Post Merger Gains from Asian Bank Mergers
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Published: Wed, 14 Mar 2018
The East Asian Financial crisis happened in the 1997-1998 was indeed a major setback for the global economy, causing fears of a global economic meltdown due to financial contagion. The financial crisis started with the flowing of Thai Baht in July 1997, which consequently followed by the Malaysian Ringgit, Philippine Peso as well as the depreciation of Indonesian Ruppiah (Barro, 2001). As result of the financial crisis, the Bank of Thailand failed to persuade several of the largest finance companies to voluntarily merger in the spring of 1997 and was granted merger powers in the October 1997 Emergency Decrees (Waxman, 1998). On the other hand, Malaysia responded by merging the banking sectors within the domestic banks.
The main objective of this study is to examine the post-merger gains from the bank merger due to the financial crisis happened in 1997-1998.
1.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITION
The term Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) can be defined as a part of corporate strategy and management in buying, selling and combining different companies. Pilloff and Santomero (1997) stated that Mergers and Acquisition brings benefits to shareholders when the consolidated post-merger firm is more valuable than the simple sum of the two separated pre-merger firms. Apart from that, Mallikarjunappa and Nayak (2007) clarify the term Merger as: “The term merger involves coming together of two or more concerns resulting in continuation of one of the existing entities or forming of an entirely new entity.” In general, mergers can be classified into horizontal, vertical or conglomerate.
On the other hand, Acquisition is a purchase of one company (the target) by another (acquirer, bidder), having an effective control over the assets or management of another company without combining their business physically. In normal terms, acquisition occurs by acquiring majority shares of the company. At terms when the acquisition is against the will of the target management, it is normally called a ‘Takeover’.
A Takeover takes the form of tender offer to buy shares by the acquiring company, made directly to the target shareholders without the consent of the target management.
There are several terms that are commonly found:
Absorption: When one or more companies merge with an existing concern. For example: during 1998, oil and natural gas company, BP (British Petroleum Company) merged with Amoco Corporation, making it the world’s largest industrial merger during that time. After the merger, Amoco lost its identity. Thus, all the Amoco service stations were converted to BP, while BP retains its identity.
Consolidation or Amalgamation: When two or mor companies merge, forming a new company. The most famous consolidation would be the merger between America Online Inc. (AOL) and Time Warner, forming AOL Time Warner in 2000.
Conglomerate: A combination of two or more corporations, each involved in different businesses, sectors or industries, merging into one corporate structure. In general, a conglomerate is a multi-industry company, where it normally involve a parent company and many subsidiary companies.
Horizontal Merger: A combination of two of more companies with similar type of production, distribution or area of business. Horizontal merger would probably be best to be explained by the amalgamation of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler.
Vertical merger: A combination of two or more companies which produce different goods or services for one specific finished product.
So many years, studies have been conducted relating to Mergers and Acquisitions. For the best interest of the economic, M&A strives to maximize the usage of all available human and operational resource, reducing competition within sectors, expanding their market share, achieving economics of scale and the most debatable; achieving savings in terms of administrative cost, cost efficiencies, capital reforming and increasing profits. (Mallikarjunappa and Nayak, 2007, Mylonakis, 2006)
In a popular study, Pilloff and Santomero (1997) argues there are a few types of efficiency gains flow from merger and acquisition activity, while increased cost efficiency is the most commonly mentioned. It is understood that most mergers have the idea that through merger and acquisition, a significant operational cost would be eliminated, and thus increase overall profit.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF MALAYSIAN BANKING
On 29 July 1997, the Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) announced a merger program for domestic banking institutions, in order to strengthen the banking sector. Waxman (1998) mentioned that the Malaysian Government would facilitate the merger by encouraging the healthiest institutions to acquire small and medium sized companies through a government program of capital assistance. Ahmad (2007) cited that guided mergers were widely accepted by Malaysians as well as East Asia policy-makers as a solution to banking problems.
