Airlangga Summer Program 2015-Indonesia

Airlangga Summer Program 2015-Indonesia
Airlangga Summer Program 2015-Indonesia

Monday, March 30, 2015

An analysis of the performance of ACLEDA Bank in 2013

Authors: Borisa Theng, Dany Hout, Mizuno Thay, Norinreaksmey Phalla, Lihour Tang
      I.         Introduction:
a)    Cambodia economy overview
According to the NBC 2013 report the Cambodia economy is expected to growth slightly to 7.6% due to the sustained agricultural growth, increase in the number of tourism, garment export growth, and gradual recovery of construction. Cambodia have shifted from the low income country to the low-middle income country throughout the past two decades due to the high economic growth which raise Cambodia’s GDP per capita to $1,036 in 2013.
In 2013 the year-to-year inflation increased from 1.8% to 4.6% by the end of the year. During 2013 the exchange rate of Khmer Riel against the US dollar was relatively stable with the average exchange rate of 4,043 Riel per US dollar. Cambodia has the foreign reserve of $4,104 million excluding the 12,436.07951 kilograms of gold and SDR 68.37 million. Cambodia has 49 banks, which consist of 36 commercial banks and 9 specialize banks.
In 2013 the deposit was relatively stable with the average of 3.4% for US dollar and 5% for Khmer Riel (Figure 1). For the lending rate in 2013 the USD loans decrease slightly to 10.72% while KHR loan remained around 11.4% throughout the year (Figure 2).

b)             ACLEDA overview
ACLEDA bank Plc. is a public limited company. It was found in 1993, as a national NGO for micro and small enterprises’ development, which form under the bank and financial institution law of Cambodia. Accordingly in 2000 ACLEDA was licensed as a specialize bank by National Bank of Cambodia and in 2003 got licensed, as commercial bank. Currently ACLEDA bank Plc. pools of financial product include E-banking, credit, deposits, cash management, trade finance, fund transfer, financial lease, life insurance, money exchange and other banking services. By the end of November 2014 it has 253 branches throughout Cambodia (Table1).
At the end of the financial year 2013, ACLEDA had the total assets of $2,297,745,201 and total liabilities of $1,927,560,563. While the total deposit was $1,451,478,315, the loan and advance of ACLEDA was $1,439,487,576. The gross income was $252,677,339. ACLEDA net profit after tax was $77,761,428. However, the earning per share was $0.4293, which is pretty low.

    II.         Financial Statement Analysis
This part of the report will discuss and provide specific detail to items which are considered as the KPI and have noticeably changes from 2011 to 2013. To begin with, the increase in economic growth rate and stability in Cambodia, lead people to feel confidence on banking sector. Depositors start to put their money in safer place, bank. At the same time, deposit is one of the main factors which cause Balance with Central Bank to increase steadily in both proportion to total assets and dollar amount. In Balance with Central Bank consists of reserve requirement, current accounts, fixed deposits and capital guarantee but reserve requirement covers the largest proportion, around 40 %. These three years reserve requirement also moved up speedily due to high deposits (12.5% of customers' deposits).
Another item which had huge change is Investment in Subsidiaries which increased around 80% due to high investment for bank operations in Lao and Myanmar. At the same time, Property and equipment also increased more than 200% as a result of increasing branches which requires more land and building for their office location.
By increasing in their operations, ACLEDA bank borrowed massive amount of money to meet the growth of their assets. They need money to construct new building for branch expansion in both provinces and cities. The composition of net interest margin fluctuated around 60% due to the mismatch of growth rate between interest income and interest expense. Despite the fact that amount of loans to borrowers and interest income speeded up but the growth rate is quite low.
Due to more entrants in bank sector, competitions in banking sector are really strong. Borrowers might want to make rational decision by going to a bank which offered low interest. This issue is also applied to deposits from customers and interest expense with rate dropping.
However, growth rate of interest expense tends to be higher than interest income because of the loans from that they got from ACLEDA NGO and IFC for expansion. Thus, rate of net interest income dropped slightly in each year. Due to the declining growth rat of loans and deposits, the income that the bank got from charging services also declined.
In balance sheet, total equities obviously changed because of growing in share capital. Normally, share capital covers the largest proportion and has biggest changes with 137%. ACLEDA injected share capital by more than USD 100 million which is contributed from stock dividend of bank and cash from shareholders. Reason for large raise in ACLEDA share capital is the strong growth in its core domestic and oversea business with loans and other financial services and total assets. In addition, this build public trusts by demonstrating that they have strong shareholders who are ready to support bank and create confidence to protect customers' savings. Despite a little mismatch of interest growth rate, ACLEDA is able to generate profit. Each year, net profit margin is growing at least 1%, meaning it has done well performance. They manage to use their revenue to cover all expenses without causing any loss.

