Business

Stanbic IBTC impairment charges balloon by 508.76% in 2020

Felix Tunde

Many of Stanbic IBTC’s debtors found it difficult to meet their obligations to the in 2020, making its impairment provision for its non-performing loans leap by 508.76% to N9.93 billion during this period.

The country’s economic lull took a toll on the bank’s revenue drive as its financial statement, which was recently released, showed it barely increased gross earnings by 0.27 to N234.45 billion, buoyed by trading revenue (earnings from fixed income and foreign exchange) that rose 43.43% during this period.

Nigerian economy entered into recession in the third quarter of last year due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and significant drop in oil prices but recovered at the end of the year after it grew 011%.

Stanbic struggled to rake in money from core banking activities in 2020 as Interest income dropped 12.15% to N105.78 billion compared with N120.41 billion in 2019, while fees and commission income managed to rise 0.16% to N75.15 billion in 2020 and other revenue lowered by 30.59% to N1.41 billion.

It grew post-tax profit by 10.9% to N83.11 billion in 2020, the highest it has made ever made in a financial year, despite revenue remaining static.

Meanwhile, it was able to trim expenses, cutting interest cost by 25.88% to N31.56 billion, fees and commission expenses by 14.65% to N3.96 billion and other operating expenses by 2.40% to N52.13 billion.

Personnel cost, however, went up by 3.75% to N42.14 billion in 2020.

The risk assets increased by 18.27% to N632.97 billion as total assets improved to 32.50% to N2.49 trillion last year.

On the other hand, the bank attracted N1.33 trillion as deposits, which was 49.49% higher than N886.74 billion it had in 2019 and total liabilities rose 33.89% N2.11 trillion in 2020.

Business

“You lied” – FG lambasts cement manufacturers over hike in product price

Ahmed Dangiwa

The Eyewitness reporter

The Federal Government has picked holes in the reasons proffered by the cement manufacturers for the sudden jump in the price of the product.

It could be recalled that a few days ago, cement recorded an astronomical increase in price as the 50kg of the essential building materials climbed from N5000 to between N10,000 to N15,000, depending on the location in the country.

Concerned by the sudden hike, which has elicited uproar among already depressed Nigerians, the Federal government summoned the major cement manufacturers and other merchants of building materials in the country such as Dangote Cement, BUA and Lafarge, to an emergency meeting.

Addressing the manufacturers at the meeting, the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Ahmed Dangiwa, dismissed the reasons given by the cement manufacturers, describing them as untenable.

Whereas the manufacturers blamed the cost of gas and mining equipment for the hike, Dangiwa said key input materials for cement production such as limestone, clay, silica sand, and gypsum, sourced within the nation’s borders, should not be dollar-rated.

He said the price of gas that manufacturers are using as an excuse was not tenable because gas is a raw material found within the country.

The minister further declared that the excuse of an increase in mining equipment should not come up because equipment bought by the manufacturers has been used for decades and not purchased every day.

He however threatened that the federal government may be forced to throw open the borders and allow importation of cement to flood the Nigerian market in a bid to crash the prices of the community should the manufacturers refuse to reduce their prices.

He warned that the cement manufacturers should not push the government into taking this decision which he believed would push them out of business.

The minister said the border was closed to the importation of cement to help local manufacturers.

However, he noted that if the government decides to open the border for mass importation, prices of cement would crash and local manufacturers would be gravely affected.

The minister, who called on the manufacturers to be more patriotic, said BUA Cement, for instance, has been willing and is still willing as at the last time he spoke with them, to crash the price of their cement, lower than the N7000, N8000 agreed by the manufacturers and he sees no reason why the others should not do same.

“The challenges you speak of, many countries are facing the same challenges and some even worse than that but as patriotic citizens, we have to rally around whenever there is a crisis to change the situation.

“The gas price you spoke of, we know that we produce gas in the country. The only thing you can say is that maybe it is not enough.

