Fintech - disruptive technology

http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2016/05/21/fintech-disruptive-technology/

Businesses are embracing it by coming up with their innovations and startups

A BUZZWORD growing in popularity in the financial world today is “fintech”, short for financial technology, which in a nutshell refers to the use of technology to deliver faster and cheaper financial services.

Going by some predications, fintech could take a big chunk of business away from traditional banks as it is being run by smaller more nimble start-ups. But the debate is still out there as to how much that chunk will be. In Malaysia in particular, fintech’s presence is still nascent and small. Fintech transactions totalled a mere US$6.37mil this year compared with a global figure of US$769.3bil, according to Statista, an online statistics provider.

It however predicts that fintech transaction values to grow to US$14.4bil by 2020. A significant number of fintech companies, especially those in the digital payments space, actually work alongside local banks.

Still, fintech is not to be taken lightly. Top bankers themselves are speaking of its imminent threat to their business. Former Barclays CEO Anthony Jenkins referred to it as banking’s “Uber moment” to describe technological advances that could see bank branches close down and people laid off.

Last April, Jamie Dimon the CEO of the US’ largest bank JP Morgan in his letter to shareholders warned that “Silicon Valley is coming.” “There are hundreds of start-ups with a lot of brains and money working on various alternatives to traditional banking,” Dimon wrote.

On the home front, just last month prominent banker Datuk Seri Nazir Razak echoed such views. Speaking at the Star Media Group’s PowerTalk: Business Series held at Menara Star, Nazir opined that fintech companies are disrupting banking.

“Bankers must respond to this Uber moment. People actually dislike banks today, since the global financial crisis. Recent data suggests that in the US, the cost of banking intermediation has not changed for 100 years in real terms. This simply means banks have not gotten more efficient over the years, so its right that banks get attacked by ‘Silicon Valley’, which has identified banking as an industry that is very ‘ripe’ or juicy to disrupt.”

Even the central bank is echoing these views.

In his maiden keynote address at an Islamic finance conference in Kuala Lumpur last week, Malaysia’s newly-appointed Bank Negara governor Datuk Muhammad Ibrahim gave a grim reminder to banks of the threats posed by fintech. In particular, Muhammad quoted from a report by McKinsey that 10% to 40% of banking revenue is possibly at risk by 2025 due to innovations outside banking institutions that are able to offer a significant pricing advantage and that technologically-driven applications had spread to nearly every segment of the financial sector, with the number of fintech start-ups having doubled in the last year. “Fintech is challenging the status quo of the financial industry,” he said.

To be fair, Malaysian banks are quick to point out that while fintech does represent a disruption to business, they are embracing the movement, by coming up with their own fintech innovations or by working with fintech startups.

So what is fintech?

In a nutshell, fintech is an economy of companies using technology to improve efficiencies and effectiveness in the financial services industry. To illustrate the offerings of fintech companies, consider the business model of homegrown start-up MoneyMatch, which is modelled after UK-based TransferWise which began in 2011 and today moves US$10bil a year through its platform.

MoneyMatch has created a platform to match individual buyers and sellers of currencies, with the attraction of both sides enjoying better exchange rates than what banks and even money changers offer. The rate used by the MoneyMatch site is the middle rate of the currency exchange spread. So an individual for example, willing to buy US$100 for his travels will be matched with someone wanting to change his US$100 into ringgit. The parties will be matched on this application and then proceed to make their exchange in an agreed location. MoneyMatch is also entering the area of cross border fund transfers.

“For example, someone in Singapore wishing to transfer money to Malaysia can be matched with someone here wishing to send an equal amount of money across the Causeway. Hence the parties can make the respective transfers to local accounts of their choice after an exchange of information. This means the transfer is done minus any cross-border transfer fees,” explains MoneyMatch co-founder Naysan Munusamy, who had spent many years as a forex trader with a number of banks before venturing out to start MoneyMatch.

Peer lending

One key growth area in fintech is peer to peer or P2P lending, online platforms that match borrowers with lenders, bypassing the traditional financial institutions. The business had even attracted big names such as Goldman Sachs. The most notable name in this space is Lending Club, which had launched its service as far back as 2007 and became the US’ largest technology IPO in 2014, raising around US$1bil.

Lending Club claims that its platform – which enables borrowers to get unsecured loans of US$1,000 to US$35,000 – has now helped originate close to US$16bil in loans.

Locally, last month the Securities Commission (SC) launched a regulatory framework for P2P lending, paving the way for small and medium-sized companies to access this new avenue of debt funding. Under SC’s rules though, individuals are not allowed to raise money on the local P2P platforms. Rather it is meant to only fund projects and businesses and a number of safeguards are in place. For example, those behind the operator of the P2P platform need to pass the “fit and proper” test; the rate of financing cannot be more than 18% (as that would be deemed predatory lending) and that the P2P operator has to disclose information related to the issuer and the risk assessment and credit scoring parameters adopted by the operator. There is no authorized P2P platform in Malaysia yet as parties wishing to run such platforms have to submit their application to the SC soon.

In China, P2P lending has virtually exploded. As a recent report by Citibank highlights, “China is past the tipping point”, with fintech companies having similar number of clients as the major banks. The report notes that China is the largest P2P lender in the world, with transactions topping US$66bil, compared with the US with only US$16.6bil.

Regulating fintech

But there are problems. Some unregulated P2P platforms in China had run scams. Others helped fuel an equity roller-coaster by offering funding for stock investments. This led to the Chinese benchmark index rallying more than 150% in the 12 months to last June before abruptly crashing. The Chinese authorities are now cleaning up the P2P sector.

So what are the risks of fintech regulation in Malaysia? And do companies like MoneyMatch need be regulated and licensed?

In an emailed reply to StarBizWeek, Bank Negara says: “Fintech start-ups that engage in activities under the purview of the central bank must comply with existing laws”. Bank Negara explains that regulated businesses include banking, insurance or takaful, money changing, remittance, operating a payment system or issuing payment instruments.

“A fintech company that engages in any activity that falls within the definition of a regulated business must be properly authorised to do so under the relevant laws.

“As an example, collecting deposits via a fintech platform would require approval from Bank Negara.

