Geojit post 93% rise in net profit in Q3

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Geojit Financial Services has posted a 93 per cent rise in net profit at ₹30.60 crore in Q3 of the current financial year, as against ₹15.83 crore in the corresponding period of the previous year.

The profit before tax during the period increased 107 per cent at ₹40.63 crore, compared to ₹19.64 crore. The consolidated revenue increased 34 per cent from ₹78.31 crore to ₹104.61 crore.

As on December 31, the company’s Assets Under Custody and Management is ₹47,000 crore and has 11 lakh clients, the company said in a statement.

Higher volumes in the capital market transactions helped the company to improve performance during the current year, said C.J.George, Managing Director, Geojit Financial Services.

Geojit Financial Services has an extensive presence in the GCC region via joint ventures and partnerships: Barjeel Geojit Financial Services LLC in UAE, BBK Geojit Securities KSC, in Kuwait and QBG Geojit Securities LLC in Oman. The company also has a presence in Bahrain through a business partnership with Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

ICICI Bank Q3 net up 19.1%

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Private sector lender ICICI Bank reported a 19.1 per cent increase in its standalone net profit in the third quarter of the fiscal at ₹4,939.59 crore. The bank had a net profit of ₹4,146.46 crore in the same period last fiscal.

For the quarter ended December 31, ICICI Bank’s net interest income increased by 16 per cent to ₹9,912 crore from ₹8,545 crore in the third quarter last fiscal.

The net interest margin was 3.67 per cent in the October to December compared to 3.57 per cent in the quarter ended September 30 and 3.77 per cent in the third quarter last fiscal.

Non-interest income, excluding treasury income, declined to ₹3,921 crore in the third quarter this fiscal compared to ₹4,043 crore a year ago.

Provisions increased by 31.6 per cent to ₹2,741.72 crore in the third quarter this fiscal from ₹2,083.2 crore a year ago.

“During the third quarter of 2020-21, the bank made contingency provision amounting to ₹3,012 crore for borrower accounts not classified as non-performing pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court. The Bank utilised ₹1,800 crore of Covid-19 related provisions made in the earlier periods,” ICICI Bank said in a statement on Saturday.

It further said that it has changed its provisioning policy on non-performing assets to make it more conservative in the third quarter.

“The contingency provision made on a prudent basis for loans overdue for more than 90 days at December 31, 2020 but not classified as non-performing pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order, also reflects the revised policy,” it said, adding that the change in policy resulted in higher provision on advances amounting to ₹2,096 crore during the third quarter for aligning provisions on the outstanding loans to the revised policy.

During the quarter, the gross additions to NPAs were ₹471 crore.

As on December 31, gross NPAs amounted to 4.72 per cent of gross advances as against 6.39 per cent a year ago. Net NPAs stood at 0.69 per cent at the end of the third quarter this fiscal versus 1.6 per cent a year ago.

Loans amounting to ₹8,280 crore, compared to ₹1,410 crore at September 30, 2020, were not classified as non-performing at December 31, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order, ICICI Bank said.

On a proforma basis, the net NPA ratio was 1.26 per cent at December 31 compared to 1.12 per cent at September 30.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Plan bad bank to whittle down and not transfer bad loans, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Bad loans which were 7.5% in September 2020 threatens to exceed 13% by September 2021 due to large scale disruption caused by COVID-19. The gravity of the situation is expected to unfold and surface once the suspension of IBC is lifted and later when loans liberally restructured or advanced to pandemic stuck companies become due for repayment .

Evidently, status -quo is not sustainable any more. The recent measures for infusion of capital in Punjab and Sindh Bank through questionable means i.e. issuance of government bonds to the bank – interest free and on -hold to maturity basis without actual cash flow and against accounting norms -is a pointer towards emerging grim situation.

Many countries world wide including US, UK, Germany have in the past successfully set up bad banks particularly post the financial crisis of 2008 ,to hold and manage bad loans till the underlying assets are restored to health and / or disposed off or liquidated .Notable amongst these is City Holdings which successfully managed bad assets worth $800 billion hived off from City Bank .The objective of the bad bank is undoubtedly laudable and experience world wide reassuring . It however needs to be subjected to the test of realism in the Indian context.