  III.     Profitability Ratios

To better analyze the profitability ratio of ACLEDA, we calculate and compare the bank’s ratios to the industries average. We take only the top 4 banks in Cambodia in term of assets to calculate the industrial average. The key indicators include the following:
·      ACLEDA Bank had been able to increase its return on assets (ROA) during this last three years. The ROA for ACLEDA Bank was 3.32% in 2011, 3.34% in 2012, and 3.38% in 2013 (Table 4, line 2), while the ROA for the banking industry was 2.31% in 2011, 2.38% in 2012, and 2.46% in 2013 (Table 5, line 2). ACLEDA Bank had been able to generate higher ROA than its peer competitors. This reflects the effectiveness of ACLEDA Bank’s managers in generating net profits out of the assets controlled by the bank.
·      ACLEDA’s net interest margin (NIM) was substantially above the industrial average and it had been fluctuating around 7.72% from 2011 to 2013 (Table 4, line 3). None of the top banks in Cambodia had been able to generate such a high NIM like ACLEDA Bank. The high NIM margin indicates the efficiency of ACLEDA Bank’s managers in raising funds at low cost and making loans at a high rate. NIM is vital for the bank’s profitability; the larger the NIM, the more profits the bank can make. 
·      The net non-interest margin of ACELDA Bank was highly negative (Table 4, line 4). This reflects that the bank’s non-interest income was much lower than the bank’s non-interest expense. The bank had spent excessively on personal and general administrative expenses, which made its non-interest expense to be far much higher than its non-interest income. The non-interest expense of this bank was 3.5 times bigger that its non-interest income in 2013. ACLEDA Bank’s net non-interest margin had been fluctuating around -3.5% during the last three years, while the net non-interest margin for industrial average was around -1.8%. ACLEDA Bank’s management should find ways in order to make its non-interest expense in line with its non-interest income.
·      The bank’s earnings per share (EPS) experienced a decline from $0.63 in 2011 to $0.42 in 2013 (Table 4, line 5). The reduction in EPS was due to the huge increase in share outstanding. ACELDA Bank tried to issue more shares in order to increase the public confidence and to raise additional capital to meet the growth of its assets.
·      The earning spreads of ACLEDA Bank were 8.79% in 2011, 8.67% in 2012, and 8.25% in 2013 (Table 4, line 6), while the earning spreads of the industry average were 5.77% in 2011, 5.65% in 2012, and 5.73% in 2013 (Table 5, line 6). ACLEDA Bank’s earning spreads had been higher than the industrial average for the last three years; this reflects the effectiveness of ACLEDA Bank’s management in borrowing and lending money. However, greater competition tended to squeeze the earning spread of ACLEDA Bank from time to time.
·      The net operating margin of ACLEDA Bank was above its peer group of institutions-for example, rising to 4.25% in 2013(Table 4, line 7) versus 3.10% for peer institutions for the same year (Table 5, line 7). The bank had been very efficient in its operations and controlling expenses. In other words, the bank was able to generate more revenues per dollar of sale than its peer competitors.
·      ACLEDA Bank’s operating efficiency ratio was higher than the industrial average. The bank management was not very efficient in controlling the bank’s operating expenses. For every dollar the bank earned from its operations, the bank spent back for more than $0.6 (Table 4, line 8). 
·      Besides ACLEDA Bank, none of the banks in Cambodia had been able to generate more than 20% of return on equity (ROE) (Table 4, line 9). ACLEDA Bank had done exceptionally well in generating returns for its shareholders. However, the bank’s ROE had declined from time to time. In order understand why the ROE of ACLEDA Bank had declined from time to time, we need to break down ROE into its key components.

1)The first most direct ROE relations is: 
         ROE = ROA x Average assets/Average equity

         ==> We can calculate ACLEDA Bank’s ROE as follow: 
2011: ROE = 0.0332 x 8.32 = 27.61%
2012: ROE = 0.0334 x 7.56 = 25.22%
2013: ROE = 0.0338 x 6.20 = 21.01%
We can see ACLEDA Bank’s ROE decreased from time to time due to the drop in financial leverage.   ACLEDA tried to increase its capital during this last couple of years in order to meet the growth of its assets and increase the public confidence.         