“A fintech company that is authorised to conduct a regulated business under the laws that Bank Negara administers will be subject to the oversight of Bank Negara pursuant to those laws.”

What this indicates is that Bank Negara is going to regulate fintechs the same way it does banks. But exactly how, it still isn’t clear.

But the good news is this: Bank Negara says it is engaging with firms in this space (and presumably that includes the likes of MoneyMatch), “to understand and where appropriate facilitate their business and provide guidance on aspects on regulation that would be applicable to them.”

Bank Negara adds that it is in the process of formulating a framework that “encourages innovation without undermining financial stability, the integrity of the financial system or the adequate protection for financial consumers.”

The SC has also been pushing for fintech innovation to develop in Malaysia. Last year, Malaysia became the first country in the region to introduce the regulatory framework for equity crowd funding. (While P2P is about companies raising debt, crowd funding is for entrepreneurs to sell equity to investors.)

The SC has also launched aFINity@SC, a fintech community aimed at industry engagement and more recently launched the P2P financing framework, which is aimed at addressing the funding needs of small businesses.

Chin Wei Min, the SC’s new head of innovation and digital strategy, says: “We think fintech can provide solutions to some of the unserved and underserved needs in the capital market.”

Chin adds: “We are also mindful of the risk, fraud and all the pitfalls. We continue to enhance our engagement model. We want to remain very close to the industry.”

Fintech’s hiccups

Some recent developments in the fintech space, however, point to weaknesses in fintech companies. LendingClub, the poster boy company for P2P lending has seen its shares tumble, wiping out about a third of its market value.

This came as it faces scrutiny after its founder and CEO resigned following an investigation into improper loan sales.

The US Treasury has released a report criticising the P2P lending business, recommending it to be more tightly regulated. Some commentators are liking P2P lending to the early days of the subprime mortgage bubble of 2006-07.

It is more likely though that the experiences of fintech in mature markets like China and the US will serve as good guides as to how this business will grow in this part of the world, with the requisite regulations put in place.

And the jury is still out as to whether traditional banks here will lose significant parts of their businesses to fintech start-ups.

Or as one industry observer puts it, fintech is more likely to usurp the business of the shadow banking market here, as some unserved borrowers now have the option to move away from loan sharks or “Ah Longs” and into the crowd funding or P2P platforms. But after that, banks could be next.

By Risen Jayaseelan, Wong Wei-Shen, and Zunaira Saieed The Star


Related story:


Banking on fintech  



Related post:

Rightways: One phone to rule all; Fintech, the healthy disruptors of ...

Apr 16, 2016 ... WHO dominates the phone dominates the Internet. The whole world of information is now available in your hand, replacing your own mind as a ...

The alchemy of money

Former Bank of England governor claims that for over two centuries, economists have struggled to provide rigorous theoretical basis for the role of money and have largely failed.

The Bank of England in the City of London.

MONEY makes the world go round, so you would have thought that economists understand what money is all about.

The former governor of the Bank of England, Lord Mervyn King, has just published a book called The End of Alchemy, which made a startling claim that “for over two centuries, economists have struggled to provide rigorous theoretical basis for the role of money, and have largely failed.” This is a serious accusation from a distinguished academic turned central banker.

Alchemy is defined as the ability to create gold out of base metals or the ability to brew the elixir of life. King identifies that the main purpose of financial markets is to help real economy players to cope with “radical uncertainty”. But as we discovered after the global financial crisis, financial risk models widely used by banks narrowly defined risks as statistical probabilities that could be measured. By definition, radical uncertainty is an “unknown unknown” that cannot be measured. It was no wonder that the banks were blind to the blindness of financial models, which conveniently assumed that what cannot be measured does not exist. Ergo, no one but dead economists is to blame for bank failure.

When money was fully backed by gold, money was tied to real goods. But when paper currency was invented, money became a promisory note, first of the state – fiat money, supported by the power to impose taxes to repay that debt, and today, bank-created money, which is backed only by the assets and equity of the bank. The power to create “paper” money is truly alchemy – since promises by either the state or the banks can go on almost forever, until the trust runs out.

Today national money supply comprises roughly one-fifth state money (backed by sovereign debt) and four-fifths bank deposits (backed by bank loans and bank equity). Banks can create money as long as they are willing to lend, and the more they lend to finance bad assets, the more alchemy there is in the system.

A good description of financial alchemy is provided by FT columnist Prof John Kay, whose new book, Other People’s Money, is a masterpiece in the diagnosis of financialisation – how the finance industry traded with itself and (almost) ignored the real world. For example, Kay claimed that British banks’ “lending to firms and individuals in the production of goods and services – which most people would imagine was the principal business of a bank – amounts to about 3% of that total”. How is it possible that “the value of the assets underlying derivative contracts is three times the value of all the physical assets in the world”?

The answer is of course leverage. Finance is a derivative of the real economy, which can be leveraged or multiplied as long as there is someone (sucker?) willing to believe that the derivative has a “sound” relationship with the underlying asset. There are two pitfalls in that alchemy – a sharp decline in leverage and a fall in the value of the underlying asset – which were triggers of the global crash of 2007, as fears of Fed interest rate hikes tightened credit and questions asked about risks in subprime mortgage assets that were the underlying assets of many toxic derivatives.

Unfortunately, as we found to everyone’s costs, the banking system itself became too highly leveraged relative to its obligations, without sufficient equity nor liquidity to absorb market shocks.

The real trouble with financialisation is that central bankers, having not taken away the punch bowl when the party got really heady, cannot attempt anything like even trying to move in that direction without spoiling the whole party. Any attempt to raise interest rates by the Fed would be considered Armageddon by those who have huge vested interests in bubbly asset markets. Instead, central bankers like Mario Draghi has to continue to talk “whatever it takes” to continue the game of financialisation.

King’s recommendation that central banks reverse alchemy by behaving like pawnbrokers for all seasons (having collateral against all lending) can only be implemented after the next and coming crisis. Central bank discipline, like virginity, cannot be replaced once lost. The market will always think that in the end, it will be bailed out by central banks. In the end the market was right – it was bailed out and will be bailed out. In the game of playing chicken with finance, the politicians will always blink.

If we accept that radical uncertainty lies at the heart of finance, then money makes the world go around because it provides the lubricant of trade and investment. Without that lubricant, trade and investment would slow down significantly, but with too much lubricant, the system can rock itself to pieces.