Managing bad loans is a different ball game then lending. However, without recovery of loans, the lending has no meaning. Lending activity has to be seen as a value chain in continuum till outstanding loan is recovered and if found necessary, through take over and realisation of underlying assets or businesses. The banks therefore need to create requisite capacity to manage bad loans by themselves . A bad bank in the normal course would therefore be a moral hazard incentivising banks to continue with their indiscreet lending practices.

The Indian Bankers Association justified a bad bank amongst others for the reason of lingering fear of enquiries and investigations in the minds of bank officials for the commercial decIsions taken for restoration of viability or disposal of bad loans. This argument is preposterous as the bad bank sponsored by the government, Asset Management Company (AMC) and Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) setup as a public private partnership may not either be able to escape external scrutiny for public accountability. The banks should be made to assume rather than abdicate their responsibility for managing bad loans.

As a sound management practice, banks should set up a Strategic Business Unit (SBU) as part of its core functions, designed to segregate bad loans and ring fence resultant risks on the balance sheet to focus on management of loans at SMA 2 or NPA stage. The SBU should for the purpose have commensurate autonomy, organisation structure, system and processes. Through SBU set up in 2003 as a part of Internal restructuring Dresdner Bank AG ,Germany ,was able to successfully resolve €35 billion portfolio. In case of banks with high level of NPAs ,the government can consider giving on- balance guarantee to protect the bank from loss on bad portfolios.

Pandemic has however created extraordinary situation with crippling effect on the economy in general and on solvency and liquidity of industry – across the board, in particular. It is akin to a force majeure event – not caused by actions of banks or the borrowers. The banks in order to ensure their continuing viability of operations and ability to meet financing needs of the trade and industry post pandemic need to be freed of burden of NPAs through on balance sheet or off balance sheet structures with the government support.

The Bad bank should better be set up as spin-off i.e. disposing bad loans into a legally separated entity and not as a special purpose vehicle used to off -load bad loans. On balance sheet structures though desirable may not be as efficacious given the urgency to tame and deal with the NPAs caused by the pandemic.

Further it would be advisable that government instead of setting up one monolithic bad bank , should set separate bad bank for infrastructure loans and for other loans. This would enable focused approach considering economic significance and specialised skill set required in nurturing, disposal or liquidation of underlying assets. Different bad banks can then be weaved in to a holding company structure for better governance and uniform approach, in managing bad loans. Transfer of bad loans should be at fair value for reflecting true financial health, and not at book value as mooted in some quarters. It would be imprudent to Tweak or overrule, through legal or regulatory diktat, internationally accepted accounting norms in this regard.

The government instead of setting up one monolithic bad bank , should set separate bad bank for infrastructure loans and for other loans .This would enable focused approach considering economic significance and specialised skill set required in nurturing, disposal or liquidation of underlying assets. Different bad banks can then be weaved in to a holding company structure for better governance and uniform approach.

The bad bank may offer a viable alternative structure as an extraordinary and onetime measure .It should however be confined to bad loans caused by pandemic the principle followed for granting moratorium for repayment of loans or suspension of IBC post pandemic.

Care should also be taken that the bad bank does not become a mere instrument of transfer of bad loan from one balance sheet to another. Learning from international experience the bad bank need to be fully autonomous, professionally managed and have systems and processes which facilitate initiatives and outcome oriented actions in a fair and transparent manner. This is a tall requirement in Indian context .However if not addressed before launch, the bad bank may remain bad causing irreparable distress in future.

Dr. Ashok Haldia, Fmr MD & CEO, PFS


The blog has been authored by Dr. Ashok Haldia, Former MD & CEO, PFS.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETBFSI.com does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETBFSI.com shall not be responsible for any damage caused to any person/organisation directly or indirectly.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Despite worsening asset quality, Manappuram Fin Q3 net up 16.6%

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Aggregate gold loan disbursement was at Rs 57,445.14 crore while the number of live gold loan customers stood at 26.2 lakh (as of December 31, 2020).

NBFC Manappuram Finance on Friday reported a 16.64 % year-on-year increase in its consolidated net profit for the third quarter of the current financial year to Rs 483.19 crore.