Banks were forced to merge and to write off bad debts, consolidating the financial system. The Ringgit, which stood at RM2.50 to the US Dollar prior to the crisis but plunged to RM4.97 during the worst part of the recession, was pegged at RM3.80. Initially this was seen as a move to stabilize the currency at an acceptable level and save many companies who had debt denominated in US dollars. Later it turned out to be a blessing as the low currency made Malaysian goods more competitive and encouraged exports
On 12 October 1999, the then Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, announced that the merger plan would be revised (Ahmad, 2007), where banking institutions were given the flexibility to form their own merger groups, as well as select the acquiring banks to lead the merger process. By 1997, there were 58 financial institutions operate a total of 2,712 branches, serving a population of 22.5 million. Each group was assigned to operate one commercial bank, one merchant bank and one finance company. Approval was granted for the formation of 10 banking groups, each with a minimum shareholders’ equity of RM 2 billion and an asset base of RM 25 billion (BNM Annual Report, 1999). The main objective is to bring out greater efficiency to domestic banking operations (Said et al., 1999), while the financial crisis left many financial industries with high Non-Performing Loans (NPL), capital deficiencies in the banking system as well as the distressed corporate sector (BNM Annual Report, 1999). The banking institutions were given until end of January 2000 to submit their merger groups.
During the first phase, there were only 2 severely less efficient banking groups were merged by the end of 1998. There were the mergers between Kwong Yik Bank Bhd and DCB Bank Bhd, and between Chung Khiaw Bank (Malaysia) Bhd and United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd (Ahmad 2007). The financial crisis has reflected that due to increase in global competition and extensive pressure from various sources, it is difficult to protect domestic banking industries. The increasing pressure by the World Trade Organizations, the financial institutions then removed entries barriers for foreign entities under the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services and the GAT on Trade and Services (BNM Annual Report, 1999). Foreign banks then, responded to opportunities by quickly capturing significant market shares, despite the numerous regulation restrictions. (Aziz, 2002)
On 14 February 2000, BNM approved the formation of 10 domestic banking groups with the anchor banks as Malayan Banking Berhad, Bumiputra-Commerce Bank Berhad, RHB Bank Berhad, Public Bank Berhad, Arab-Malaysian Bank Berhad, Perwira Affin Bank Berhad, Hong Leong Bank Berhad, Multi-Purpose Bank Berhad, Southern Bank Berhad and EON Bank Berhad, each with a minimum shareholders’ equity of RM 2 billion and an asset base of RM 25 billion (BNM Annual Report, 1999). BNM later announced on 14 November 2000 that the minimum capital funds for both domestic and foreign-owned banking groups would be increased to RM2 billion and RM300 million respectively with effect from 31 December 2001 (BNM, Annual Report, 2000). Under the formation of the 10 banking groups, the number of banking industries decreased from a total of 54 to 29 banking institutions. As result of the consolidation program, 94% of the total assets of the domestic banking sector have been rationalised and consolidated.
Based on Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) Annual Report (2000), results show a significant rise in the Malaysia economy. The strong economic performance can be reflected by the increment of profit in the banking sector, with an increase of 107.5% in pre-tax profit from RM4.7 billion in 1999, to RM9.7 billion for 2000. In contrast, this amount was even higher than the pre-crisis 1997 period, at RM7.7 billion. Part of the measurements found in the Malaysian Budget 2000 is to lower interest rates, which successfully prompted growth in bank lending. Such monetary policy measurement has facilitated the smooth progress of financial and corporate restructuring activities. (BNM Annual Report, 2000)
1.4 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC BANK
Public Bank was established in 6th August, 1966, by its founder and on-going Chairman, Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Teh Hong Piow, who was then a general manager of Malayan Bank. Listed on the Malaysian Stock Exchange in 6th April 1967 with a paid-up capital of RM16 million, Public Bank has since gained its reputation as among the most efficient banks as reflected by its low cost to income ratio, serving not only domestic but also operates in Hong Kong and China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Sri Lanka. By the 1st five months of business, Public Bank managed to yield a profit of RM71, 562, which is the start of an unbroken profitability track record of 43 years. Within 2 years itself, Public Bank manage to achieve its 1st RM1 million annual pre-tax profit in 1969. On top of that, Public Bank started to pay its 1st dividend of 3.5% per ordinary share of RM1.00 each in 1970, which was the start of an unbroken stream of dividends paid by Public Bank to 2009
Being among the most recognised brand in Malaysian financial services, Public Bank offers various financial services; home mortgage financing, vehicle hire purchase financing and commercial lending to small-medium sized industries. The Chairman built up Public Bank’s fame, based on its conservative and prudent practice, which resulted in having among the lowest level of Non-Performing Loans (NPL). By the end of 1998, Public Bank obtained a gross NPL of 6.3 per cent, and the number increased by just 1.3 per cent the following 6 months.