The dilemma of central banks today is also globalisation. In addition to the Fed controlling dollar money supply within the US borders, there are US$9 trillion of dollars created outside the US borders over which the Fed has no control. Money today can be created in the form of Bitcoins, computerised digital units that tech people use to trade value. But Bitcoins ultimately need to be changed into dollars. So as long as someone will accept Bitcoins, digital currency become convertible money.

We got into a monetary crisis in which bad money drove out good. The reason was because the financial sector, in collusion with politics, refused to accept that there were losses in the system, so it printed more money to hide or roll over the losses. Surprise, surprise, there was no inflation, because the real economy, having become bloated with excess capacity financed by excess leverage, had in the short run no effective demand. So inflation at the global level is postponed.

But if climate change disrupts the weather and create food supply shortages, inflation will return, initially in the emerging economies, which cannot print money because they are not reserve currencies. In time, inflation will come back to haunt the reserve currency countries. But not before the emerging markets go into crises of inflation or banking first.

Money is inherently unfair – the rich will always suffer less than the poor.

In medieval times, only those with real money could afford alchemy. If it was true then, it remains true today.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on global affairs from an Asian perspective.



Related posts:

 Modern finance and money being managed like a Ponzi scheme ! Economic Collapse soon?

Mar 5, 2016 ... Ponzi schemes and modern finance. Andrew Sheng says when the originator of a scheme to pass on debt to others is also 'too big to

Hedge funds invasion of US treasuries puts bond at risk, more turbulence in US debts market

Mar 29, 2016 ... Hedge funds invasion of US treasuries puts bond at risk, more ... into U.S. Treasuries, and that has bond traders bracing for more turbulence. ... The Treasury Department is already looking into whether the market isn't running ...

Malaysia's ringgit has done a stunning about-face as China starts buying Malaysian bonds

 

The market is saying that this recovery in oil prices will be pretty positive for the Malaysian economy," said Kelvin Tay, chief investment officer for southern Asia Pacific at UBS Wealth Management in Singapore.

SINGAPORE: Malaysia's ringgit has done a stunning about-face this year, with surging capital inflows turning it into Asia's best-performing currency from the region's worst in 2015.

Still, few expect the ringgit to regain all the ground lost last year, as inflows may have peaked as Malaysian risk assets are starting to look pricey to investors and analysts.

The ringgit strengthened 10 percent against the U.S. dollar in January-March, its largest quarterly gain since 1973, Thomson Reuters data shows.

In 2015, the ringgit had its worst year since 1997, shedding 18.5 percent on the back on plunging oil prices, anticipated higher U.S. interest rates and a financial scandal at state-owned 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Driving the currency's U-turn is the return of foreign investors, who have poured into Malaysian stocks and bonds on better crude oil prices, a surprisingly resilient economy and easier monetary policies from major central banks.

"The market is saying that this recovery in oil prices will be pretty positive for the Malaysian economy," said Kelvin Tay, chief investment officer for southern Asia Pacific at UBS Wealth Management in Singapore.

In February, exports rose faster than expected. Sales of electrical and electronic products, the biggest item, increased 8.9 percent from a year earlier.

JACKED-UP HOLDINGS

Through the week ended April 1, foreign investors bought a net 5.5 billion ringgit ($1.4 billion) of Kuala Lumpur stocks this year, data from the research arm of Malaysian Industrial Development Finance showed. Last year had total outflows of 19.5 billion ringgit, it said.

Offshore investors have raised their local bond holdings by 11.8 billion ringgit in January-March, central bank data shows, with increased interest in longer-tenor debt. For all of last year, foreigners slashed holdings by 11.1 billion ringgit.

The cautious stance of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen on U.S. rate hikes has caused investors to seek higher yields in Asia, aiding flows into Malaysia.

"This combination of an attractive currency valuation and higher yields in a world of low or negative interest rates is drawing foreign investors back to the local Malaysian market," said Eric Delomier, Asia fixed income investment specialist for Capital Group of the U.S.

Analysts and investors have concerns, including valuations of Malaysian assets and leadership of the central bank as its internationally-respected governor, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, retires at the end of April, and her successor has not been named.

Malaysian bonds seem "a bit rich," said Maybank Investment Bank's fixed income analyst Winson Phoon in Kuala Lumpur. Earlier this month, the 10-year yield fell to 3.77 percent, the lowest since February 2015.

SMALL INFLOWS AHEAD?

"I don't expect to see a repeat large inflows in months ahead, although the direction should remain slightly positive," Phoon said.

On share valuations, "Malaysia is actually not particularly cheap or attractive, compared to other markets," Tay of UBS said. "We don't think earnings growth has actually improved among Malaysian corporates."

Local stocks were trading at about 17.3 times the past 12 months' earnings, according to Thomson Reuters data. That compared with 11.8 times for Indonesian stocks, according to exchange data.

Zeti has led Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) since 2000, and investors are hoping for a successor with her credibility to help Malaysia's standing at a time of political crisis for Prime Minister Najib Razak, chairman of 1MDB's advisory board.

"Given the near-term challenges to a new BNM governor, oil prices and festering political risk from 1MDB, among other things, the ringgit's upside is limited," said Andy Ji, Asian currency strategist for Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Singapore.

His year-end target for the ringgit is 3.70 per dollar, 16 percent appreciation from its 2015 closing. Late Friday, the ringgit was at 3.90.- Reuters

China starts buying Malaysian bonds

 

Ong: ‘The Chinese government is keen to buy more Malaysian bonds

KUALA LUMPUR: China’s government has started buying more Malaysian government securities (MGS) and this inflow of new foreign money could rise to 50 billion yuan (RM30bil) in total, according to International Trade and Industry Minister II Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan.

In an exclusive interview with The Star, Ong said a senior representative of the Bank of China told him about this development recently when he met with the bank on issues pertaining to the use of yuan and ringgit in Malaysia-China direct trade.

“This could be one of the key factors contributing to the strength of the ringgit lately. China’s purchase of our MGS, which I am under the impression could rise to 50 billion yuan, will be very positive for our currency as it shows China’s confidence in our economy,” Ong said.

