Recently, I noticed that almost all companies list their principal bankers in their annual reports.
I am a strong believer that certain banking stocks are more risky with their lending while some like Maybank and Public Bank are more prudent.
So, I took time to compile a few near to bankrupt companies and take a look at their principal bankers.

I selected companies based on TradingView screener to screen high risk of default companies, extracted information from latest quarterly reports (TradingView is not entirely accurate).



Analysis:
1. Non of them have MBSB & Public Bank as their principal bankers.
2. CIMB is at most risk. I expect more impairments and lower profitability.
3. AirAsia's high debt is mostly because of leases not bank borrowings.
4. Surprisingly Maybank also has quite high exposure to these companies.

I do not have time to extract all companies. There are technically 50+ companies at risk so I needed to narrow down my search.

Now we take a look at some companies that (which I feel) have low/manageable gearing:


Seems that Maybank has customers with almost all companies.
Well managed companies seem to have Public Bank as their principal bankers.
However, it is possible that these companies are run my mostly Chinese. Hence, they prefer to go to a Chinese bank like Public Bank.

SAPNRG and AA still have ++ operating cashflow...

means, still can survive?

++ means 2019 and 2018 cash flows positive but doesn't mention how big
+- means 2019 positive, 2018 negative
-+ means 2019 negative, 2018 positive
-- means both negative

Unable to say about O&G and Airline industry because it's very competitive.

where velesto?
where serbadk?
where thheavy?

Lazy calculate their ratios but you can just have a quick glance at their annual report. I'm certain Public Bank is not inside.

Didn't fit the criteria according to Trading View.

ohh..u find negative eps

glc are obliged to bank with glc banks.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 24 2020, 09:42 PM

Where you heard that from?

If you are in the business long enough, you will know.

Hmm but almost all the banks are sort of GLCs no?

Chairman and majority of bod members of all banks appointed by mof, ceo need mof/pm approval?

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 24 2020, 10:34 PM

Of course but are you saying all banks because MOF approve then all GLC?

you are not in banking industry. until you have friends working at senior management then come back to argue with me.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 24 2020, 11:02 PM

You are dodging the question. I audit banks before so I know a bit since I read the board minutes especially when it comes to changes in boardroom.
Even you as a bank employee don't even have access to the minutes since it's top secret. Unless you are suggesting you sit on the BOD.

If you have accounting back ground, you should know how loan moratorium works, which you don't.


This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 24 2020, 11:11 PM

Noticed you hardly contribute anything in threads but just talking like an empty vessel

Same was said to me in property thread for a few years. Guess who are empty vessel?

You have the liberty and choice to ignore me.

This post has been edited by icemanfx: Mar 25 2020, 01:06 AM

To me, that also makes public bank is rooted in small private business owners. Instead of big corporations.

they are outside of msia crony circle. Besides hongleong and public, all others are sucked into msia main.

Or, instead of public bank not lending the big corporations, could be the big companies are boycotting public bank

Correct ah? I hentam only

Also, you are comparing different sector.

Boustead should be comparable to mmhe

Sapura should be compared to dayang, bumi armada, carimin etc

Why pos not yet pn17, so low performance lol

One kind member just said (quote Verbatim):

1) What the other guy said about MBB is true, big GLC firms are obliged to bank with MBB. They are considered as the ‘official’ banker of Gov and most GLC firms.
2) why most cash rich companies bank with PBB not others? You have to understand that facilities provided by PBB has a strict collateral of 1:1.
Loan RM500k? you have to pledge or PBB will charge RM500k worth of your property, factory etc. Other banks can easily do 1:5 or 1:7, which explains why high gearing companies USUALLY do not bank with PBB.

PN17 got few criteria one.
Default is default. Industry may influence it but usually it the company's inability to pay.

Why banks go up today? Quite strong some more?

I tot the loan deferment is not good news for banks?

In the short term, the market is on random walk.

Correct me if i am wrong. Loan deferment will affect bank cash flow but in the end bank gain more due to compounding interest on the deffered amount assuming most borrower managed to get back on their feet and pay their dues of course.

This post has been edited by backspace66: Mar 25 2020, 11:57 AM

No. Banks lose due to time value of money because they pay interest to depositors but only collect interest from borrowers later.

If we can compare the interest paid to a simple deposit account compared to the average mortgage, the interest is so much lower. Even the fd rate is still much lower than the average mortgage interest.

But if this move can reduce NPL and foreclosure, in the end , it is still good for the bank.

I'm comparing before and after. They don't lose in the sense they go bankrupt but their profits will be slightly affected due to deferment of interest received.

PBB is one of the kiasiest around, those companies must be financially sound enough to have their loan.