During the financial crisis, Public Bank were among the few that remained untouched by the crisis, which wrecked havoc in major financial centres around the world. It remains as the largest Malaysian banks among the non-government linked corporation.
Responsive of the merger program from Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), on 26th June 2000, an agreement has been made between Public Bank Bhd and Hock Hua Bank Bhd, by merging both their commercial banks, with Public Bank acting as the anchor bank (Bernama, 2000). Hock Hua Bank Berhad, a small but well-managed commercial bank in Sarawak, provided Public Bank a platform to expand its market to East Malaysia. The absorption/consolidation continued as Public bank also merged with Advance Finance Berhad and Sime Merchant Bankers Berhad on 25 October 2000, bring advantages such as to expand the Group’s Business into merchant banking, as well as to enhance its control over Chinese middle market in the two states as it has so far done in Penisular Malaysia (Raj, 2000; Public Bank Annual report, 2009).The Bank had also privatized Public Finance in 2003 and merged its finance company business of Public Finance with the banking business of Public Bank in September 2004.
Today itself, Public Bank became the largest banking group in Malaysia by market capitalization and the 2nd largest listed company on Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad on 18 July 2008 with a market capitalization of RM36.03 billion. Public Bank Group possess over 252 domestic branches, as well as 17,160 number of staff, majority in Malaysia, while the rest in its overseas operations in Hong Kong, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Sri Lanka.
In the word of finance, there sever indicators monitored by XXXXX in order to forecast XXXXX. Variable such as XXXXX , are closely monitored and scrutinized in order to determine whether the economy is accelerating or decelerating. The reason behind this is to determine future movements in the rate of inflation.
In general, the purpose of this paper is to recognize the XXXXXXX. On top of that, the specific objectives are listed as below:
- To understand the significant of Malaysia economy relate to world gold price.
- To examine existence of any causal relationship between GDP per capita, exchange rate and changes in real price of gold.
SIGNIFICANT OF STUDY
By observing the variables, measures can be made to soften the impact made by gold price fluctuation. Hence, result obtained from this paper can be used as a guide for the government to prepare themselves against the movement of gold price. So that the policies and steps that government will take can be known when the prices of gold increases too much or fall too rapidly. Moreover, the significant of the impact on the increase of gold price on the economy can be understood.
ORGANIZATIO OF THE STUDY:
In the research paper, we will include the likes of literature review, which consists of theoretical framework and literature review, as well as methodology and data for further review.
We adapt the model of financial analysis from Liesz and College (2002), William J. and Linda K. (2005), and Saunders (2000), which is based on the DuPont system of financial analysis Return on Equity model. The concepts of Return on Asset (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) are significant not only to understand pre- and post merger performance comparison, as well as to evaluate the profitability and potential growth of a company. Companies that possess a high return on equity with little or no debt are able to grow without depending on large capital expenditures (Kennon, 2006). Many business organizations use the return on assets portion of the model as a primary performance measure to understand better the company’s strength and weaknesses, and establishing operating objectives (William J. and Linda K., 2005).
In a study carried out by Horncastle and Kumbhakar (2008), if it is assumed that cost efficiency is carried out through improvements in managerial efficiency, this gain can be measured in two ways:
1) Efficiency gains can be measured through the cost side and
2) Efficiency gains measured through improvement in profitability: via the percentage of ROA and ROE. This also can be measured using the parametric econometric approach (SFA).
The DuPont system was originally created in 1919 at E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co, while the original DuPont model was the product of the net profit margin and total asset turnover equals ROA, illustrated in Equation 1.
Eq. 1: (net income / sales) x (sales / total assets) = (net income / total assets) i.e. ROA
ROA, also known as Returns of Investment (ROI), measures the overall efficient of management in generating profits based on its assets. Some firms also used this simple formula to measure proposed fixed-asset investment (Gitman, 2009). During that time, ROA became the primary objective for all companies. It wasn’t until 1970 where financial institutes shifted their focus from ROA to ROE, driving their attention to maximize wealth of the firm’s owners. Horncastle and Kumbhakar (2008) suggest that efficiency gains can be measured through ROE, because if there is any gain in efficiency hence ROE and ROA will improve.
The DuPont system, also known as the strategic profit model, can be explained by breaking ROE into three components: net profit margin, total asset turnover, and the equity multiplier.
Net profit margin, which is simply the after-tax profit of a company generated for each dollar of revenue, allows the financial analyst to evaluate the income statement and the components of the income statement.