Other factors that had contributed to the strength of the ringgit in recent weeks included the recovery of crude oil prices, softer US dollar and the successful debt rationalisation of 1MDB, he added.

If China were to buy RM30bil worth of MGS, it would mean supporting 8.5% of Malaysia’s debts in the current MGS market. According to Bank Negara’s website, the value of outstanding MGS stood at RM352.06bil as at April 5, 2016.

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s debt markets saw inflows of RM11.5bil, versus RM1.4bil of outflows in February. The March foreign inflow was the largest monthly inflow since May 2014, according to a Nomura research note on April 7.

The inflows pushed foreign holdings of MGS to a historical high of RM171.5bil, the Japanese research house said. As a result, foreign ownership in outstanding MGS has risen to 48.7%.

Ong noted that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang had pledged to support the Malaysian economy – which was hit by a slowdown, local political problems, heavy outflow of funds and consequent plunge of the ringgit – when he visited Kuala Lumpur last November.

On Nov 23, the Chinese leader announced at a local forum that China would buy more MGS, issue yuan bonds in Kuala Lumpur and grant local institutional funds a quota of 50 billion yuan under the Renminbi Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor programme to invest directly in Chinese equities in the mainland.

The following day, the ringgit reacted positively gaining about 1% and the currency stabilised at around 4.25 to a US dollar in early December. MGS also gained.

“I was told China would use its reserves to buy our bonds. Its international reserves are high, at US$3.21 trillion (RM12.5 trillion) in March. With this development, I don’t think our ringgit will fall to 4.46 again,” said Ong.

Last month, Bank Negara said there were now more foreign governments and central banks holding MGS. A total of 29% was held by these two groups and 13% by pension funds.

The presence of these long-term investors is seen as reducing the risk of Malaysia facing sudden and massive outflows of capital in the event of unfavourable conditions, just like what had occurred last September, which saw the ringgit weakening to a multi-year low of 4.46.

Foreign inflow into the local stock market might be another factor that has boosted the ringgit. According to a Credit Suisse report, Malaysia saw a record net foreign equity inflow of RM6.1bil in March, which contributed to the ringgit’s 10.3% rise against the dollar in January-March 2016. At late trades on Friday, the ringgit stood at 3.9096.

Due to the recent new inflows, Bank Negara’s foreign exchange reserves had risen to RM412.3bil (US$96.1bil) as at March 15 from RM408.5bil (US$95.1bil) as at Jan 15. This reserves figure is an important buffer against capital flows and has an impact on the ringgit and the sovereign credit rating of the country. Moody’s recently noted this buffer has improved.

Ong also said China would like to see Malaysia conducting roadshows in the mainland so that there is better understanding of Malaysia’s fundamentals and its bonds.

“The representative of Bank of China also told me the Chinese government is keen to buy more MGS, but they also hope our central bank could go there to market our MGS. I have conveyed this to Bank Negara. It is up to them to act,” says Ong.

Ong, who is also MCA secretary-general, noted that China’s huge direct investments had also boosted the ringgit’s sentiment.

The ringgit rose sharply in March partly due to the conclusion of the sale of 1MDB’s energy assets to China’s state-owned China General Nuclear Power Corp for RM9.83bil, as the absorption of all the debts of Edra Global Energy Bhd has reduced the systemic risk to pubic finance, banking system and economy.

Ong is confident that Kuala Lumpur is able to attract more major Chinese investments into the country this year due to Malaysia’s strong bilateral ties with China as well as the many free trade agreements – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement – Malaysia has signed with various countries and groupings.

By Ho Wah Foon The Star

Related articles:

 Ringgit opens higher against the dollar

 Boston Scientific plant in Penang to be ready by 2017



Related posts:

Malaysia's pragmatic patriot: friends with benefits

The South China Sea dispute. The global terrorism threat. Malaysia’s foreign policy is back in the world’s spotlight and it is exciting

Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Drop? Simple Economics

      Some think it will be years before oil returns to $90 or $100 a barrel, a price that was pretty much the norm over the last decade....

 Foreign funds comeback, rising interests in Malaysian properties and equities

Foreign interest in Malaysian real estate picks up: Knight Frank

Public Bank Q4 profit up 19%; RM5bil earnings for 2015

Public Bank Head Office in Kuala Lumpur - Founder and chairman Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow said expectations were for intense competition for market share

Public Bank Q4 profit up 19% but warns of challenges ahead

Public Bank Bhd, the country’s third largest bank, reported an increase of 19% in its fourth quarter net profit which stood at RM1.49bil compared to the net profit of RM1.25bil for the same period a year earlier but warns of challenges ahead.

Founder and chairman Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow said expectations were for intense competition for market share.

“And the more stringent capital and liquidity requirement will continue to put pressure on net interest margin and return on equity,” Teh said in a statement.

The bank’s increase in its fourth quarter ended Dec 31, 2015 net profit was boosted largely by a net writeback of loan impairment allowances and higher net interest income, it said in the statement yesterday.

It also announced a second interim divided of 32 sen per share for shareholders, bringing total dividends for the year to 56 sen per share or a total payout of 42.7% of the bank’s net profit last year.

For the entire FY15, Public Bank’s net profit stood at RM5.06bil which translates to a net return on equity of 17.8%, against a net profit of RM4.52bil in FY14 while revenue stood at a higher RM19.18bil compared with RM16.86bil earlier.

Public Bank continued to be the most efficient banking group in the country with its low cost-to-income ratio of 30.5% compared to the banking industry’s average cost-to-income ratio of 45.5%. It also continued to maintain a healthy level of capital with its common equity Tier 1 capital ratio, Tier 1 capital ratio and total capital ratio standing at 10.9%, 12.0% and 15.5% respectively as at the end of 2015, after deducting the second interim dividend, it said.

In FY15, the bank grew its loans by 11.6%, aided by its retail banking segment and extension of credits to small and medium enterprises while total customer deposits saw a growth of 8.9%.

Its domestic customer deposit grew by 7.5%, higher than industry’s growth of 1.8%.

As at the end of 2015, the group’s impaired loan ratio was at 0.5%, significantly lower than the industry ratio of 1.6% while its loan loss coverage ratio of 120.8% as at the end of last year was also higher compared to the local banking industry’s ratio of 96.2%.