2)The second equation that is also related to ROE is:
ROE = Net profit margin x Asset utilization x Equity multiplier

We already did the calculation for this equation in Table 1, from line 9 to line 12. As the results suggest, there are several factors that cause the ROE of ACLEDA Bank to decrease between 2011 and 2013. First, the bank’s asset utilization ratio had decreased from 11.56% in 2011 to 11% in 2013. This illustrates that the yield from assets of this bank had deteriorated somewhat. Second, the bank had reduced its equity multiplier from 8.32 times in 2011 to 6.21 times in 2013. However, ACLEDA Bank was able to increase its net profit margin during this last couple of years. This reflects the effectiveness of ACLEDA Bank’s management in controlling expenses and maximising revenues. The increase in net profit margin was smaller than the reduction in asset utilization ratio and equity multiplier together, which made the ROE to decrease.

3)Another equation that is link to ROE is:
ROE = Tax Management Efficiency x Expense control efficiency x Asset
management efficiency x Fund management efficiency

We also did the calculation for this equation in Table 1, from line 13 to 17. There are two main factors that caused the bank’s ROE to decrease between 2011 and 2013: a reduction in asset management efficiency and funds management efficiency. The asset management efficiency of ACLEDA Bank decreased by 0.56% from 2011 to 2013. The bank had decreased its ability to generate higher return from its assets overtime. The bank also decreased the use of financial leverage and as we learnt in our bank management course, the higher the financial leverage, the potential return the bank can make. Because of the reduction in financial leverage, the bank also reduced the return to its shareholders.

  IV.         Peer Assessment
So far, we have looked at the performance of ACLEDA Bank in term of their profitability any trends. However, as the competition in the banking industry is becoming more and more intense, the profitability analysis alone may not be enough, the peer assessment is equally crucial for ALCO committee to understand ACLEDA’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to its peers. Therefore, in this section, we will compare the performance of ACLEDA with the other big 3, namely: ANZ Royal, Cambodia Public Bank and CANADIA Bank. Our analysis will provide the bigger picture of performance based on 5 big criteria: Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management capability, Earning ability and liquidity position.
1.     Capital Adequacy
Capital adequacy is one of the prominent indicators of a bank’s finance health. It is extremely useful for a bank to conserve and protect stakeholder’s confidence and preventing the bank from being bankrupt. In addition, it also reflects whether the bank has enough capital to bear unexpected loss arising in the future and bank leverage.
According to the result, the average ACLED’s debt to equity ratio and equity to asset ratio is 6.75 times and 13.13% respectively. This indicates the financial health of ACLEDA to bear any unexpected loss. However, the financial leverage of ACLEDA keep declining for the last four years, resulting from additional capital injection.
2.     Assets Quality
The quality of assets is an important measure to examine the degree of financial strengths of commercial bank. Because the asset of commercial bank is mainly comprised of loan, thus in judging the quality of assets, we use two indicators: Non-performing loan to gross loan and Provision for loan loss to gross loan.
According to above table, for the last 4 years, ACLEDA has maintaining its non-performing loan to gross loans and provision for loan loss to gross loan at the rate of 0.355% and 1.20% of total gross loan respectively. This figure illustrates the ability of ACLEDA to effectively screen out good from bad customers. Furthermore, most of the ACLEDA’s loan portfolios are in good quality. Comparatively speaking, ACLEDA perform better at maintain its loss arising from default of loan than its peers.
3.     Managerial Capability
Managerial competency and capability are crucial for survival and growth of a bank. A good management team can lead the bank to growth and earn profit while the bad one can potentially harmful to the bank in the long term. In this setting, we will use four criteria to judge the managerial capability: Asset and profit growth rate, and loan to deposit ratio.
From 2010 to 2013, based on data available, we can see ACLEDA’s asset growth on average 26.13% per year, outperformed their peers. In addition, the profit growth at the rate of 77%, but such figure must be interpreted carefully, because the economy has just recovered from downturn, and most of commercial bank made negative profit during 2008 – 2010, therefore, high average growth should be interpreted as strong recovery.  Moreover, average loan to deposit ratio of ACELDA is 91.43%, higher than its peers and industry average. These figure reflect ACLEDA’s ability convert its deposit to loan and maximize profits.
4.     Earning Ability
Because the end goal of a business is to maximize shareholder’s value, thus earning ability should be considered as one the most important criteria when judging the performance the bank.
According to table, there is the upward trend in both ACLEDA’s ROE and ROA which on average ROE is roughly 23.55% and average ROA is $3, outperform its peer and industry average as a whole. In addition, ACLEDA’S average EPS is $0.503 and Net interest to total asset is 7.7$ per $100 of asset. These reflect ACLEDA’s ability to convey the profits to its shareholder and efficiency use of resource to convert into profit opportunity. 
5.     Liquidity Position
For any business, but specifically for banking industry, liquidity is like the blood’s vessels, without it, bank can fail instantly due to bank run, therefore, bank must maintain adequate level of liquid asset to guard any short term demand.
According to the table, average liquidity ratio of ACLEDA is 27.28%, lower than its peers as well as industry average. However, a close look might see that there is an upward trend in this ratio, reflecting ACLEDA’s determination to boost liquidity. It is also worthwhile to point out that, although ACLEDA’s liquidity is lower than its peers but 27% of liquidity is generally speaking more than enough, plus that with lower liquidity, ACLEDA can boost its profits.

