July 11, 2017 / 4:03 PM / a year ago

Fitch Affirms 4 State-Owned Uzbek Banks at 'B+'; Outlooks Stable

(The following statement was released by the rating agency) MOSCOW, July 11 (Fitch) Fitch Ratings has affirmed the Long-Term Foreign Currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) of Uzbek Industrial and Construction Bank Joint-Stock Commercial Bank (Uzpromstroybank; UPSB), Asaka Bank (Asaka), OJSC Agrobank and Microcreditbank's (MCB) at 'B+'. The Outlooks are Stable. A full list of rating actions is at the end of this rating action commentary. KEY RATING DRIVERS IDRS, SUPPORT RATINGS, SUPPORT RATING FLOORS The affirmation of the Long-Term Foreign Currency IDRs and Support Rating Floors (SRFs) of all four banks at 'B+' reflects Fitch's view of a high propensity of the Uzbek authorities to support the banks, in case of need. This view of support is based on (i) the state's majority ownership; (ii) the banks' policy roles (to a lesser extent for MCB) and (iii) the track record of capital support, including from Fund for Reconstruction and Development and Ministry of Finance, which administered recapitalisation programmes of USD500 million and UZS1.2 trillion, respectively, for state banks (including the reviewed ones) in 2017. These injections are made in steps, with some amounts already disbursed and the rest by end-2017. In Fitch's view, the state's ability to provide support is currently solid, considering the moderate size of the banking sector relative to the Uzbek economy (loans/GDP ratio of around 37% at end-2016) and reasonably large foreign-currency reserves. However, it should also be viewed in the context of the banking sector being concentrated and support-dependent and the economy's structural weaknesses, as Uzbek exports are commodities-driven and concentrated on a few countries, and external finances are heavily supported by remittances. The previous government's plan to attract new foreign investors to all four banks through minority stake sale was abandoned in late 2016. Fitch therefore believes that the state is likely to retain majority stakes and operational control in the banks, and its propensity to support them should therefore remain strong. Viability Ratings (VRs) The affirmation of UPSB's and Asaka's VRs at 'b' reflect the banks' reasonable performance and asset quality metrics to date, mostly due to exposure to higher-quality borrowers that is partly covered by state guarantees. Agrobank's and MCB's VRs at 'b-' reflects the banks' weaker asset quality and profitability metrics, as the result of the banks' focus on higher-risk segments. At the same time, all four banks' VRs continue to reflect Uzbekistan's difficult operating environment, the banks' limited commercial franchises, high concentrations in their balance sheets, and potential deficiencies in underwriting policies leading to high credit and operational risks. UPSB and Asaka reported low non-performing loans (NPLs) at end-2016 (below 1% and 2% respectively, fully covered by reserves). This is due to their focus on the export-oriented commodity and auto industries and a high share of state-owned borrowers (UPSB - 85% of loans, Asaka - 60%), with a significant share of larger exposures also being guaranteed by the state (54% of loans at UPSB and 36% at Asaka). Agrobank also has low NPLs (2.5% at end-2016), but its asset quality remains weakened by unreserved problem receivables (UZS261 billion or 7% of total assets), which resulted from a 2010 fraud. MCB's NPL ratio was a high 13% at end-2016, due to financial difficulties in a number of agricultural companies. The unreserved portion of these loans was a significant 35% of end-2016 Fitch Core Capital (FCC), as MCB expects to recover a significant part of them. Positively, the bank has sufficient capital to reserve these loans and remain compliant with regulatory capital ratios. Loan books are more concentrated and dollarised in UPSB (78%) and Asaka (57%), although the risks are mitigated by most borrowers, who have taken foreign-currency loans, being either state-owned/guaranteed or have foreign-currency revenues. Agrobank's and MCB's loans are mostly in local currency and more granular by borrower, albeit concentrated on the agricultural industry and therefore prone to risk of commodity (eg cotton) price fall. Profitability was moderate at UPSB and Asaka in 2016 (return on average equity (ROAE) of around 11% at both banks), and weak at Agrobank (2%) and MCB (negative 11%), reflecting the mostly state-directed nature of banks' operations (at UPSB and Asaka) and rather weak operating efficiency (at Agrobank and MCB). Capitalisation was moderate at UPSB (FCC/risk-weighted assets (RWA) of 15% at end-2016), MCB (FCC/total assets of 13%), modest at Asaka (FCC/RWA of 11%) and weak at Agrobank (FCC/RWA of 6%, adjusted for unreserved problem receivables). Asaka and Agro were also in breach of the minimum regulatory capital requirements at end-5M17 (total capital ratios of 11.6% and 7.8%, respectively, compared with prudential minimum of 12.5%) due to lending expansion, but this