Teh said growing fee-based revenue remained a key strategic focus of the Public Bank group.

“Arising from the group’s initiative to drive growth of its non-interest income in order to sustain better return for its shareholders, the group’s non-interest income increased by 22.4% in 2015 as compared to 2014, mainly contributed by higher income from its unit trust business, foreign exchange related transactions and fee income from banking operations,” he said.

Shares of Public Bank finished yesterday higher at RM18.38, up 4 sen.

Public Bank's 2015 earnings cross RM5bil mark 

 

 

Public Bank's Founder and chairman Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow

KUALA LUMPUR: Public Bank Bhd recorded a stellar set of results, with net profit surpassing RM5bil for the financial year ended Dec 31, 2015. It rewarded shareholders by declaring a second interim dividend of 32 sen per share, bringing the full-year dividend to 56 sen.

The total dividend paid and payable for 2015 amounted to RM2.16bil and represents a total payout of 42.7% of the group’s net profit for 2015.

Public Bank posted a net profit of RM5.06bil, up 12% from RM4.52bil it recorded a year ago, translating to a net return on equity of 17.8% for 2015. Revenue was 13.8% higher at RM19.18bil compared with RM16.86bil in 2014.

In its filing with Bursa Malaysia on Wednesday, the bank said it owed its improved earnings to higher net interest income, higher non-interest income and lower loan impairment allowances.

However, these were partially offset by higher operating expenses due to higher personnel costs.

Gross loans grew 11.6% to RM273.4bil driven by growth in property financing, financing of passenger vehicles and lending to SMEs.

Deposits from customers were 8.9% higher to RM301.2bil, which partly contributed to the higher net interest income during the year.

"The results reflected the consistent execution of the group’s organic growth strategy which continues to deliver favourable results to our customers and our shareholders,” said founder and chairman Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow in a statement.

He added that the bank's robust funding position was mainly supported by its strong retail franchise and large domestic depositor base of over five million customers who continue to place their trust and confidence in the group in safeguarding their funds.

Public Bank’s impaired loan ratio improved to 0.5% as at end-December 2015.

For the fourth quarter, the bank posted a 19% year-on-year gain in net profit to RM1.49bil while revenue was 8.8% higher at RM4.93bil.

Moving forward, the group said it will leverage on its internal strength and capitalise on its customer service and service delivery to maintain its leading market share in the domestic retail segment, supported by steady demand for home mortgages, vehicle financing and SME lending.

By Wong Wei-Shen The Star/Asia News Network

Related posts:

   Rich Malaysians get richer!

Mar 4, 2011 ... As for banker Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow of Public Bank Bhd, a close to 20% rise in his personal value sees him displacing IOI Corporation Bhd's ...

   HSBC Bank to cut 50,000 jobs in major overhaul: slash ...

Jun 10, 2015 ... HSBC to cut 50,000 jobs, slash investment bank and shrink risk by $290 billion. HONG KONG/LONDON: HSBC will shed almost 50,000 jobs ...

HSBC to freeze salaries, hiring in 2016 in battle to cut costs

  Pay and hiring freeze possible at HSBC Video: https://youtu.be/Q4V8L-98LVY   Why Refusing a Pay Cut May Get You Fire? HSBC Holdin...

HSBC to freeze salaries, hiring in 2016 in battle to cut costs

 

Pay and hiring freeze possible at HSBC

Video: https://youtu.be/Q4V8L-98LVY  

Why Refusing a Pay Cut May Get You Fire?

HSBC Holdings Plc will impose a global hiring and pay freeze as part of its drive to cut as much as $5 billion in costs by the end of 2017.

The measures, which affect the consumer and investment banking businesses, were outlined in a memorandum received by employees on Friday, Gillian James, a spokeswoman for the bank, said Sunday in an e-mailed statement. Europe’s largest bank, which will release full-year earnings on Feb. 22, is mulling whether to move its headquarters away from London, partly because of the tax burden and tougher regulatory scrutiny.

“This is in line with HSBC’s moves to lower operating costs,” said Richard Cao, a Shenzhen-based analyst at Guotai Junan Securities Co. “HSBC can’t escape from the global economic slowdown and worsening asset quality like other global banks.”

HSBC Chief Executive Officer Stuart Gulliver, 56, in June outlined a three-year plan to pare back a sprawling global network by shutting money-losing businesses and eliminate as many as 25,000 jobs as he seeks to boost profitability. Barclays Plc extended a freeze on hiring new staff indefinitely in December, while European lenders including Credit Suisse Group AG and Deutsche Bank AG are cutting thousands of jobs to shore up earnings.

The moves were reported earlier by Reuters.

The shares fell 1.6 percent to 484.25 pence at 10:10 a.m. in London, extending losses this year to about 9.6 percent. They dropped 12 percent in 2015.

Under its three-year plan, the London-based lender is seeking to reduce the number of full-time employees by between 22,000 and 25,000. In the U.K., the bank may eliminate as many as 8,000 jobs.

As part of its focus on more profitable markets, HSBC is reviewing its operations in Lebanon and may exit the Middle Eastern country, people with knowledge of the matter said earlier this month. The bank is closing its Indian private-banking business, people familiar with that move said in November.

HSBC is close to concluding an eight-month review into the best location for its headquarters, with Hong Kong seen as the leading candidate city. The lender is likely to stay based in London due to the vast logistics of relocating, Martin Gilbert, chief executive officer of Aberdeen Asset Management Plc, told Bloomberg Television in January. Aberdeen is one of the British bank’s biggest shareholders.- Bloomberg

Related posts:

  HSBC Bank to cut 50,000 jobs in major overhaul: slash ...

Jun 10, 2015 ... At the investment bank, HSBC plans to cut RWAs by a net $130-billion, or 31 per cent, while “keeping costs flat.” The global banking and ...

  HSBC Bank officer charged for stealing money from ...

Aug 21, 2014 ... Nur Shila faces 12 principal charges in relation to transferring money from the HSBC Bank accounts to other bank accounts, theft, getting ...

 HSBC exposed: Drug money banking, terror dealings ...

Jul 18, 2012 ... HSBC concealed more than $US16 billion in sensitive transactions to Iran, ... SHAMED HSBC Bank executives have admitted to allowing Iran, ...

