Monday Oct 27, 2025
Tuesday, 20 May 2014 00:01 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
National Development Bank CEO Rajendra Theagarajah
I would say that this is a done deal as far as the banking sector is concerned. I see this as a one off opportunity which is too good to be missed. In that perspective I think there is one misconception which should be cleared, that this is a regulatory driven initiative. It is not. It is more of a regulatory enabled initiative.
I will be surprised if anyone pretends to have the answers in doing this on their own. The use of advisors and consultants are certainly important. In doing that, one has to make sure that the move to situations will be alike and one must have to customise solutions. They should be homemade. They should make sense to your shareholders, and to other stakeholders, including employees.
Sri Lanka is a small market and good way of handling this is to create a space in improving the environment. Take some of the slack in the first year or two and then through natural growth absorb the surplus. But most importantly from a shareholder and stakeholder perspective. Given the sponsorship and the encouragement from the regulatory authorities, the way I would like to urge people to look at this is not in a short term view where two plus two makes four, but to look at as how two plus two will make it to a six, seven, and eight.
For that, whether it is a valuation exercise, weather it is a shareholder rationalisation, or whatever it is, do not to look at the immediate gain, but to look at what can be gained from the destination model and business. That I think will make the difference between success and failure.
The Finance Company Chairman Preethi Jayawardena
I think the consolidation is going to bring about large banks and large non-banks with strong balance sheets. It will encourage enhancing systemic stability and this in turn will boost the long term economic development of the country.
We know that we are marching towards the $ 4,000 per capita and a $ 100 billion economy by 2016, which we obviously reach before the set time frame. Therefore we need all the sectors of the economy to grow.
I would like to dwell into the non banking sector. Imagine 49 companies plus nine leasing companies, 58 together, competing for business. There is so much acute competition that nobody follows a live and let live policy. All wants to live if possible by cutting throat of the competitor. That is not going to do well to grow the business and that is what is happening.
What we wanted were a few companies with strong balance sheets. The problem here is that we did not have a proper capital structure. Ideally a finance company or a bank should have 1/3 in equity, 1/3 in long term debt and 1/3 in short term. But unfortunately due to the weak balance sheet of most of these companies were not able to raise the long term capital. They were predominantly dependent on the short term funds for deposits.
What they didn’t understand was that because of this acute competition even if one goes under, what will be the impact? You will have a negative impact across the board. When CIFL went down there was a negative impact. The public perception towards the non-bank sector was negative and therefore no one wants to deposit money in a finance company. That is what happened. Now with this consolidation, happening is that all the finance companies are going to have stronger balance sheets. Of course the regulator is going to monitor quite closely. With strong balance sheets they will be able to raise funds cheaper, at lower cost. Now when this can be done they will be able to invest that money, that too at cheaper rates.
Today what happens is that when we don’t have access to funds we need that money to be invested. If we cannot get cheap funds, then we cannot get proper investments. We have to give it out in proper investments rates and that means we have to take undue risks which will result in NPLs. Now with the synergy what happens is that with strong balance sheets we can raise funds at lower costs. We will definitely be able to increase the volumes. This is because the banks cater to the upper segment of the economy and the finance companies must be there to develop to the middle and lower end. If we don’t develop that end the inequality will widen.
Even at the CB Annual Report presentation the President during his speech said he is happy with the development but expressed fear in the inequality widening. Therefore finance companies are necessary to cater to the middle level. Most of the people in that segment do not have bank references and accounts. That segment has to be serviced. When we have cheap funds we can equally service the middle level and that will augur well. With that we will be able to improve the business through synergy. Once the synergism takes place the strategy will fall into place. With that about 90% of the problems are sorted out.
Nations Trust Bank Chairman Krishan Balendra
At a high level the process that we are going through, there are different types. In the more developed markets we have seen bank consolidation has been driven by the need to drive efficiencies, cost reduction, business expansion, and essentially to drive better shareholder returns. We have had examples such as Malaysia after the financial crisis where the regulator had to step in and force consolidation to avoid a repeat of what happened in 1997.
When we look at some of the pitfalls that we could have, it is important to put in context the process we will and are going through. It is hybrid that we are going through since it is a regulator enabled consolidation. We are not enabled the need to drive shareholder return. The regulator is not forcing this. It is encouraging to hear the Governor say that ultimately what the regulator wants is for the one plus one to be more than two. That is a very good starting point.
Another point, not wanting to be negative, is that most statistics research indicate that majority of bank consolidation have failed to deliver shareholder value. We need to also focus on all those issues because they are very real and history seems to show that majority of such consolidation have been value destructive.
The strategic fit is obviously critical. There are various types of strategic fits. There are mergers and acquisitions where institutions are expanding their reach through branches in new geographic areas, or where a company is brought since it may have products which the purchasing institution is not offering. That is an incremental acquisition. An example of that is where NTB in 2009 merged with Mercantile Leasing. Until then very few banks were into leasing and it brought a significant portfolio into NTB and that has been quite good for the bank.
The other type of merger would be eliminating overlaps, and by doing so there is a significant opportunity to create value.
In that process you have to be unemotional about it. In that, some of the key issues are people decisions and it goes right to the top. Most research show that the joint environment does not work. There has to be one boss and those are hard decisions that have to be made in the best interest of all the stakeholders.
The other is the issue on valuation. This process started a few months back and there have been discussions from potential target companies and the valuation expectation of some owners are ridiculous actually. They are putting three to four times the book value. These are institutions that established about two or three years ago so what was done to add value to the capital invested within that period? So again the CB has intervened and brought some sense to the process by getting independent value. This is important since that is where the CB will have to play an enabling role to make sure sense prevails. When going back to that issue that most consolidation worldwide or majority being destructive, the starting point has to be the valuation. There is no point in having synergies, strategic fits and eliminating overlaps if you begin with a very high valuation.
A macro issue also pops up when you consolidate banks. When you end up with a significantly fewer number of banks, some economies have shown that it can create an oligopoly effect. In post consolidation you actually see lending rates gradually going up, deposit rates going down and margins for the banks improving, which is obviously not good for the economy. So that is also something that we will have to watch out for.
Central Bank of Sri Lanka Assistant Governor C.J.P. Siriwardana
This is the 10th public seminar on consolidation. This shows the interest shown by various parties and stakeholders, and well as the players in the market to educate and gain better understanding on this subject.
As the Governor mentioned, we announced the master plan on 17 January and since then we have been working very closely with the partners. We have 58 finance and leasing companies, and 22 local banks. Altogether 72 institutions and that is too much fragmentation in the market.
That is the whole idea of the consolidation. Looking at the future of the economy, where we hope to be a $ 100 billion economy by 2016, to cater to that future requirement, we prefer to bring in the reform ahead of the requirement time.
We can achieve much from this consolidation if we can get the right partner. From the overall process we have requested the big banks and big finance companies to acquire and merge with the small finance companies. That is the plan in the overall consolidation process.
But finding a partner is very important so the entire synergy depends on this. You have to look at the characteristics of the owning company as well as that of the partner. Only when the characters match one another you can get synergy. In that process you have to look at key areas, such as loan structure, IT systems, accounting systems, and other features of the two companies.
Therefore finding the right partner is critical and we need to ensure we are not lost in the process. There are some companies that are searching all over for entities to merge with, and I am sure they will end up with none since they are taking too much time. Some of the smaller companies are also asking for too much of a premium. At the end of the day there also is a time frame and they will have no partner by the end of that.
The most sensitive and critical factor in this situation is the valuation. That is why the CB is stepping in by having a professional process for the companies and based on that the negotiation process can start.
In the buying and selling process it is necessary to look into the soft factors, those that are difficult to take into the valuation process. With that they can ask for a fair value for their company.
I must also share that in the first deadline that was given to submit the proposals, 31 March 2014, all companies have submitted their proposal within that date. And this indicates their willingness to actively take part in the process.
We are also sure we can finalise the valuation process since the nine auditors selected to undertake this process, will submit the reports by 2 May. This will be shared with prospective buyers and by the end of second quarter we will be able to finalise the second round of the matching process.