should be rectified soon, as all state banks will be recapitalised by end-2017. Fitch expects capital contributions from the state to equal around 6% of end-5M17 RWAs in UPSB, 7% in Asaka, 8% in Agro and 18% in MCB. However, the increased capital buffers are likely to be consumed, as internal capital generation is lagging behind growth at all four banks, and also due to potential further som depreciation after the already high 23% in 1H17 (non-annualised). The banks' funding is mainly sourced from customer deposits and government and quasi-government entities. Depositor concentrations were high at UPSB, Asaka and MCB, with 20 largest depositors accounting for 45%, 70% and 46% of total customer funding, respectively. Agrobank's deposits were more granular (15%). UPSB is the only bank with meaningful borrowings from foreign financial institutions (21% of liabilities). However, UPSB's foreign debt repayments are small (below 5% of total liabilities in 2H17-2018) and linked to loan repayments. Liquidity is comfortable at UPSB and Asaka due to solid buffers (liquid assets net of near-term repayments were about half of customer deposits at end-4M17 at UPSB and 35% at end-5M17 at Asaka), and somewhat tighter at Agrobank and MCB, as these two banks have high reliance on short-term inter-bank placements. All four banks hold large enough foreign currency liquidity buffers to withstand a substantial reduction in foreign-currency-denominated customer funding. RATING SENSITIVITIES IDRS, SUPPORT RATINGS, SUPPORT RATING FLOORS A change in UPSB's, Asaka's, Agrobank's and MCB's support-driven IDRs could result from a strengthening/weakening of the sovereign's credit profile. A weakening of the state's propensity to support the banks may result in a downgrade of the ratings. VRS All four banks' VRs could be downgraded as a result of deterioration in the banks' asset quality if this is not fully offset by fresh equity injections. Upgrades of the VRs could result from improvements in Uzbekistan's operating environment and strengthening of the banks' commercial franchises, although upgrades of Agrobank's and MCB's VRs would also require improvements in the banks' asset quality and performance. The rating actions are as follows: UPSB Long-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B+'; Outlooks Stable Short-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B' Viability Rating affirmed at 'b' Support Rating affirmed at '4' Support Rating Floor affirmed at 'B+' Asaka Long-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B+'; Outlooks Stable Short-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B' Viability Rating affirmed at 'b' Support Rating affirmed at '4' Support Rating Floor affirmed at 'B+' Agrobank Long-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B+'; Outlooks Stable Short-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B' Viability Rating affirmed at 'b-' Support Rating affirmed at '4' Support Rating Floor affirmed at 'B+' MCB Long-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B+'; Outlooks Stable Short-Term Foreign-Currency and Local-Currency IDRs affirmed at 'B' Viability Rating affirmed at 'b-' Support Rating affirmed at '4' Support Rating Floor affirmed at 'B+' Contact: Primary Analysts Sergey Popov (Agrobank, MCB) Associate Director +7 495 956 9981 Fitch Ratings CIS Ltd 26 Valovaya Street Moscow 115054 Maria Kuraeva (UPSB, Asaka) Associate Director +7 495 956 5575 Fitch Ratings CIS Ltd 26 Valovaya Street Moscow 115054 Secondary Analyst Konstantin Alekseenko Analyst +7 495 956 2401 Committee Chairperson Olga Ignatieva Senior Director +7 495 956 6906 Media Relations: Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Tel: +44 20 3530 1103, Email: peter.fitzpatrick@fitchratings.com. Additional information is available on www.fitchratings.com Applicable Criteria Global Bank Rating Criteria (pub. 25 Nov 2016) here Additional Disclosures Dodd-Frank Rating Information Disclosure Form here Solicitation Status here Endorsement Policy here ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: here. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEB SITE AT WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF THIS SITE. DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS RELEVANT INTERESTS ARE AVAILABLE here. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE. Copyright © 2017 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch’s factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch’s ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided “as is” without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001

0 : 0
  • narrow-browser-and-phone
  • medium-browser-and-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser
  • wide-browser-and-larger
  • medium-browser-and-landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser-and-larger
  • above-phone
  • portrait-tablet-and-above
  • above-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet-and-above
  • landscape-tablet-and-medium-wide-browser
  • portrait-tablet-and-below
  • landscape-tablet-and-below