Since the government-forced consolidation and reforms that prescribed a minimum shareholders’ funds of N25 billion on Nigerian banks, none of the existing ‘mega-banks’ have reported returns fewer that multiples of million of dollars.
I just returned from a visit to Nigeria I have a question; it might come across naïve to some:
Where is the real “trickle-down effect” of the declared several $$ billion-profits of Nigerian financial institutions?
It appears there is none!
All it takes is spend a fewer hours in Nigeria – particularly Lagos – to realize there is something not right with those numbers. Not that are those bank declarations are false, but who knows, they might very well be - those numbers seem to exist in a vacuum, lifeless!
When a bank declares a profit, my limited economic sense tells me the money doesn’t just sit in the vault; it is put to work. Where are Nigerian banks putting their money to work?
There are street whispers that some complex arithmetic manipulations occur on the back-desks of the banks. True?
There are estimates that the banking sector in Nigeria may be overvalued by as much as 52%. Really the banks make no pretentions about the fact that they are no welfare institutions. In a working system, corporate gains tax will kick in, but even if it does, in Nigeria we are still at the mercy of the government to make that work.
September 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm
well trickle down effects are tricky to see, you tend to have to know where to look. For example, you saw more new cars on the roads in lagos, courtesy of the increased consumer finance binge. You saw a marked increase (and then dramatic decrease) in the stock market thanks to the increased margin lending activity in banks. The real estate prices shot through the roof in Lagos and Abuja, and office buildings are shooting up all over the place. The top tier corporates are able to go on expansion drives thanks to bank lending, and so on.
Having said all this, banks tend to stop at the organized private sector because they want to be sure they will get their money back. Which means they are missing a large part of the economy. If you wouldn’t lend to someone you don’t know from anywhere, and cannot find out about, why should a bank?
Ultimately trickle down effects are driven by the real sector, a la the telecoms revolution, the financial sector is an intermediary. If there is nothing to drive, it can’t really have the effects one would hope. Ultimately, the infrastructure challenge is the main reason for the lack of real effects. For example manufacturing is the largest employer of semi-skilled labor in most countries, but it is moribund here for infrastructure reasons. If you fix that, the sector becomes bankable and can take off. In a sense the bank profits are just a spectre of things to come if the infrastructure problem is fixed.
Aiight this is a long arse comment, and I’ll stop now, but things are never as straight forward as they seem.
September 24, 2008 at 6:02 am
Thanks Oz and Snazzy. Your comments have expanded my knowledge base, I must say. Infrastructure - the the socioeconomic hardware of any nation - is one word that has been talked about a lot in Nigeria. Somehow, those talks have yet to translate to visible solutions. Uhh!
September 24, 2008 at 10:38 am
I am happy to read from a contributor on the ground. As much as I agree with his infrastructure argument. Which coincidentally was the the conclusion of my undergraduate project (as we call it in Nigeria). I am back to sort of add to snazzy’s argument. The infrastructure argument is a little too text-booky and sort of an out in explaining the failures of the Nigerian economic system. That is what every economics teacher standard answer.
I am more concerned about what can be done while we are getting our acts together.
you guys may be interested in reading this http://www.templeton.org/questions/africa/
September 24, 2008 at 11:14 am
there are a lot of reasons for the failure of Nigeria’s economic system, however we are talking about banks willingness to lend to businesses that will have a real impact (trickle down effect) on the economy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that between 40% - 50% of the costs of running a business are self-provision of infrastructure (power, water, etc). This makes businesses uncompetitive, especially manufacturing businesses. As a result the manufacturing businesses cannot compete against imports for the most part, which means that they are not bankable from a risk perspective.
This is the general rule, and there are a number of exceptions to this, large businesses with economies of scale, specialist manufacturers with “guaranteed markets”, industries with import bans (though Dunlop shows that import bans may not save you)
If you don’t solve infrasture, you will not solve this problem. However addressing other problems like human capital and corruption will get you closer to fixing the infrastructure problem. Banks are making money hand over fist doing the things they are doing now, they will not be willing to take risks on the real sector until the infrastructure issues are remedied. Unless of course they are compelled to by goverment (a la SMEEIS scheme - which was an unmitigated failure).
September 24, 2008 at 11:36 am
I viable business with up to 23% returns in Nigeria still finds it difficult to borrow money. Let us start from there. That is all I am saying. I tend to avoid economic debates. Lending programs work in Vietnam and even Bangladesh.
September 24, 2008 at 11:39 am
You may also want to watch Paul’s video which kind of supports you idea. http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/paul_colliers_a.php
September 24, 2008 at 11:43 am
You have highlighted the problem with Nigerian lending right there. A business with a 23% return on equity is a viable business by most of the rest of the world standards. However in Nigeria it probably is not. Here is why:
A bank will require between 21% - 28% return on their debt capital (factoring all their fees). So while the business will be able to pay back te debt, there will be no gains to the business (and you may lose money if the borrowing cost is higher than the ROE). Also if anything goes wrong, or there is a cashflow timing issue (debtors/creditors issues) you will not meet your debt repayment schedule. So most bankers tend to stay away from such a business unless it is backed by iron-clad guarantees. A bank credit committee will raise serious questions with a loan like this.
I’m not a big fan of the way the banking sector operates in general, but you can’t really fault them on real sector lending, I don’t think. It’s not really viable yet.
September 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Thanks snazzy for the conversation.
September 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Rich just keeps on getting richer and poor poorer and this is yet to change, hence the “no trickle down effect”. The Delta region oil had no trickle down effect, so why the bank bullions? The American financial situation (i mean the bailing out intent of President Bush when the same Execs enjoyed the whole gains is another example. I could go on but since this is an economic debate, let me be economical with words.
September 26, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Bank profits - A cheap(complex)/effective advertising tool.
October 8, 2008 at 4:48 am
ethiopia debt problem…
I have been looking for a long time and found this post. Thanks a lot….
November 13, 2008 at 8:01 pm