There are two ways to measure net profit margin:
Net Income ÷ Revenue
Net Income + Minority Interest + Tax-Adjusted Interest ÷ Revenue
Total asset turnover allows the financial analyst to evaluate the left-hand side of the balance sheet which is composed of the asset accounts. It measures of how effectively a company converts its assets into sales. Total asset turnover is measured as followed:
Total Asset Turnover = Revenue ÷ Assets
It is understood that the total asset turn over ratio is inversely related to the net profit margin; the higher than net profit margin, the lower the asset turnover. William and Linda (2005) also mentioned that inefficient or under utilized assets might weaken a firm’s ability to achieve a satisfactory asset turnover.
The equity multiplier, a measure of financial leverage, evaluates the right hand side of the balance sheet, which is composed of liabilities and owners equity. It provides a guideline to investors to see what portion of the return on equity is the result of debt. The equity multiplier is measured as followed:
Equity Multiplier = Total Assets ÷ Shareholders Equity
The modified DuPont Model was indeed a significant tool to distinguish the relation of a firm’s income statement and balance sheets. It is represented by equation 2 & equation 3.
Eq 2: ROE = ROA x (total assets / equity)
Eq 3: ROE = (net income / sales) x (sales / total assets) x (total assets / equity)
In a more recent study, Hawawini and Viallet (1999) added another modification to the DuPont Model. In their study, the modification resulted in 5 components to form ROE, instead of 3 components as previously mentioned. They concluded that the financial statements firms prepare for their annual reports are not ideal and useful for managers who make operating and financial decisions (Brigham and Houston, 2001, p 52 IN Liesz and College, 2002). Instead, traditional balance sheets were restructured into a “managerial balance sheet”, which is significantly more appropriate.
In the restructured balance sheet, concepts of “invested capital” and “capital employed” respectively takes over total assets, total liabilities and owner’s equity, which is normally found in the traditional balance sheet. Liesz and College (2002) mentioned that the main difference is in the treatment of the short-term “working capital” accounts. The managerial balance sheet uses a net figure called “working capital requirement” as a part of invested capital. These accounts then individually drop out of the managerial balance sheet.
Working capital can be determined as:
[Accounts receivable + inventories + prepaid expenses] – [accounts payable + accrued expenses]
Hence, the third version modified Du Pont model is shown below in Equation 4.
Eq. 4: (EBIT / sales) x (sales / invested capital) x (EBT / EBIT) x (invested capital / equity) x (EAT / EBT) = ROE
(Where: invested capital = cash + working capital requirement + net fixed assets)
Apart from maintaining the importance of the impact of operating and financial decisions upon ROE, the ‘really’ modified DuPont model uses 5 ratios to determine what influence ROE and ways to improve these ratio.
The 5 ratios of the “really” modified Du Pont model are:
- Operating profit margin: (Earnings before Interest & Taxes or EBIT / sales)
- Capital turnover: (sales / invested capital)
- Financial cost ratio: (Earnings before Taxes or EBT / EBIT)
- Financial structure ratio: (invested capital / equity)
- Tax effect ratio: (Earnings After Taxes or EAT / EBT)
Based on Liesz and College (2002), a firm’s operating decisions are based on the acquisitions and disposal of fixed assets, the management of the firm’s operating assets (mostly inventories and accounts receivable) and operating liabilities (accounts payable and accruals). These are represented in the first and second ratios of the model.
On the other hand, the third and fourth ratio represents the financing decisions of those that determine the mix of debt and equity, which are used to fund the firm’s operating decisions. While the last piece of the ratio is the incidence of business taxation. The higher the tax rate applied to a firm’s EBT, the lower its ROE (Liesz and College (2002).
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
As the primary objective of Merger and Acquisition is wealth maximization of shareholders, it can be done by seeking gains in terms of synergy, economies of scale, better financial and marketing advantages, diversification and reduced earnings volatility, improved inventory management, increase in domestic market share as well as capture fast growing international markets abroad (Mallikarjunappa and Nayak, 2007)
Majority of research conducted in the past failed to convey that significant cost reduction or increase in performance occurred after bank merged (Pilloff and Santomero, 1997, Akhavein et al, 1997). Yet, consolidation has been going on throughout the past 3 decades.
Akhavein et al. (1997) proposed that bank mergers that focus on cost efficiency typically do not succeed in significant reduction in unit cost. However, the banking megamerger in the 1980s’ showed improved profit efficiency on average. Such profit efficiency findings may have a conflict with prior literature. Kwan and Wilcox (1999) also suggest that mergers may reduce costs if they enable banks to close redundant branches or consolidate back-office functions.
Akhavein et al. (1997) also mentioned the reason behind the indifferent findings. In general, cost efficiency measuring do not take into account of the effects of the changes in the output that occur after the merger, whereas measured profit efficiency changes include all the cost efficiency plus the cost and revenue effects of changes in output that typically occut after a merger. Based on their findings, merging banks tend to shift their output mixes from securities toward loans, which raises profit efficiency because issuing loans creates more value than purchasing securities.
In the recent study, DeYoung et al. (2009) concluded that North American bank mergers can be efficiency improving. Kwan and Wilcox (1999) suggest that mergers could improve bank productivity if they increase the range of products that banks can profitably offer. By enhancing the service offered to customers, it would increase bank’s attractiveness, which leads to raise in revenue as well.
Kwan and Wilcox (1999) emphasised that several factors such as globalization, technological advances, and regulatory retreat, remains the reason of bank merger to occur. These factors could have stimulated, allowing less financial stabled banks to be targeted.
Allen and Boobal-Batchelor (2002) show inconsistent evidence about increased efficiency levels during the extended post-merger periods in Malaysia. On the other hand, Fadzlan (2004) suggest that post merger bank efficiencies were higher than pre-merger period.
Allen and Boobal-Batchelor (2002) and Koetter (2005) suggest that the less efficient banks are most-likely to be taken over targets. Acquiring banks are more likely more efficient than target banks and most of this efficiency advantage is attributable to better managerial competence (PTE). Avkiran (1999) find identical result in the case of Australia economy, adding that the acquiring bank does not always maintain its pre-merger efficiency.
Based on BNM Annual Report, 1999, it has been suggested that the financial crisis during the 1998-1999 has reflected the under-performing and weakness in management for some banking industries.
In recent studies, Carletti et al. (2006) studied the changes in competition policies to identify the reactions among banks and other financial industries. Their findings concluded that banks’ stock price react positively to the change of a competition policy, while non-financial firm react negatively.
Domestic and cross border mergers have also been studied on various countries and economy. Bank mergers in the European Union (EU), on average, showed an improving return on capital and return on equity. Studies based on domestic Merging and Acquisitions suggest that it can be a financial burden to integrate dissimilar institutions in terms of their loan, cost, earnings, deposits and size strategies (Altunbas and Ibáñez, 2004).
In a study to investigate the actually performance effects of horizontal mergers among companies, Egger and Hahn (2009) discovered that horizontal mergers exert positive effects on bank performance, most notably in terms of improving cost performance. Pre-merger effects are also found, such as lower costs, before the establishment of the merger.
Mallikarjunappa and Nayak (2007) concluded that Mergers and Acquisitions fail to create value for shareholders of acquires. It is important to analyze the culture and people -issues of both the concerns for a better post-acquisition integration. Unfortunately, such analysis is widely neglected, as most Merger and Acquisition deals are carried out sole for financial and economic benefits. It is important to review the non-financial aspects such as working culture, staff attitudes and mindsets, as these non-measured variables can affect the outcome of each Merger & Acquisition.
It is important to know that most bank employees treat Merger and Acquisitions as a threat to their job. Mylonakis (2006) examines the relationship between Mergers and Acquisitions with employment and the efficiency of human resources in Greece. Statistics show that post merger for Hellenic bank have been negative in terms of employment, as 3,627 jobs have been terminated during the 1998-2003 period.
Okazaki and Sawada (2003) analyze the Bank Merging wave in Prewar in Japan, emphasize that merging and acquisitions do not have an effect on enhancing bank profitability, though their findings supports the standing that consolidations had a positive impact on deposit growth, which was significant to the financial system during the prewar of Japan’s economy.
Many studies also proposed that consolidation program does not guarantee improvement in bank performance, as mentioned by Somoye (2008). Said et al. (2008) also supports the statement, by means mergers in Malaysia did not show any productive efficiency, as there is no significant difference after the merge. However, Somoye (2008) mentioned that consolidation program itself has a significant impact on the growth of the real sector of Nigeria for sustainable development, which remain as an economic benefit.
