In a polite and indirect manner he tries to say the
following: ‘Companies, please don’t visit your local bank. The bank is
struggling to collect enough cash and funding to meet the liquidity and solvability demands,
as laid down in the Basel III agreement. Please help your bank and go somewhere
else. Go away!’
Gee, I always thought that banks had a bridge function
between people that have money, but don’t have a purpose for it and people that
have a purpose, but don’t have all the money for it. When the rules for due
dilligence, estimating the viability of an investment, risk management and
good judgment are followed, it should be possible for a bank to invest in a
company.
The Dutch financial newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad had an
interview with Boele Staal yesterday. Here are the pertinent snips of this
interviews:
According to Boele
Staal, chairman of the Dutch Association of Banks (NVB), ‘companies have become
too dependent on bank loans and credit.
Dutch companies have
to ‘detox’ from their addiction on bank loans. Staal states that companies
should start looking for alternative ways of financing their company. That is
necessary as the banks have less leeway than before, due to the strict capital
and liquidity demands of Basel III.
Also the banking tax
that The Netherlands is going to levy, is playing a role. ‘Money becomes more
expensive and banks should run less risk. Especially at innovative companies,
where the stakes are high, the banking industry is very reluctant to invest.’
In comparison with the
rest of Europe, Dutch banks play a very dominant role in the economy. ‘Even
majority shareholders that want to invest in their own company, go to the bank first.
This behavior has apparently become part of the Dutch mindset. Abroad, people
are looking at their own money first and subsequently to partnerships or
investment capital.’
It is not true that
banks are pinching of the capital tap. Staal: ‘The credit growth in The
Netherlands was 3.7% annually in February 2012. Before the credit crisis, this
was 13 – 14%. There is no contraction, unless for loans south of €250,000. No bank will let a
viable company go away.
Arnoud Boot, professor
at Corporate Finance at the University of Amsterdam, states that the large
financial industry in The Netherlands enlarged the dependency of companies towards
bank credit. ‘Banks hand out loans to companies in order to sell them other,
more lucrative services too’.
Large corporations can
straightly enter the capital markets and deploy corporate bonds. This is no
alternative for smaller companies. These are dependent from bank loans. Boot: For Small and
Medium Enterprise (SME) a more diverse banking industry is important.
There is less chance then that all the banks pull the brakes at the same time’.
In itself, I agree with some of the statements that Boele Staal made in
this interview. Yes, Dutch companies are indeed too dependent on the banks. And
yes, there should indeed be more ways for company financing, instead of having the
banks as only counterparty.
What I don’t like about his statement, is that he doesn’t
mention one syllable on the role of the banks itself in getting this position.
The banks earnt good money on these investments in the
past and especially on the various kinds of consultancy services that the banks
could sell to the borrowing company too, via a package deal.
Companies that wanted a loan from a bank, were in most cases
obliged to execute all their payment services through the bank that lended the
money. And banks offered other services, like investment services, treasury
services, fixed income services, payroll credit lines. All these services
yielded extra income and often extra collateral for the banks on the outstanding
loans.
The banks had it all, but became too greedy and too much risk-seeking
in their past financial adventures, spurred by impatient active shareholders that
wanted more return on equity and less cash in hand from the banks. Yields of 15% on equity were disappointing and
yields of 10% were a reason to stalk the board of directors of the bank with
threats to split it up.
Now the banks have learned the hard way that ‘very high
yields’ and ‘too much risk’ are brother and sister. Under pressure of the Basel
III agreement, banks try to say goodbye to their overly risky investments, by
slowly but surely pulling back their loans and credit lines. They have the
right and perhaps even the duty to do so.
I don’t blame the banks for that. And as Boele Staal states
in the truthful red/bold statement: No bank will let a viable company go away.
But please, don’t cry that the companies are too dependent
from the banks and that they should detox from bank loans and credit lines.
That is just too pathetic, Boele. You can do better!
Concerning the second red/bold statement that has been made
by professor Arnoud Boot: he is totally right. A more diverse banking industry,
consisting of both smaller, business-oriented banks and larger savings and
loans banks would be very good. Unfortunately, in The Netherlands we are stuck
with the
four (soon to be three?) sisters: Rabobank, ABN Amro, ING Groep and SNS Bank. This kind of oligopoly just isn’t good for
business.
Then the million dollar question is: will alternative
sources of funding, like crowdfunding, corporate bonds or direct loans from
pension funds and insurance companies be able to fill in the void for
SME-companies that is left by the banks?
Perhaps not; all these parties will demand more risk premiums than the banks already do, as one savvy analyst explained on BNR Radio today (www.bnr.nl). In this case, borrowing money for your
company will be very expensive and will put too much pressure on your Return on Investment. And that is killing for business.
No comments:
Post a Comment