    V.         Risk Management
The following categorized the top 3 risks that could potentially impact the performance of ACLEDA bank as of the year 2013.
a)    Credit risk:
Credit risk is the risk that counterparty will cause a financial loss to the bank by failing to discharge an obligation. Credit risk is the most important risk for the bank’s business. As for the analysis on the credit risk exposure of ACLEDA, we found that while the average nonperforming assets to total loan is %2.63 in 2013, the ratio for ACLEDA is only limited to %0.55. In accordance with Prakas No. B7-09-074, non-performing assets are income generating assets including loans and advances that are past due for 90 days or more. Thus this relatively low ratio suggested that ACLEDA is more efficient in managing and collecting loans and advances than its peers. In addition, over 95% of ACLEDA loans are secured with some sort of securities. Simply stated, their credit risk exposure is lower than the industry.
Nonetheless, if we look at the trend of ACLEDA non-performing assets to total loan ratio for the last 3 years, we could see that this ratio has been increasing rapidly (Table 6). The ratio was at 0.17% in 2011 then rose to 0.27% in 2012 and finally increases more than double to 0.55% in 2013. This increase in the nonperforming assets means that ACLEDA has been to some extend liberalized its credit process and make loans to customer with relatively higher risk profile. This ultimately increases the bank credit risk exposure.
It is also interesting to see that while the nonperforming assets of the bank has been increasing significantly, ACLEDA ratio of provision of loan loss to total loans during the past 3 years have been relatively stable (Table 7). Thus despite having higher credit risk exposure, the bank does not seem to be prepared for the potential loan losses at all.

b)    Liquidity Risk:
Liquidity could also potentially be one of the concerns for ACLEDA as well. By calculating the ratio of the ACLEDA total liquid asset (cash on hand + balance with central bank + balance with other bank) to ACLEDA total assets, we can evaluate the liquidity of the bank. A low ratio suggests a lower liquidity consideration within the bank. As shown in the table 8, the ratio has been increasing throughout the 4 years period, which suggested the increase concern on liquidity by management.
However, comparing to the banking sector in Cambodia, in 2013 the liquidity ratio of ACLEDA is underperforming the industry average of by approximately 3.5% (Table 8). This conveys a rather active behavior by ACLEDA as other banks in the industry tend to be more conservative in their portfolio due to the risk profile of Cambodia.
Further breaking down of ACLEDA financial liabilities by maturity and the asset held for managing such liabilities can be seen in table 9. The information provided suggested that the bank could potentially face with short term liquidity need as its asset held for managing liquidity is lower than the financial liabilities of up to 3 month of maturity. Although this may seem to be normal for a banking operation, borrowing short and lending long, it can be destructive in the context of Cambodia due to seasonal abnormality. As an instance, during the 2013 election, it was reported that more than $600 million was flooded out the banking system due to fears of post-election chaos in which set off panic and mass withdrawals. This is a part of country risk and although it can be predictable to certain extend, failure to incorporate this into liquidity management policy of the bank can be disastrous.
c)     Interest rate risk:
Cash flow interest rate risk is the risk that the future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market interest rates. As show in ACLEDA note to the financial statement, the bank have been facing with a positive interest rate repricing gap for the past years with $266,069,822 in 2012 increasing to $341,880,466 in the year 2013. Theatrically speaking, this would mean that the bank is likely to be facing with an increase net in interest income if the market interest rate were to increase since then the interest income from earning assets will outstrip the interest expense of the liabilities.
This works relatively well if the market interest rate trend in Cambodia is expected to be moving in an upward trend. Nonetheless breaking down ACLEDA interest rate repricing gap in the 2013 into different maturity bucket, would yield a rather different result (Table 10):
Disregarding the non-interest bearing bucket, it is apparent that the bank is liability sensitive over the coming month and over the next 12 months, and then become asset sensitive in the later period (1-5 years and over 5 years maturity). Logically speaking, the management positioned the bank for falling interest over the next 12 months and for rising horizon over longer horizon.
What we can infer from this information however is that the possibility of an increase in interest rate over the next 12 months could potentially decrease the net interest income of the bank. Suppose the market interest rate will increase by 2% over the next 1 month. This will produce a loss for the bank equivalent to (+0.02)x(-104,244,304) or -2084886.08$. This represents the potential risk that the bank could face due to the fluctuation in the interest rate.