Union Bank of Colombo Director/CEO Anil Amarasuriya
Once you have chosen your partner or partners, you will have to do a lot of re-engineering. Do not look at tomorrow but look 10 years ahead. Look at what you are going to achieve based on the strategy and what you want to do in the five to 10 year horizon. In doing that it is important to get your structure right.
Get outside experts to come in and do the structure for you. And after they do the structure from ground zero, the two teams will have to sit with these experts and modify the structure somewhat, but not to meet their own liking. So the structure is very important. After you do the structure then you will have to think of fitting in your staff and the other institution into that stricture.
The next most important thing is the IT systems. I don’t think there is any bank or finance company that is not using technology today. Manual ledgers are all gone and everybody is on high-end technology. Now to merge that technology is a big challenge. So you will have to get outside experts to come and see whether the technology, software systems, and the hardware, can be used in the merged entity, or whether you have to discard everything and buy new systems with new hardware.
Whatever you do, it will take time because system migration normally is done once in 10 years. It will be difficult to do the system integration and then stabilise the system. So you have to plan for a 10 year horizon. Get outsiders to come and tell you if the software is good enough for the merged entity and good enough to take you 10 years forward. Or to say that the software and hardware are not good and to get new ones. That is a huge cost, it is not cheap. And whatever has already been invested has to be written off. That will have to be built in when doing the valuation. So the software and hardware integration and the structure with the staff are very important. Also be mindful that immediately after any merger there is lot of unforeseen tinkering and fine-tuning that will have to be done. Get a separate team to do that so you can clear the merger issues that will crop up from the time you start the merger process.
DFCC Bank CEO Arjun Fernando
I would like to first present a general comment regarding the timing of the consolidation. If you look at Tiger Woods when he became number one in the world, he changed his golf swing and everyone questioned that. For this his answer was that in order to sustain it is imperative to change.
In that light I would say that the financial services sector is strong and it is a good time to re-strategise and get into a consolidation mode. Because when you are strong, you can afford to make mistakes and take calculated risks, whereas when your back is against the wall, you don’t have that luxury.
I am a firm believer that structure has to be in line with the strategy. If you look at organisations in Sri Lanka today, the number of layers, there may be about 10. We need to see if there is value addition taking place right throughout. And if you were given a clean sheet of paper to draw an organisation structure, will you draw it the way it is today?
I believe that when you get the structure right and if you get the strategy right, there will be ample opportunities for staff. In that, they need to re-skill themselves and be able to be agile in terms of the changing needs of the new structure.
On the systems side I agree that we need to try and match. For this we need to look at IT systems and business processes which is relevant and far thinking as to what it should be in the future. So you shouldn’t have any emotional attachment for any current systems. There may be a need to look into a new system altogether.
I was fortunate to be a part of a business transformation with an international bank from 2010 to 2012. There the lessons learnt were that they went through a de-layering process. They went from a structure that had 13 layers to an eight layer model. They achieved a lot of synergy and they found staff at senior level doing two to three rows in the new structure. I guess in that the learning point was that they didn’t really think through the whole strategy. In the next month or so they were re-hiring in another area of the business. I think the key here is that if you have the strategy very clear you can minimise the disruption and the unpleasantness.
Sampath Bank MD Aravinda Perera
If anyone asks me what the most valuable asset I have, I will say it is most definitely my staff. So it is correct to say that HR should come before the structure.
Informal organisation are important since within a formal structure there is an informal organisation happening. In some places both work together and there is synergy there itself. So when it becomes two organisations, it becomes two formal and informal organisations. One has to be mindful of the fact that informal organisations in some places are very strong. You have to take it in a positive manner.
So if the merger has to work, firstly the HR has to merge and that means both formal and informal organisations will have to work together to gain the synergy.
The second is that there are opinion leaders and opinion seekers in an organisation. Lucky is the CEO who happens to be an opinion leader as well. But it doesn’t always happen that way, so again, people who are doing the merger will have to appreciate the fact that there are opinion leaders in the organisation. So make them work for you rather than against you.
The third is the communication itself. To what extent and what time is critical. To what extent are you going to divulge information,and where do you stand in front of the senior staff, as well as others. It is important we handle that right from the beginning. The critical information has to be discussed at the correct level at the correct time. You need to also be careful as to how you are going to handle branding since a lot of change is going to happen to it in the next couple of years. When the merger process continues, lot of names will disappear and lot of names will come in. How within that total sphere of the branding are you going to maximise your brand is also very important to think about.
Hatton National Bank MD/CEO Jonathan Alles
I am trying to be positive and optimistic but to bring a slightly different perspective – I see a lot of bank CEOs here – I say do not merge.
It is not that I am negative and don’t see this as an opportunity, I just say that at the end of the day we will mess it up right royally. So what we need to do is keep the holding structure and keep our banks and not try to bring finance companies into banks.
It is time to take some parts of businesses into the finance companies and there are lot of inefficiencies in the way we do some of our work.
That needs to go out. Like all said this is a done deal and we needed to make the best of it. How you make the best of it is not by bringing a finance company into a bank, but by taking out some of the inefficient processes, products, and structure. The ideal structure is that.
I am still looking at how the one plus one will come in the branding, the parent strength,better risk rating and pricing. All that comes in with a stronger parent. But if you try to bring in merged structure, merged people and talk of bringing systems together, you are not going to get anywhere. Rather you focus on driving that finance company separately and efficiently.
My personal perspective and my recommendation to all my colleagues is, don’t touch it. At the end of the day keep it separate. Run it, bring in the corporate value. Where is the value addition? As a banker your value addition is that you have been regulated.
As a banker there is a lot of governance in the way you do your work. That is sadly what is missing in some of these companies so bring that goodness into it. The fact that it is there, it makes for a stronger finance company. It will bring the cost of funding down and you can also pass on the benefit to the customer.
Finance companies have better models in selling and better models in recovering. I would rather outsource some of my banks recoveries to the finance companies. We spoke of surplus staff. We could use them in different areas.
There will be new gaps almost immediately. You do not have to wait for the eventual outcome.
I am looking at scale and that is where you need to look at strategic stretch. That is where you get the value. To look at stretch you need to find what should be done at a finance company level and at a bank level. The stall can be mobile and can move in between but you don’t have to play with the structures.
I am not saying the bank structure is right, it is wrong. So is the finance company structure. As much as they are efficient, they also need to change. The technology part needs to come in, be it mobile banking or different aspect. It needs to get into their model.
That is where banks can help. They need to have their ideas as themselves but where they are lacking is the balance sheet strength and a bit on the governance side.
So the easy one is the one where the bank gets involved. The difficult one is actually to segregate this, where you drop banks and only talk of finance companies and you then allocate them to four groups.
You have category A and then B. In the A category you have an A+ and an A-, and then a B+ and a B-, the easy one is the A+. It is a fantastic company and most of them have got decent stakes in banks. Let alone banks trying to take over finance companies, they are really good.
Those companies are looking at acquiring two, three, four other finance companies and they get bigger. Then you have a pretty good A- actually which can stand on its own and can look at acquiring certain B+ institutions.
Where I see a challenge and mismatch is when three or four B+ gets together. It can be chaotic. For this the ground zero planning will be necessary and it has to be facilitated.
It makes a lot of sense to bring someone from outside to bring these parties together. These discussions are taking place at the moment.
The easy answer on B- is that on the day one you acquire to close it down because that might be the most value adding in terms of the holding company. You have to be very careful in bringing that company on board.
On banks, I would like to see a structure where the banks own finance companies, and to the latter its goodness, but leverage all the strength of the finance company. Not only to do the work of the finance company but also to outsource work of the bank.
But the change that you like to see is operating it more efficiently and bringing in more technology. The model, structure, and people will change not because of the consolidation. The banks can be changed in the way they are operating now and the finance companies need to change the way they address the growing market going forward.
Pix by Lasantha Kumara