 

Barclays, HSBC, BoA among big European, US Banks ... Aug 3, 2011 ... LONDON (MarketWatch) — A running tally of planned job cuts by European banks reached around 40,000 Tuesday, little more than halfway ...    HSBC makes £13.8bn profits Feb 28, 2012 ... HSBC's annual profits rose 15% to £13.8bn ($21.9bn) in what it called a year ... The bank said that 2011 was a year of major progress for HSBC. HSBC's US$2b cover Money is for cost of US probe and compensation Jul 31, 2012 ... The report criticised a “pervasively polluted” culture at the bank and said that HSBC's Mexican operations had moved US$7bil into the bank's ...    Bank losses worrisome ! Jun 6, 2013 ... UK, European and Asian banks, on average, forecast losses of nearly 30% higher than ... HSBC, the largest British bank, has appointed former ...

Property is the safest way to invest

Liquidity risk: If your objective of purchasing properties is to leave your child or children with a sizeable monetary legacy when you pass on, there may be other viable alternatives.

Works on fundamentals still vital

TIME and time again, we hear about the need to save up to buy our first property. Then we hear about why we should save up to buy the next property (presumably for the “certainty” of investment gains), and the success stories of those who made their first million, primarily through property investment.

So, anyone who has received a healthy dose of these for a few years would naturally deduce that in order to gain significant returns to our investment portfolio, the key is property. This does not always hold true.

As with any investment, you must still go through the fundamental questions that help you ascertain whether property is the right tool for you.

We will get back to what these fundamental questions are after forming a backdrop from two somewhat representative examples.

In 2009, 38-year-old Albert bought a 4,300 sq ft condominium at a prestigious location in the heart of Kuala Lumpur for RM4.3mil. At RM1,000 per sq ft, many would deem this a good buy; more so now that the current market value has risen to RM5.1mil.

Now, let’s see this “gain” from a different perspective. Since Albert bought the property for investment purposes, he had two options to earn returns from this investment – either rent it out for an amount higher than the loan repayment value, or sell the property to monetise the higher market value.

Unfortunately for Albert, he has as yet not been able to find a buyer even though it has been six years since he bought the property. Given the softer property market, although he has been lucky to find a tenant, he is receiving a rental yield that is lower than his loan repayment. This is fine as long as Albert remains gainfully employed and is able to afford the loan repayment for as long as it takes to sell the property.

Capital gain

Let us look at another property owner. Also in 2009, Nik and Sara, a newly-married couple, purchased a 3,100 sq ft landed residential property in a fast-developing suburb in the Klang Valley for RM350,000. Unlike Albert, they bought the property for their own residential use.

Over the years, given that their home is located close to a major shopping mall and to the highway, the market value of their property rose to the current RM1mil.

Did they “gain” from this property? Similar to Albert’s case, in order for Nik and Sara to make capital gains from this property, they would need to sell it to lock-on the value.

However, since they are residing in that property, selling it would mean looking for alternative accommodation.

Would they be able to maintain the same standard of living (i.e. an equally convenient 3,100 sq ft living space, and so forth) with the proceeds received from the property sale? If not, then like for Albert, the higher market value would not have resulted in any direct investment gain for them.

But unlike Albert, it doesn’t matter as they did not purchase the house as an investment instrument and the loan repayment does not result in any unexpected negative cashflow.

So on the backdrop of both these scenarios, we are ready to move on to the fundamental questions you should consider when assessing the suitability of any investment instrument, property or otherwise. The six most fundamental considerations are, perhaps, best rendered acrostically as O.H.A.M.L.A.:

• Objective – or what you hope to use of those funds for (i.e. the capital) in the future; 
• Holding period – the length of time you are able to sustain financially without touching the returns    or capital for that investment; 
• Affordability – would you need to compromise your standard of living if there is no cashflow from     the investment throughout the holding period; 
• Market risk – the quantum of price movement that you could stomach during the holding period; 
• Liquidity risk – how long would it take for you to sell the investment and receive your funds; and 
• Alternative instruments – are there any that could achieve the same investment objective with lower risks attached.

Going back to Albert’s case; he bought the condominium with the objective of making significant capital gains in five years (i.e. the holding period).

At the point of purchase in 2009, he assumed his employment status would not change and that he would earn the same or a higher salary over the course of his holding period. However, he is now self-employed, hence his earnings are no longer fixed each month.

Therefore, the affordability factor is now compromised as he needs to ensure his loan commitments are met each month despite a fluctuating income.

Next, although he made the fair assumption (which turned out to be right) that the property would appreciate in market value in the future, he underestimated the liquidity rush when investing in properties, i.e. finding a willing buyer for the price he is willing to sell and getting the cash from that sale within a short period of time.

As many of us may have experienced, due to legal and loan documentation requirements, it could take up to a few months to get back our funds even after a willing buyer has been identified.

Lastly, unfortunately for Albert, other alternative instruments that could perhaps meet his investment objective for significant returns (eg. investing in high risk companies in the stock exchange or investing in a start-up company) also carry similar, if not higher, risks.

First-time buyer

That said, property or real estate remains an important instrument for most investors. For a first-time property buyer, owning a property that you could live in removes the risk that rental prices could escalate where you may be forced to compromise your lifestyle to find alternative accommodation.

Individuals with significant excess funds after investing in a diversified portfolio consisting of instruments such as high yielding deposits, blue chip shares, unit trusts, endowment insurance plans and bonds, should consider property as the next instrument to augment their investment portfolio.

If you are an investor seeking a consistent stream of income, other than rental income, alternative instruments that could give you that regular payout could be unit trust funds with an income-generating mandate, endowment insurance plans, high dividend blue chip stocks or even bonds.

With all these instruments, especially unit trusts and endowment policies, you would be able to easily liquidate your investments and get your sale proceeds within 14 days or less. This is important when you do not have a significant amount of excess cash in hand for potential financial emergencies.

If your objective of purchasing the property is to leave your child or children with a sizeable monetary legacy when you pass on, there may be viable alternatives. For some, this means building up a stable business for the children to inherit.

For many others, there is always the traditional portfolio that consists of shares, unit trust funds, bonds and so forth.

The lesser-known alternative would be to purchase a universal life insurance policy that would ensure your beneficiaries receive a sizeable payout after you have passed on.