The Kerala-based lender, which also operates a home loan, microfinance and commercial vehicle-leasing subsidiary, has reported a standalone net profit of Rs 465.29 crore for its gold loan business, an increase of 39.28% from Rs 334 crore reported in the year-ago quarter.

Total consolidated operating income during the quarter stood at Rs 1,643.81 crore —14.46% growth over Rs 1436.19 crore reported in Q3 of the previous fiscal year. Consolidated assets under management (AUM) grew 14.70% to Rs 27,642.48 crore, from Rs24,099.95 crore a year ago.

Sharing the results with the media, MD & CEO VP Nandakumar said, “Once again, our results have been in line with our guidance. During this quarter, while gold loans did well, the turnaround in our microfinance subsidiary is particularly noteworthy. We are now confident that the pandemic related woes are behind us, and look forward to good growth in all our businesses in the coming days.”

The company’s gold loan AUM increased 24.43% to Rs20,211.58 crore from Rs16,242.95 crore in the year-ago quarter. Aggregate gold loan disbursement was at Rs 57,445.14 crore while the number of live gold loan customers stood at 26.2 lakh (as of December 31, 2020).

For the standalone entity, the average borrowing cost during the quarter decreased 18 bps to 8.95 %. The capital adequacy ratio stood at 25.85% while the gross NPA was at 1.26 % and net NPA at 0.84 % for the standalone entity.

The board of directors approved payment of an interim dividend of Rs 0.65 per share of the face value of Rs 2.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, Check out latest IPO News, Best Performing IPOs, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Union Bank net dives 37% due to threefold jump in provisions

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Though its operating profit declined 9% YoY, it grew 12% QoQ to Rs 5,311 crore. Net interest income (NII) increased 5% YoY and QoQ to Rs 6,590 crore.

Union Bank of India’s net profit declined 37% year on year (YoY) during the December quarter (Q3FY21) as provisions jumped three-fold. Provisions increased 189% YoY and 25% quarter on quarter (QoQ) to Rs 5, 256 crore. Despite this, the bank reported a 40% rise in net profit sequentially. Though its operating profit declined 9% YoY, it grew 12% QoQ to Rs 5,311 crore. Net interest income (NII) increased 5% YoY and QoQ to Rs 6,590 crore.

The bank’s provision coverage ratio (PCR) improved 300 basis points (bps) sequentially to 86%. The net interest margin (NIM) increased 43 bps on a sequential basis to 2.94%, but came down 21 bps on a y-o-y basis.

Union Bank of India MD and CEO Rajkiran Rai G said the lender was expecting growth in both retail and corporate segments. “We are expecting more sanctions in the March quarter,” he added. The state-owned bank also specified that the net profit during Q3FY21 was subdued because in the comparable quarter last year the combined entity got a boost from Essar Steel recovery. Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank were amalgamated into Union Bank of India on April 1, 2020.

The lender’s asset quality also showed an improvement during the December quarter. Gross non-performing assets (NPAs) ratio improved 122 bps to 13.49%, compared to 14.71% in the previous quarter. Similarly, net NPAs ratio came down 86 bps to 3.27% from 4.13% in the September quarter. The lender has not classified any NPAs since August 31, 2020, due to the interim order of the Supreme Court. “The pro forma gross NPAs stood at 15.28% and net NPAs at 5.02%,” Rai said. The lender was expecting net NPAs between 4 and 5% in the next quarter (Q4FY21), he added.

Advances remained flat on a y-o-y as well as sequential basis at Rs 6.51 lakh crore. The lender is, however, expecting substantial credit growth in the next quarter. “We are expecting credit growth of 4-6% in the next quarter (Q4FY21),” Rai said.

Deposits grew 3% YoY to Rs 8.82 lakh crore, but remained flat sequentially. Current account savings account (CASA) ratio remained at 32.67%, compared to 34.67% in the September quarter. The capital adequacy ratio stood at 12.98% at the end of the December quarter, compared to minimum regulatory requirement of 10.875%.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, Check out latest IPO News, Best Performing IPOs, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Cholamandalam Investment posts ₹409-crore profit in Q3

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd (CIFCL) has posted a 5 per cent growth in its net profit at ₹409 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2020 compared with ₹389 crore in the year-ago period, supported by growth in income.