The issue is even more jeopardizing since the management of ACLEDA at this stage does not have a policy to set limits on the level of mismatch of interest rate repricing that may be undertaken, but rather only monitor the mismatch. In addition, the management does not state a clear counter measurement that can be used to protect earning in the case of unexpected change in interest rate. Combine with the fact that the current Cambodia financial market is underdeveloped thus limit the use of hedging instrument such as future contract; it is even more burdening for management to hedge against such risk.

  VI.     Conclusion and Recommendation:

a.  SWOT Analysis
Based on the above analysis, we summarize the finding into the following SWOT
Strength:
·      Strong and leading position in the country
·      Large established customer base
·      Good credit control
·      Have a lot of capital

Opportunity:
·      Expansion into ASEAN markets (41 in Lao and 6 in Myanmar)
·      Number of Cambodians has a bank account keeps increasing
·      M&A to further increase market shares
·      E-banking
Weakness:
·      Inefficient in controlling operating expense
·      low financial leverage ratio
·      Weak liquidity position
·      no policy to limit ISGAP

Threat:
·      Increase competitions in the future
·      No parent company
·      Increase credit risk exposure
·      Regulatory changes
·      Political risk

b.  Recommendations
ACLEDA Bank had spent excessively on personal, general and administrative expenses, which made its net non-interest income to be highly negative and its operating efficiency ratio higher than other banks. ACLEDA Bank’s managers should try to find ways such as outsourcing some of its works to other companies and/or hire more part time employees to cut the bank’s operating expenses. The bank’s ROE had experienced a decline in recent years due to the reduction of financial leverage ratio by the bank. In order to maintain or increase its ROE, we would recommend ACLEDA Bank to increases its financial leverage ratio. The higher the financial ratio, the higher the potential return the bank can make. Cambodians now have increased their confidence in the banking sector and the political system in Cambodia has also been improving, so the bank should not be too conservative than even before.  
With the issue of risk, in order for the bank to be more prepare for the default of loans, especially since the bank seem to be liberalizing its loan process, ACLEDA management can look to increase the yearly subtraction of loan loss provision. This would decrease the magnitude to which bad loan can affect the bank. In term of liquidity management, although ACLEDA is underperforming its peers, it is not by a significant amount. Plus this is rather justified if interest income increase accordingly. Yet the pressing matter would be liquidity management during abnormal periods. As for Cambodia, this is highly visible especially during the election period where lack of public confidence in the banking industry led to high deposit withdrawal. Although the political condition within the country is improving, this risk should not be neglected. Since ACLEDA has no parent company and since domestic bank will be likely to be squeeze during such an event, management team can develop a system for an easier international borrowing. We would also recommend that ACLEDA management team forecast the expected rate of deposit outflow during such event and manage the needed liquidity accordingly. For the bank interest rate risk exposure, since the underdeveloped financial market prevents the possibilities of hedging instrument, we recommend that ACLEDA adopt a rather defensive strategy to interest rate change by developing policies that limit the mismatch of the interest sensitive gap, as soon as possible,  


Appendix:
Description: Description: Macintosh HD:Users:danyhuot:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 8.26.56 PM.png
Figure 1: Deposit Rate, Cambodia