So if you are 40 years old, instead of spending RM2mil to buy a bungalow in Kajang that your children may likely liquidate anyhow once you have passed on – after all, your intended legacy was the cash value of the property – you could instead spend a little over quarter that amount to purchase a universal life policy that would pay RM2mil in cash to your children once you are gone.

By using O.H.A.M.L.A. as a guide, your investment universe could open up your world to a wide array of instruments beyond property to help you meet your objective. As the old proverb goes: There are more ways than one to skin a cat.

By EVELYN YEO - FINANCIAL MYTHBUSTER

Yeo is OCBC Bank (M) Bhd head of wealth management.

Related:

In uncertain environment, keep cash and be flexible
Funds likely to flow back to emerging markets
Another battering for stock markets, KLCI down 18 pts

Related post:

World economy flying on one engine !

IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde participating in the Asia Finance Conference at the Bank of Indonesia, in Jakarta, Indonesia o...

Currency spikes in London provide rigging Clues!

An employee counts a stack of U.S. one hundred dollar bills inside a currency exchange center in Mexico City. Photographer: Susana Gonzalez/Bloomberg 

In the space of 20 minutes on the last Friday in June, the value of the U.S. dollar jumped 0.57 percent against its Canadian counterpart, the biggest move in a month. Within an hour, two-thirds of that gain had melted away.

The same pattern -- a sudden surge minutes before 4 p.m. in London on the last trading day of the month, followed by a quick reversal -- occurred 31 percent of the time across 14 currency pairs over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. For the most frequently traded pairs, such as euro-dollar, it happened about half the time, the data show.

The recurring spikes take place at the same time financial benchmarks known as the WM/Reuters (TRI) rates are set based on those trades.


Fund managers and scholars say the volatile forex trading patterns look like an attempt by currency dealers to manipulate rates -AFP

Now fund managers and scholars say the patterns look like an attempt by currency dealers to manipulate the rates, distorting the value of trillions of dollars of investments in funds that track global indexes. Bloomberg News reported in June that dealers shared information and used client orders to move the rates to boost trading profit. The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority is reviewing the allegations, a spokesman said.

“We see enormous spikes,” said Michael DuCharme, head of foreign exchange at Seattle-based Russell Investments, which traded $420 billion of foreign currency last year for its own funds and institutional investors.

 “Then, shortly after 4 p.m., it just reverts back to what seems to have been the market rate. It adds to the suspicion that things aren’t right.”

Global Probes

Authorities around the world are investigating the abuse of financial benchmarks by large banks that play a central role in setting them.

Barclays Plc (BARC), Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG (UBSN) were fined a combined $2.5 billion for rigging the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, used to price $300 trillion of securities from student loans to mortgages.

More than a dozen banks have been subpoenaed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission over allegations traders worked with brokers at ICAP Plc (IAP) to manipulate ISDAfix, a benchmark used in interest-rate derivatives. ICAP Chief Executive Officer Michael Spencer said in May that an internal probe found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Investors and consultants interviewed by Bloomberg News say dealers at banks, which dominate the $4.7 trillion-a-day currency market, may be executing a large number of trades over a short period to move the rate to their advantage, a practice known as banging the close.

Because the 4 p.m. benchmark determines how much profit dealers make on the positions they’ve taken in the preceding hour, there’s an incentive to influence the rate, DuCharme said. Dealers say they have to trade during the window to meet client demand and minimize their own risk.

Currency Patterns

“There are some patterns in currencies that are very similar to what I have seen in other markets, such as the way the price-fixings’ effects disappear so often by the following day,” said Rosa Abrantes-Metz, a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, whose August 2008 paper, “Libor Manipulation?,” helped trigger the probe into the rigging of benchmark interest rates. “You also see large price moves at a time of day when volume of trading is high and hence the market is very liquid. If I were a regulator, it’s certainly something I would consider taking a look at.”

WM/Reuters rates, which determine what many pension funds and money managers pay for their foreign exchange, are published hourly for 160 currencies and half-hourly for the 21 most-traded. The benchmarks are the median of all trades in a minute-long period starting 30 seconds before the beginning of each half-hour. Rates for less-widely traded currencies are based on quotes during a two-minute window.

London Close

Benchmark providers such as FTSE Group and MSCI Inc. base daily valuations of indexes spanning different currencies on the 4 p.m. WM/Reuters rates, known as the London close. Index funds, which track global indexes such as the MSCI World Index, also trade at the rates to reduce tracking error, or the drag on funds’ performance relative to the securities they follow caused by currency fluctuations.

The data are collected and distributed by World Markets Co., a unit of Boston-based State Street Corp. (STT), and Thomson Reuters Corp. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, competes with Thomson Reuters and ICAP in providing news and information as well as currency-trading systems.

Reuters and World Markets referred requests for comment to State Street. Noreen Shah, a spokeswoman for the custody bank in London, said in an e-mail that the rates are derived from actual trades and the benchmark is calculated anonymously, with multiple review processes to monitor the quality of the data.

“WM supports efforts by the industry to determine and address any alleged disruptive behavior by market participants and we welcome further discussions on these issues and what preventative measures can be adopted,” Shah said.

Opaque Market

The foreign-exchange market is one of the least regulated and most opaque in the financial system. It’s also concentrated, with four banks accounting for more than half of all trading, according to a May survey by Euromoney Institutional Investor Plc. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) is No. 1 with a 15 percent share, followed by Citigroup Inc. (C) with almost 15 percent and London-based Barclays and Switzerland’s UBS, which both have 10 percent. All four banks declined to comment.

Because they receive clients’ orders in advance of the close, and some traders discuss orders with counterparts at other firms, banks have an insight into the future direction of rates, five dealers interviewed in June said. That allows them to maximize profits on their clients’ orders and sometimes make their own additional bets, according to the dealers, who asked not to be identified because the practice is controversial.

‘Incredibly Large’

Even small distortions in foreign-exchange rates can cost investors hundreds of millions of dollars a year, eating into returns for savers and retirees, said James Cochrane, director of analytics at New York-based Investment Technology Group Inc., which advises companies and investors on executing trades.