In Koetter (2005) study, which uses cost efficiency as a measurement to analyze the efficiency of banks to convery their input into output, suggest that cooperative bank mergers, in overall, has a higher percentage being successful compared to savings bank merger.
Hardin III and Wu (2008) analyze the relationship between bank mergers, Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), loan pricing and takeover likelihood. Real Estate Investment Trust are capital intensive firms with significant limitations on earnings and cash flow retention (Kallberg et al. 2003), which are more heavily relied on external financing to fund investment and expansion. Their findings suggest that bank Mergers can affect other industries, in this case, publicly traded firms, such as REITs. When a REIT’s agent bank is acquired, it faces higher interest rate loan pricing from its subsequent lenders. The REIT’s firms which lose their primary relationships with their agents due to bank merger are more likely to be acquired; where as REITs that maintain their relationship with acquiring banks are more likely to acquire other firms.
DeYoung et al. (2009) conducted the recent financial institution of Merger and Acquisition literature, beginning from year 2000 onward, covering over 150 cases. European bank mergers somehow resulted in both efficiency gains and stockholder value enhancement. This may be due to the fact the European bank mergers have learnt best deal practice (or worst deal practice) from the earlier Northern American deals.
Evidence from Fadzlan (2004) showed that the merger programme for the banking industry in Malaysia was a successful, most notably for the small and medium sized banks, as they have benefited the most from the merger, such as cost-performance gains earlier than larger banks, as well as expansion through economies of scale (Egger and Hahn, 2009). On the other hand, the larger banks suffered scale inefficiencies post merger
Balance Sheet Items:
Based on Public Bank annual report from 1999-2008, we can observe that there are four major categories of assets: Cash, Customer Loans, Securities and Fixed/Other Assets. Cash has fluctuated from RM 6.95 billion in 1999 to a high of RM32.6 billion in 2007 before decrease to RM29.5 billion in 2008, covering an average of RM16.2 billion for the 10 year period. On the other hand, customer loan account showed an increasing trend. In 1999 Public Bank obtain RM12.9 billion, and the number rise annually to RM93.1 billion in 2008, with an average of RM47.4 billion. Securities and Deposit also showed an increasing trend with an average of RM22.1 billion, from RM10.4 billion in 1999, to RM43.3 billion in 2008, only decreased slightly in 2004 from RM18.6 billion to RM14.5 billion. Fixed and other assets remained between RM0.51 billion and RM0.65 billion from 1999 to 1998, achieving an average of RM0.55 billion
There are three major liability accounts found in Public Bank’s Balance Sheet – Corporate and retail deposits, other liabilities and shareholders fund. Corporate and retail deposits increased from RM22.9 billion in 1999 to the RM134 billion in 2008, with an average of RM64.8 billion. Other liabilities increased from RM4.6 billion in 1999 to RM30.2 billion in 2004, before decreasing to RM17 billion (2005). It continued to remain at RM22 – 23 billion from 2005 to 2008. Shareholders fund increased from RM3.3 billion in 1999 to RM9.3 billion in 2008, with an average of RM6.9 billion.
Income Statement Items:
There are 3 main sources of income for Public Bank – interest income, non-interest income and gains, and net income from Islamic banking. Interest income decreased from RM1.7 billion to RM1.5 billion in 2000, before showing a promising increasing trend, achieving a total of RM7.3 billion in 2008. Non-interest income and gains fluctuated from RM0.22 billion in 1999 to RM1 billion in 2008, obtaining an average of RM0.87 billion. Net income from Islamic Banking represents a prospective profit, increasing from RM0.015 billion (1999) to RM0.44 billion (2008) in 10 years time, achieving an average of RM0.22 billion.
There are 4 main categories of expenses – Interest Expense, provisions for bad loans, overhead costs, and income tax. In 1999, there was an exceptional item found in their income statement, consisting of RM0.088 billion, where it represents the gain on disposal of the Bank’s entire 55% equity interest held in Kuala Lumpur Mutual Fund Berhad to a wholly owned subsidiary, Public Consolidated Holdings Sdn. Bhd. under a restructuring scheme which was completed during the year (Public Bank annual report, 1999). Interest expenses remains the highest expenses of all, where it fluctuated from RM1.11 billion in 1999 to RM4.18 billion, with an average of RM1.92 billion. Provision for bad loans fluctuated from RM0.078 billion in 1999, to RM0.39 billion in 2008, costing an average of RM0.21 each year. Overhead cost mainta
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: