yet the curator valued this investment
negatively. Around March 2004 there had been a contagion effect at FML
due to the challenges at Trust Bank. This resulted in the forced
departure of the FML CEO and ch`irman. FML was suspended from the local
bourse as investhgations into the financing structure of Capital
Alliance's acquisition were carried out. Because of the pressure brought
to bear on FML, it wanted to withdraw the deposits held by Royal Bank,
contrary to the agreement. FML could not locate and return the treasury
bills that had been provided as collateral by Royal. Royal Bank
suspected that these had been placed with ENG, another asset management
company which collapsed in December 2003. A public row broke out. Royal
Bank executives sought counsel from Renaissance Merchant Bank, which had
brokered the deal, and the Chairman of the ZSE, who both agreed with
Royal that the deal was legitimate and FML had to honour the agreement.
At this stage FML sought court intervention in an attempt to force Royal
Bank into liquidation. Even the curator contested the FML position
resulting in his taking it for arbitration. Royal's position remained
that if FML fails to return the securities then it will not get the
funds.
Royal Bank had been warned
by friendly RBZ insiders that if it ever accessed the Troubled Bank Fund
it would be in trouble, so it sought to avoid this at all costs.
However
on 4th August 2004, Royal was served with papers that effectively
placed it under the curator. Interestingly, the curator's contract was
signed two days earlier. Until this time no depositor had ever failed to
withdraw his deposits from Royal Bank.
The lack of credibility of
the Reserve Bank in handling this case is exposed when one considers
that some banks were given more than eight months to stabilise under
curators, e.g. Intermarket and CFX Banks, and were able to recover. But
Royal and Trust Bank were under the curator for less than two months
before being amalgamated. The press raised concerns about the curators
assuming the role of undertaker rather than nurse, and hence burying
these banks.This seemed to confirm the possibility of a hidden agenda on
the part of the Central Bank.
Victor Chando
Chando was an
excellent financial engineer who set up Victory Financial Services after
a stint with MBCA. He had been the brains behind the setting up of the
predecessor of Century Discount House which he later sold to Century
Holdings. Royal Bank initially had an interest in discount houses and so
at inception had included Victor as a significant shareholder. He later
acquired Barnfords Securities which Royal intended to bring in-house.
Victory
Financial Services was involved in foreign currency dealings, using
offshore companies that bought free funds from Zimbabweans abroad and
purchased raw materials for Zimbabwean corporations. One such deal with
National Foods went sour and the MD reported it to the Central Bank. On
investigations the deal was found to be clean but the RBZ went ahead to
publish that he was involved in illegal foreign currency transactions
and linked this to Royal Bank. However this was a transaction done by a
shareholder as an account holder, in which the bank had no interest.
What confused matters, was that Victory Financial Services was housed in
the same building as Royal Bank.
After failing to nail Chando to
any criminal charges, the Central Bank issued an order for Royal Bank to
force him out as a shareholder and board member. It is ridiculous that
the Central Bank would vet who is a shareholder or not in banks -
particularly when the people had no criminal records.
Negotiations
with OPEC were underway for it to take over Chando's shareholding. The
Reserve Bank was aware of these developments. OPEC would then help in
the recapitalisation as well as open up lines of credit for the bank.
Comments
Post a Comment