“What started out as a simple benchmarking tool has become something incredibly large, and there’s no regulatory body looking after it,” said Cochrane, a former foreign-exchange salesman at Deutsche Bank who has worked at Thomson Reuters. “Every basis point is worth a tremendous amount of money.”

An investor seeking to change 1 billion Canadian dollars ($950 million) into U.S. currency on June 28 would have received $5.4 million less had the trade been made at the WM/Reuters rate instead of the spot rate 20 minutes before the 4 p.m. window.

“Funds that consistently trade using the WM/Reuters fix are basically trading against themselves, and their portfolio is taking a hit,” Cochrane said.

FCA Complaint

One of Europe’s largest money managers, who invests on behalf of pension holders and savers, has complained to the FCA, alleging the rate is being manipulated, said a person with knowledge of the matter who asked that neither he nor the firm be identified because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

The regulator sent requests for information to four banks, including Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank and New York-based Citigroup, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Chris Hamilton, a spokesman for the FCA, declined to comment, as did spokesmen for Deutsche Bank and Citigroup.

Bloomberg News counted how many times spikes of at least 0.2 percent occurred in the 30 minutes before 4 p.m. for 14 currency pairs on the last working day of each month from July 2011 through June 2013. To qualify, the move had to be one of the three biggest of the day and have reversed by at least half within four hours, to exclude any longer-lasting movements.

The sample was made up of currency pairs ranging from the most liquid, such as euro-dollar, to less-widely traded ones such as the euro to the Polish zloty.

Pounds, Kronor

End-of-month spikes of at least 0.2 percent were more prevalent for some pairs, the data show. They occurred about half the time in the exchange rates for U.S. dollars and British pounds and for euros and Swedish kronor. In other pairs, including dollar-Brazilian real and euro-Swiss franc, the moves occurred about twice a year on average.

Such spikes should be expected at the end of the month because of a correlation between equities and foreign exchange, said two foreign-exchange traders who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on behalf of their firms. A large proportion of trading at that time is generated by index funds, which buy and sell stocks or bonds to match an underlying basket of securities, the traders said.

Banks that have agreed to make transactions for funds at the 4 p.m. WM/Reuters close need to push through the bulk of their trades during the window where possible to minimize losses from market movements, the traders said. That leads to a surge in trading volume, which can intensify any moves.

Index Funds

For 10 major currency pairs, the minutes surrounding the 4 p.m. London close are the busiest for trading at the end of the month, quarter and year, according to Michael Melvin and John Prins at BlackRock Inc. who examined trading data from the Reuters and Electronic Broking Services trading platforms from May 2, 2005, to March 12, 2010.

Reuters and ICAP, which owns EBS, declined to provide data on intraday trading volumes for this article.

Index funds, which manage $3.6 trillion according to Morningstar Inc., typically place the bulk of their orders with banks on the last day of the month as they adjust rolling currency hedges to reflect relative movements between equity indexes in different countries and invest inflows from customers over the previous 30 days. Most requests are placed in the hour preceding the 4 p.m. London window, and banks agree to trade at the benchmark rate, regardless of later price moves.

Opposite Effect

“Since the major fix-market-making banks know their fixing orders in advance of 4 p.m., they can ‘pre-position’ or take positions for themselves prior to the attempt to move prices in their favor,” Melvin and Prins wrote in “Equity Hedging and Exchange Rates at the London 4 P.M. Fix,” an update of a report for a 2011 Munich conference. “The large market-makers are adept at trading in advance of the fix to push prices in their favor so that the fixing trades are profitable on average.”

Recurring price spikes, particularly during busy times such as the end of the month, can indicate market manipulation and possibly collusion, according to Abrantes-Metz.

“If the volume of trading is high, each trade has less importance in the overall market and is less likely to impact the final price,” said Abrantes-Metz, who’s also a principal at Chicago-based Global Economics Group Inc. and a World Bank consultant. “That’s exactly the opposite of what we’re seeing here. That could be a signal of a problem in this market.”

‘Massive Trades’

U.S. regulators have sanctioned firms for banging the close in other markets. The CFTC fined hedge-fund firm Moore Capital Management LP $25 million in April 2010 for attempting to manipulate the settlement price of platinum and palladium futures. The regulator ordered Dutch trading firm Optiver BV to pay $14 million in April 2012 for trying to move oil prices by executing a large number of trades at the end of the day.

Melvin, head of currency and fixed-income research at BlackRock’s global markets strategies group in San Francisco, and Prins, a vice president in the group, said that because banks could lose money if the market moves against them, their profit may be viewed as compensation for the risk they assume. Both declined to comment beyond their report.

“Part of the problem is it’s all concentrated over a 60-second window, which gives such an opportunity to bang through massive trades,” said Mark Taylor, dean of the Warwick Business School in Coventry, England, and a former managing director at New York-based BlackRock.

World Markets, the administrator of the benchmark, could extend the periods during which the rates are set to 10 minutes or use randomly selected 60-second windows each day, said Taylor, who began his career as a currency trader in London.

‘Fiduciary Duty’

Trading at the highly volatile 4 p.m. close instead of at a daily weighted average could erase 5 percentage points of performance annually for a fund tracking the MSCI World Index, according to a May 2010 report by Paul Aston, then an analyst at Morgan Stanley. (MS) For an asset manager trading $10 billion of currencies, that equates to $500 million that would otherwise be in the hands of investors. Aston, now at TD Securities Inc. in New York, declined to comment.

Fund managers rarely complain about getting a bad deal because they’re assessed on their ability to track an index rather than minimize trading costs, according to consultants hired by companies and investors to help execute trades efficiently.

“Where possible, I would always advise clients not to trade at the fix -- but minimizing tracking error is so important to them,” said Russell’s DuCharme. “That doesn’t seem to be the right attitude to take when you have a fiduciary duty to seek the best execution for pension holders.”

- Contributed by Bloomberg, Liam Vaughan & Gavin Finch - Aug 28, 2013

Related posts:
'The year of shame 2012' get any worse in 2013? 
For the sake of money people will risk anything - Rightways 
The rotten heart of capitalism: interest rate-fixing scandals
Rightways Technologies: An American-Made Business Model Has less success overseas

• Malaysian Ringgit drops to three-year low !
• Malaysian currency weaken as foreign capital outflow