Description: Description: Macintosh HD:Users:danyhuot:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 8.27.07 PM.png
Figure 2: Lending Rate, Cambodia
Description: Description: Macintosh HD:Users:danyhuot:Desktop:Screen Shot 2015-01-14 at 7.35.53 PM.png
Table 1: ACLEDA branch network expansion history



Balance Sheet
2013
2012
2011
Assets



Cash on hand
6.25%
7.47%
8.02%
Balances with the Central Bank
23.07%
19.99%
16.16%
Balances with other banks
3.22%
4.46%
5.78%
Loans and advances to customers
62.65%
64.52%
66.55%
Other assets
1.08%
1.06%
1.01%
Investment in subsidiaries
0.97%
0.66%
0.81%
Property and equipment
2.10%
0.96%
1.02%
Intangible assets
0.41%
0.53%
0.37%
Deferred tax assets
0.24%
0.33%
0.28%
Other investments
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
Total assets
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Liabilities
Due to other banks
8.34%
4.10%
3.12%
Deposits from customers
63.17%
72.46%
74.04%
Other liabilities
2.03%
2.18%
1.86%
Borrowings
4.44%
2.49%
2.31%
Subordinated debts
4.72%
3.42%
4.44%
Provision for income tax
0.67%
0.83%
0.84%
Employee benefits
0.52%
1.29%
1.35%
Total liabilities
83.89%
86.77%
87.97%
Equities
Share capital
8.08%
5.93%
5.27%
General reserve
4.65%
3.96%
3.43%
Retain earnings
3.38%
3.34%
3.32%
Total equities
16.11%
13.23%
12.03%



Total liabilities and equities
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Table 2: ACLEDA Common Size Balance Sheet 2011-2013

2013
2012
2011



Interest income
88.51%
88.41%
84.55%
Interest expense
-20.28%
-18.96%
-16.77%
Net interest income
68.23%
69.44%
67.78%
Provision for loan losses
-2.20%
-2.22%
-2.16%
Net interest income after provision for loan losses
66.03%
67.23%
65.62%
Fee and commission income
9.91%
11.13%
12.81%
Fee and commission expense
-0.26%
-0.17%
-0.26%
Net fee and commission income
9.65%
10.96%
12.55%
Other income
1.58%
0.47%
2.65%
Personnel expenses
-24.65%
-27.90%
-28.23%
General and administrative expenses
-10.36%
-10.93%
-12.37%
Depreciation charge
-2.72%
-2.30%
-3.51%
Amortization charge
-0.86%
-0.63%
-0.74%
-37.00%
-41.29%
-42.20%
Profit before income tax
38.68%
36.89%
35.97%
Income tax expenses
-7.90%
-7.27%
-7.26%
Profit for the year
30.77%
29.62%
28.72%
Table 3: ACLEDA Common Size Income Statement 2011-2013
Table 4: ACLEDA Profitability Ratio 2011-2013
Table 5: Industries Average Profitability Ratio 2011-2013






2013
2012
2011
Non-performing assets
$8,065,344
           $3,347,016
            $1,703,556
Total loan and lease
$1,468,091,287
$1,253,744,486
$1,006,603,896
NPA/Total loans
0.55%
0.27%
0.17%
growth
105.79%
57.74%

Table 6: ACLEDA NPA to Total loans


2013
2012
2011
Provision of loan loss
                 $5,570,677
             $4,759,364
            $3,706,112
Total loan and lease
1,468,091,287
1,253,744,486
1,006,603,896
PLL/Total loans
0.38%
0.38%
0.37%
Table 7: ACLEDA PLL to Total loans


2013
2012
2011
2010
Total liquid assets/Total assets
32.54%
31.93%
29.96%
23.70%
Industry average
36%



Table 8: ACLEDA Total liquid assets to Total assets










Up to 1 month
1 to 3 month
3 to 12 month
1 to 5 years
Over 5 years
total
Total financial liabilities
928,178
210,413
506,466
289,505
33,127
1,967,689
Assets held for managing liquidity
658,257
202,118
562,225
863,880
292,198
2,578,678
Table 9: ACLEDA Liquidity Exposure, 2013 (in thousand USD)

Maturity Bucket
interest sensitive assets
interest sensitive liability
size of gap
sensitivity
cumulative gap
Non-interest bearing
476,249,239
237,797,325
238,451,914
Asset
238,451,914
Up to 1 month
370,538,559
713,234,777
-342,696,218
Liability
-104,244,304
1 to 3 months
166,906,755
201,282,734
-34,375,979
Liability
-138,620,283
3 to 12 months
443,699,138
516,621,445
-72,922,307
Liability
-211,542,590
1 to 5 years
695,487,592
212,898,795
482,588,797
Asset
271,046,207
Over 5 years
81,234,988
10,400,729
70,834,259
Asset
341,880,466
Table 10: ACLEDA ISGAP by Maturity Bucket, 2013






