A
great business can close in infancy, not because it is loss making but
because it cannot get credit to overcome its initial cash flow
constraints.
The 2010 results only
reflect a trend over the last decade. For example, while in 2000 there
were only 17 banks with 122 branches, today there are 22 banks with 394
branches; and while total assets of banks were Shs1.8 trillion, by 2010
they had reached Shs11.3 trillion. In fact, the total assets of Stanbic
Bank alone stood at Shs2.4 trillion by December 2010 – higher than the
total assets of all banks in the country in 2000. Total deposits have
increased from Shs1.3 trillion in 2000 to Shs8.0 trillion in 2010 and
profits in the industry from Shs72 billion to Shs270 billion over the
same period.
This trend has been
driven by three major factors. First, the privatisation of Uganda
Commercial Bank removed the dead hand of the state and its corrupt
politics from the banking sector, thus opening the way to competition
and product innovation. Second, the lessons learned from the bank
failures of 1997-1999 led to improved regulation most epitomised by Bank
of Uganda’s director of supervision, Justine Bagyenda, nicknamed the
“Iron Lady” by commercial bankers. Third, the banking sector reflects
the robust growth of the Ugandan economy.
However, not everything
is rosy in Uganda’s commercial banking sector. Interest rates have
remained high (18 to 24 percent) in spite of the fall in interest on
treasury bills. Bank charges are high, constituting a significant part
of bank profits. Although the number of employees has grown from 1,099
in 2000 to 8,700 in 2010; and although the total wage bill has also
grown from Shs47 billion to Shs330 billion over the same period, per
capital earnings of bank staff have declined over this same period from
Shs42m to Shs37m – meaning that banks are employing more people but
paying them less in real wages.
The market is still
dominated by three international banks – Stanbic, Standard Chartered and
Barclays. These banks rely on rules designed in Johannesburg, London
and Dubai to lend to local Ugandans – rules that make it extremely
difficult for many ordinary Ugandans doing business to borrow and
invest. It is the presence of the fourth and fifth largest banks in
Uganda i.e. Centenary and Crane banks that has made it possible for many
Ugandan entrepreneurs to do business.
Indeed, a huge
percentage of the business that the three leading international banks
get is a result of their brand than their product innovation. This
suggests that the dominance of multinational banks has actually
repressed the banking sector. I have a friend who holds an account with
one of the multinational banks and whose business has a gross turnover
of more than Shs1.5 billion per year in the same bank. Yet the bank
could not give him an overdraft facility of Shs200m.
The result of rigid
banking rules designed in London, Dubai and Johannesburg for the local
branches of these multinational banks is to stifle business growth. This
lesson came vividly to me when we set up The Independent as a business.
Most of our advertisers asked for 75 days of credit yet our suppliers
wanted to be paid in advance since we were a new business. Although we
were able to make an operating profit with the first five months, the
mismatch between our revenue collections and our expenditure placed us
is continuous cash flow shortages.
At the time, we were
banking with Stanchart, Stanbic and Barclays. However, in spite of a
rapid growth of our business almost every month which was giving us
large volumes of revenue turnover, these banks could not give us an
overdraft to roll over our cash flow shortages. We turned to Crane Bank
and they gave us the facility because it believes in its customers and
responds to their needs on the basis of its knowledge of them personally
and the information it has on the performance of their business and not
because of some rigid rules designed in London or Dubai.
I learnt from this
experience that even an excellent business can close in infancy, not
because it is loss making but simply because it cannot get short term
credit to roll over its initial cash flow constraints. But I also learnt
that for an economy to achieve its full potential, it needs banks that
are rooted in its people’s business realities – not one whose rules are
based on ignorance or prejudice of some bankers in distant lands
dictating by remote control how a market should operate.
Looking back both as a
journalist and as a business person, I believe that although Uganda’s
banking sector has registered rapid growth over the last ten years, it
could actually have done better for itself and for the country’s people
if priority was given to local banks. I agree that local banks
misbehaved in the mid 1990s leading to their collapse. But the lesson
Uganda took from this experience was the wrong one. Rather than seek to
improve central bank supervision of local banks, Uganda decided to
discriminate against them in licensing of new banks.
The result has been a
safe banking sector most of which is delinked from our business
realities. This, I suspect, may have reduced our economic growth by
anything between one and two percent. Going forward, Uganda should
seriously think of encouraging the growth of local banks as the major
drivers of lending. During its early industrialisation, 90 percent of
the total banking sector in South Korea was controlled by the
government. In China today, government controls over 70 percent of
banking. We do not need Uganda government to control the sector. But it
can encourage local banks to do so through smart policies.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment