A claimant reported that in a July 21 afternoon visit to the PDIC office, one of so many unproductive follow-ups on the status of his claims, he saw an old woman creating a drama scene: berating and shouting at the staff. She could not understand why PDIC was insisting that her children, who were in Singapore, and her friends, had to personally appear to file claims. The old woman just wanted that she alone (not even her husband who she claimed was sick) could do the filing for all of them.
The informant could not help but notice that the old woman was clutching a bunch of yellow claim slips, leading the former to think that "she might have invited the entire barangay to deposit (sic) in Legacy banks" and doubt "whether those were real persons or just fictitious names as the number of claims filed by her is questionably humongous."
If an ordinary depositor would have cause to think that this woman is really the owner of most of those deposits, then imagine what the PDIC would conclude, especially since their charter specifically provides that in determining the amount due to a depositor, "there shall be added together all deposits in the bank
maintained in the same right and capacity for his benefit either in his own name or in the name of others." It is a foregone conclusion that the old woman will not get her way and that even if she presented all her friends, there is no guarantee that PDIC will pay all the claims. Remember the PDIC lawyer? He said that they have ways and means to go beyond what the personal info sheets indicate for the deposits in order to find out who really is the beneficial owner of questionable accounts.
It is understandable that cases of using dummies and preneed check conversions are delaying the validation of accounts, and therefore holding up (some people say grinding down) the payout of claims. However, it has been almost eight months since the closure of banks and checks are just trickling in. It is almost inconceivable that a claimant is paid for one account, while other accounts (in the same bank) opened at the same time as that paid account is still being verified- same situation for his family members who opened accounts together with the paid claimant. There have been more instances where PDIC has required affidavits of one sort or another, than cases of actual payments made. We personally know of one family who received one check for one account but was asked to submit affidavits for 15 accounts, all in the same bank.
Claimants, even those who have been partially paid, have come to the realization that even though PDIC wants to pay valid depositors, it does not have enough liquid funds. It relies on its monthly assessment collections, which average about P600 million a month, net of taxes, to fund its issued checks. So if its payables for all the 13 Legacy banks is about P10 billion (not including the claims for the closed 13 non-Legacy banks), then expect that payouts will drag out for the next 14 months. But wait! Isn't PDIC mandated by its charter to pay within 6 months from the date of filing? It has to, and therefore expect PDIC to soon issue bonds to raise money or finally force PBCom to sell it shares in order to get back its P7.64 billion investment in the bank. If it cannot raise funds soon enough, then the acronym PDIC will come to mean: Postponing Delaying Insurance Corp.
Showing posts with label PBCom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PBCom. Show all posts
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Legacy Bank Mess: A Parting of Partners (Part 4)
PDIC has a Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of 61 billion pesos but has outstanding obligations of P72.5 billion to the BSP. To the layman, it would seem that PDIC is bankrupt. And it may very well be, except for the assurance of Jose Nograles that "All [loans] are in current status and matched with identifiable repayment sources." Most people think that PDIC borrowed all this money from the BSP to supplement and replenish its DIF. It is not so. It is the BSP that initially grants emergency loans to distressed and troubled banks for a period of 90 days, extendable for another 90 days. If the bank is unable to pay these loans within the statutory 180 days, then these loans are transferred to the PDIC, which has less stringent requirements (PDIC accepts real estate properties as collateral). The loans turn into a PDIC assistance when the bank signs an agreement with the state insurer for a rehabilitation plan.
So why didn’t the BSP approve the legacy banks’ request for emergency loans? Because the BSP already knew that based on its (and PDIC'S) 2005 examination of the banks’ books, it did not have the required amount of government securities as collateral. So it allowed all 12 legacy banks to declare bank holidays, and then asked the PDIC to move in early December, 2008 and put the banks under receivership, which it did. Then, late January, 2009, PDIC exercised its charter that allows the insurer to borrow from the central bank to pay claims of depositors of banks placed under its receivership. On February, 2009, BSP disapproves the P14 billion loan request of the PDIC stating that PDIC “have more than enough (DIF) reserves to cover it (deposit claims).” But did it have even enough? Or the question should be, does PDIC have any reserves left?
In 2002, the BSP lent UCPB P25 billion in emergency loans. In 2003, PDIC paid out P8 billion in cash for the bank’s non-performing assets (NPAs). By 2005, PDIC still had P12 billion in loans to the bank. It was only in April, 2009 that PDIC approved the conversion of the P12 billion loan into equity with Nograles noting that the capital notes of PDIC will be converted into convertible preferred notes once the Supreme Court rules on the ownership issue of UCPB. Then in March, 2004, PDIC absorbed the P7.64 billion loan of Philipine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) and converted this into a soft 10-year term loan as part of its “financial enhancement package” where it only charged one percent in interest per year. The pact involves the eventual sale of 67 percent of the bank’s capital stock five years from the infusion of the financial package for the then-bleeding bank. PDIC has a lien on a substantial number of the bank shares: designed this way to make sure that PDIC will be protected in its financial rescue of P7.64 billion, clearly way above the buying offers for the bank’s shares. But now PDIC has a big headache in making its timetable to get its hands on its money it advanced to PBCom because the two warring major shareholders cannot resolve its disputes. In 2006, PDIC paid P3 billion for Export and Industry Bank’s NPAs and granted the bank a six-year term loan of P7 billion, paying PDIC an interest of one percent on the first year of availment and five percent on the next five years. EIB, in turn, used the P7 billion to purchase high-yielding government securities, which will be held in escrow for PDIC. PDIC has tied up P25.6 billion of its DIF as long-term loans and equity into the three banks. Add another 10 billion it paid in cash for the banks’ NPAs, and PDIC has sunk in P35.6 billion of DIF into the three banks.
It is not hard to imagine that it may have tied up the rest of the P61 billion DIF into other banks, considering that as of 2008, PDIC owed the central bank P72.5 billion. The BSP would have known the illiquid position of pdic and that is why in September, 2008, it approved a P3-billion loan for the PDIC to pay insured depositors of the padlocked G7 Bank, a seven-unit rural bank based in Bicol. “The BSP and PDIC are co-regulators. It’s our joint responsibility,” said PDIC president Jose Nograles, when asked about the new loan. But five months later, the BSP disapproved PDIC’s loan proposal that it needed to pay the depositors of 12 banks with more than a 100 branches located all over the country. The BSP maintained that PDIC had acquired “more than enough reserves” to pay P14 billion of insured deposits. PDIC nets about P6 billion cash a year in bank assessments and interest income, and it is therefore impossible for it to have accumulated P14 billion in five short months.
Why had BSP turned down an otherwise routine loan request? Why had it become PDIC’s sole responsibility, and not BSP’s co-responsibility? And faced with this unexpected rebuff and rejection, what is the younger Nograles saying and doing that is now endangering public confidence in pdic and the rural banking industry?
So why didn’t the BSP approve the legacy banks’ request for emergency loans? Because the BSP already knew that based on its (and PDIC'S) 2005 examination of the banks’ books, it did not have the required amount of government securities as collateral. So it allowed all 12 legacy banks to declare bank holidays, and then asked the PDIC to move in early December, 2008 and put the banks under receivership, which it did. Then, late January, 2009, PDIC exercised its charter that allows the insurer to borrow from the central bank to pay claims of depositors of banks placed under its receivership. On February, 2009, BSP disapproves the P14 billion loan request of the PDIC stating that PDIC “have more than enough (DIF) reserves to cover it (deposit claims).” But did it have even enough? Or the question should be, does PDIC have any reserves left?
In 2002, the BSP lent UCPB P25 billion in emergency loans. In 2003, PDIC paid out P8 billion in cash for the bank’s non-performing assets (NPAs). By 2005, PDIC still had P12 billion in loans to the bank. It was only in April, 2009 that PDIC approved the conversion of the P12 billion loan into equity with Nograles noting that the capital notes of PDIC will be converted into convertible preferred notes once the Supreme Court rules on the ownership issue of UCPB. Then in March, 2004, PDIC absorbed the P7.64 billion loan of Philipine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) and converted this into a soft 10-year term loan as part of its “financial enhancement package” where it only charged one percent in interest per year. The pact involves the eventual sale of 67 percent of the bank’s capital stock five years from the infusion of the financial package for the then-bleeding bank. PDIC has a lien on a substantial number of the bank shares: designed this way to make sure that PDIC will be protected in its financial rescue of P7.64 billion, clearly way above the buying offers for the bank’s shares. But now PDIC has a big headache in making its timetable to get its hands on its money it advanced to PBCom because the two warring major shareholders cannot resolve its disputes. In 2006, PDIC paid P3 billion for Export and Industry Bank’s NPAs and granted the bank a six-year term loan of P7 billion, paying PDIC an interest of one percent on the first year of availment and five percent on the next five years. EIB, in turn, used the P7 billion to purchase high-yielding government securities, which will be held in escrow for PDIC. PDIC has tied up P25.6 billion of its DIF as long-term loans and equity into the three banks. Add another 10 billion it paid in cash for the banks’ NPAs, and PDIC has sunk in P35.6 billion of DIF into the three banks.
It is not hard to imagine that it may have tied up the rest of the P61 billion DIF into other banks, considering that as of 2008, PDIC owed the central bank P72.5 billion. The BSP would have known the illiquid position of pdic and that is why in September, 2008, it approved a P3-billion loan for the PDIC to pay insured depositors of the padlocked G7 Bank, a seven-unit rural bank based in Bicol. “The BSP and PDIC are co-regulators. It’s our joint responsibility,” said PDIC president Jose Nograles, when asked about the new loan. But five months later, the BSP disapproved PDIC’s loan proposal that it needed to pay the depositors of 12 banks with more than a 100 branches located all over the country. The BSP maintained that PDIC had acquired “more than enough reserves” to pay P14 billion of insured deposits. PDIC nets about P6 billion cash a year in bank assessments and interest income, and it is therefore impossible for it to have accumulated P14 billion in five short months.
Why had BSP turned down an otherwise routine loan request? Why had it become PDIC’s sole responsibility, and not BSP’s co-responsibility? And faced with this unexpected rebuff and rejection, what is the younger Nograles saying and doing that is now endangering public confidence in pdic and the rural banking industry?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