The company’s total income grew 10 per cent at ₹2,505 crore as against ₹2,275 crore in the year-ago period. Net income margin grew 26 per cent at ₹1,364 crore (₹1,082 crore), according to a statement

CIFCL reported higher loan losses at ₹445 crore, which included additional Covid-19 provisions of ₹216 crore for the nine-month ended December 31, 2020, and total Covid-19 provisions as of December 20 is ₹750 crore.

Disbursements

The aggregate disbursements grew six per cent at ₹7,926 crore (₹7,475 crore). In the vehicle finance business, disbursements grew marginally to ₹6,084 crore from ₹5,949 crore in Q3 of previous fiscal.

Home loan business’ disbursements at ₹434 crore (₹400 crore). Loan Against Property business disbursed ₹1,265 crore as against ₹908 crore in the year-ago quarter, an increase of 39 per cent.

CIFCL asset quality as at end of December 2020, represented by Stage 3 assets stood at 2.57 per cent, with a provision coverage of 44.94 per cent as against 3.54 per cent as of December 2019 with a provision coverage of 32.95 per cent.

Provision

The company continues to carry additional provision of ₹751 crore for future contingencies as on December 31, 2020. The total provisions currently carried against the overall book is 3.09 per cent as against the normal overall provision levels of 1.75 per cent carried prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, representing an increase of above 75 per cent.

As of December 2020, the company held a strong liquidity position with ₹6,228 crore as cash balance (including ₹1,500 crore invested in Gsec shown under investments, as it is held to maturity), with a total liquidity position of ₹10,923 crore (including undrawn sanctioned lines).

“The ALM is comfortable with no negative cumulative mismatches across all time buckets,” said the statement. Assets under management grew 15 per cent at ₹75,813 crore (₹65,992 crore in the year-ago quarter). The Board declared an Interim dividend of 65 per cent being ₹1.30 per share on the equity shares of the Company, for the year ending March 31, 2021.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Union Bank of India reports 37% yoy decline in standalone net profit at ₹727 crore in Q3

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Union Bank of India (UBI) reported a 37 per cent year-on-year (yoy) decline in standalone net profit at ₹727 crore in the third quarter (Q3FY21) ended December 31, 2020 against ₹1,159 crore in the year ago quarter.

The public sector bank’s standalone net profit in the reporting quarter, however, was up 41 per cent quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) vis-a-vis preceding quarter’s ₹517 crore.

Rajkiran Rai G, MD & CEO, explained that, “In Q3FY20, there was a recovery in the Essar Steel account… In case of (erstwhile) Corporation Bank, they had written back about ₹1,500 crore as profit. So, that was one-off entry…that is pushing the numbers of the previous year up. Otherwise, operating performance is better this year.”

Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank were merged with UBI with effect from April 1, 2020. The bottomline in the third quarter was supported by a ₹672 crore write-back in tax expenses.

Income

Net interest income (the difference between interest earned and interest expended) was up 5 per cent yoy at ₹6,590 crore (₹6,285 crore in the preceding quarter). Non-interest income, comprising total fee income, dividend income, trading gains, recovery from technically written-off accounts, was down 18 per cent at ₹3,016 crore (₹3,667 crore).

GNPAs declined to 13.49 per cent of gross advances as at December-end 2020 against 14.71 per cent as at September-end 2020. Net NPAs declined to 3.27 per cent of net advances as at December-end 2020 against 4.13 per cent as at September-end 2020.

With proforma slippages (adjusted for the Supreme Court’s interim order), Gross and Net NPA ratio would have been 15.28 per cent and 5.02 per cent, respectively.

Non-performing asset (NPA) loan provisions were down 22 per cent yoy at ₹3,036 crore (₹3,898 crore). However, provisions for standard assets rose to ₹2,227 crore against a write-back of ₹211 crore in the year ago quarter.

Restructuring book

Rai said the restructuring book for Covid-19 related stress stood at ₹16,726 crore. Out of that ₹3,272 crore has already been restructured up to December 31, 2021. The expected restructuring ₹13,454 crore in the next six months, he added.

UBI is expecting to recover about ₹4,000 crore to ₹5,000 crore in current quarter. Of this, a chunk of the recovery is expected to come from two large corporate accounts which have been resolved under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.

Rai said post-amalgamation, UBI made savings of about ₹800 crore through synergy realisation till December-end 2020. It expects savings of about ₹3,600 crore over three years.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

IndusInd Bank Q3 net profit down 34%

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


IndusInd Bank reported a 34.4 per cent drop in its standalone net profit in the third quarter of the fiscal to ₹852.76 crore as against ₹1,300.2 crore in the same period a year ago.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2020, its net interest income rose by a robust 10.8 per cent to ₹3,406.1 crore as compared to ₹3,074.02 crore in the same period last fiscal. Net Interest Margin for the quarter was 4.12 per cent.

Other income however, declined to ₹1,705.46 crore in the October to December 2020 compared to ₹1,789.40 crore a year ago. Provisions surged by 77.6 per cent to ₹1,853.52 crore in the third quarter of the fiscal as against Rs ₹1,043.45 crore a year ago.

Gross non performing assets stood at 1.74 per cent and net NPAs amounted to 0.22 per cent as on December 31, 2020 versus 2.18 per cent and 1.05 per cent respectively as on December 31, 2019. Asset quality was stable.

The pro forma gross NPA would have been at 2.93 per cent and the pro forma net NPA after considering provisions allocated would have been 0.70 per cent. The restructuring pursuant to RBI resolution framework stands at 0.60 per cent of advances as at December 31, 2020. The bank improved the Provision Coverage Ratio to 87 per cent as on December 31, 2020 from 53 per cent as on December 31, 2019.

“Loan growth was strong in areas of domain expertise and helped increase our net interest income 11 per cent year on year. The bank has conservatively built strong Provision Cover at 87 per cent resulting in a net NPA of just 0.22 per cent with total provisions (comprising specific, floating, general and standard assets provisions) being 188 per cent of the gross NPA as on December 31, 2020. We now look forward to a more secular growth profile going forward,” said Sumant Kathpalia, Managing Director and CEO, IndusInd Bank.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

ICICI Bank settles case with SEBI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Private sector lender ICICI Bank has settled a case with SEBI relating to the alleged failure against victimisation of the whistle-blower, after paying ₹28.4 lakh as settlement charges.

“High Powered Advisory Committee in its meeting held on December 30, 2020, considered the revised settlement terms proposed and recommended the case for settlement upon payment of ₹28,40,625 towards settlement charges,” SEBI said in its settlement order.

“…in view of the acceptance of the settlement terms and receipt of settlement charges as

mentioned above by SEBI, the instant adjudication proceedings initiated against the applicant vide

SCN dated January 30, 2020 are disposed of… based on the settlement terms,” it further said, adding that the order shall come into force with immediate effect.

After ICICI Bank proposed to settle the instant proceedings, SEBI agreed to the settlement, “without admitting or denying the findings of fact and conclusions of law”, through a settlement order and had filed a settlement application.

The case pertains to a complaint filed by an ex-employee of the bank Samir Kumar Das on January 8, 2019, on the SCORES platform. Das raised issues that he was victimised by the private sector lender in contravention of the whistle-blower mechanism’s provisions.

Das’s contention is that ICICI’s rights are limited to transferring an employee only to a group company and not to ICICI Foundation.

The bank offered him to join SMEAG (Small Medium Enterprise And Agri Group) on November 13, 2018, to which he expressed reservations to join considering that they were officials against whom he had blown the whistle, the order mentioned.

After reconsideration given his transfer to ICICI Foundation, he offered to join SMEAG on November 14, 2018. The bank did not accept, thereby allegedly violating the code of conduct and corporate governance not giving him a suitable environment to work, it added.

The bank’s offer to join the ICICI Foundation was detrimental to his interests and his banking career, Das said in his complaint.

During examination by SEBI, the ICICI Bank’s response was not found satisfactory. It was observed that the lender failed to provide appropriate protection against victimisation of the complainant who was the whistle-blower against the bank the order mentioned.

“In view of the above, SEBI felt satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to inquire and adjudicate upon the aforesaid violations by the Noticee,” the order further said.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 494 495 496 497 498 540