Bank
Debt-Equity Ratio (times)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
7.97
7.31
6.53
5.2
6.7525
ANZ ROYAL
7.16
7.3
7.53
7.47
7.365
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
4.16
3.6
3.8
3.52
3.77
CANADIA
6.96
7.15
6.65
6.33
6.7725
Table 11: Debt Equity Ratio 2011-2013

Bank
Equity to Asset Ratio (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
11.15
12.03
13.23
16.11
13.13
ANZ ROYAL
11.84
12.03
11.71
11.79
11.8425
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
18.98
21.31
20.43
21.69
20.6025
CANADIA
12.57
12.17
13.03
13.59
12.84
Table 12: Equity to Asset Ratio 2011 - 2013

Bank
NPL to Total Loan Ratio (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
0.43
0.17
0.27
0.55
0.355
ANZ ROYAL
4.85
3.67
4.2
3.1
3.955
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
3.37
3.04
3.04
1.82
2.8175
CANADIA
5.92
5.3
5.6
4.99
5.4525
Table 13: NPL to Gross loans



Bank
PLL to total loan (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
1.26
1.1
1.17
1.28
1.2025
ANZ ROYAL
3.27
2.38
3.29
2.42
2.84
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
2.18
2.69
2.92
2.44
2.5575
CANADIA
4.64
3.63
3.59
3.61
3.8675
Table 14: PLL to Gross loans



Bank
Asset Growth rate
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
28.38
28.09
28.35
20.42
26.31
ANZ ROYAL
17.6
14.9
18.89
18.56
17.4875
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
6.3
0.16
17.88
5.63
7.4925
CANADIA
42.59
21.57
22.21
15.84
25.5525
Table 15: Assets Growth rate


Bank
Profit Growth rate
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
172.27
86.62
28.96
22.17
77.505
ANZ ROYAL
276.08
46.91
3.36
47.15
93.375
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
7.72
71.67
18.03
5.26
25.67
CANADIA
-25.6
53.43
53.03
10.07
22.7325
Table 16: Profit Growth rate


Bank
Loan to Deposit ratio (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
83.22
90.89
90.84
100.77
91.43
ANZ ROYAL
58.02
57.35
52.17
51.48
54.755
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
70.93
77.17
74.37
78.57
75.26
CANADIA
59.97
68.11
65.9
75.7
67.42
Table 17: Loans to Deposits


Bank
ROE (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
20.4
27.6
25.2
21
23.55
ANZ ROYAL
10.94
14.38
12.68
15.67
13.4175
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
7.25
11.06
11.56
10.84
10.1775
CANADIA
11.58
15.09
17.65
16.07
15.0975
Table 18: ROE


Bank
ROA ($ per 100$ of asset)
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
2.04
3.28
3.32
3.36
3
ANZ ROYAL
1.34
1.73
1.54
1.91
1.63
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
1.38
2.36
2.36
2.35
2.1125
CANADIA
1.46
1.84
2.3
2.19
1.9475
Table 19: ROA

Bank
EPS
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
0.3754
0.6329
0.5744
0.4293
0.503
ANZ ROYAL
0.1135
0.1678
0.17
0.25
0.175325
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
0.156
0.2639
0.31
0.32
0.262475
CANADIA
0.37
0.21
0.27
0.28
0.2825
Table 20: EPS


Bank
Net Interest / Total Asset
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
7.64
7.83
7.81
7.5
7.695
ANZ ROYAL
3.67
3.59
3.11
2.98
3.3375
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
4.28
4.17
3.52
3.8
3.9425
CANADIA
2.73
2.91
2.3
3.76
2.925
Table 21: Net interest to Total Asset


Bank
Liquid Asset / total asset
2010
2011
2012
2013
Average
ACLEDA
23.7
20.92
31.96
32.54
27.28
ANZ ROYAL
37.81
36.3
43.59
44.46
40.54
CAMBODIA PUBLIC
29.14
26.52
30.42
28.8
28.72
CANADIA
40.24
38.12
40.82
37
39.045
Table 22: Liquid Asset to Total Asset

No comments:

Post a Comment