“Even if you say about 50 percent of your production cost is spent on gas prices, we still produce gas in Nigeria. It’s just that some of the manufacturers take advantage of the situation.

“As for the mining equipment that you mentioned, you buy equipment and it takes years and you are still using it,” he said.

Earlier, Group Chief Commercial Officer of Dangote Cement, Rabiu Umar blamed the high cost of gas and mining equipment for the hike in cement price.

He said: “It is safe to say we are all Nigerians and we are all facing the current head weight that is happening. I would like to speak on the popular belief that most of the raw materials to produce cement are available locally.

“While we have limestone and in some cases, we have gypsum and some cases coal, the reality is that it takes a lot of forex-related items to produce cement.

Business

Marine insurers express frustration, confusion over loosely -worded EU sanctions on Russia.

WESTERN SANCTIONS TARGETING RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN’S ABILITY TO SHIP OIL VIA INSURANCE RESTRICTIONS ARE PROVING TO BE A DIFFICULT CHALLENGE FOR THE INSURANCE MARKET TO NAVIGATE.

The lack of detail and loosely worded legislation in Europe’s latest set of sanctions against Russia has posed a series of difficult legal scenarios for the insurance sector to considerMarine insurers are struggling to interpret the ambiguous detail behind the European Union’s sixth package of sanctions targeting Russia and have warned that pending UK legislation may yet complicate matters further.

According to the legal framework released last week, EU countries will phase out imports of seaborne Russian crude over a six-month period and prohibit insurance and reinsurance of maritime transport of crude and petroleum products to third countries.

However, because the EU legislation is not immediate and contains several staging points with multiple caveats allowing continuation in given circumstances, the porous nature of the rules is proving difficult for insurers who demand legal clarity.

There are also concerns over how the UK plans to treat the issue of EU states as ‘Third Countries’.

It is widely expected that the UK, home to the world’s largest shipping insurance market, will follow the bloc’s move with its own insurance bans, however no details have yet been shared by the UK Treasury with the industry.

The UK is a third country from an EU perspective, and it remains unclear whether the UK would treat supplies to the EU differently to supplies to other countries, especially as the EU is treating the UK as a third country.

That means that EU insurers, including the subsidiaries of UK insurers, cannot insure transportation of spot cargoes coming to the UK, and likely vice versa.

‘The issue of supply insurance can be closed at the expense of state guarantees within the framework of interstate agreements with third countries,’ says former president

The lack of details has posed a series of difficult legal scenarios for the insurance sector to consider.

It is not clear, for example, how the Luxembourg-based insuring subsidiary of a P&I Club headquartered in the UK would respond to questions about cover from a Greek member which is asked to carry a spot cargo from Russia to the UK during the wind-down period.

Even if the UK is able to iron out any inconsistencies, the loose wording of the EU’s current guidance has left insurers scratching their heads trying to work out how to apply the EU legislation.

Phrases such as “as soon as possible”, “should be possible” and “exceptional temporary derogation” contrasts with the insurance sector’s requirement for legal black and white.

The EU guidance details an eight-month transition in relation to the transport of crude oil and more than 80 different petroleum products.

There are five wind-down dates, the latest being December 31, 2024 for Bulgaria, with at least 11 other caveats on top.

Specific exemptions such as those detailed under Article ‘3m’ allow for one-off transactions for near term delivery — the implication being that these are for delivery into the EU.

However, Article ‘3n’ does not, so any insurer of a vessel carrying crude or petroleum products to a third country must check that there is a pre-existing contract in place, and not just rely on what could be called the spot cargo exemption.

Lawyers still in the process of interpreting the EU guidance also argue that the notification framework is very unclear in its current format.

The responsibility lies with member states to notify the commission, but there is no guidance on who tells the member state and which one if there is a nexus to multiple different member states.

What happens if a commercial party fails to inform a member state is not yet clear.

Given the extensive nature of caveats and clauses, implementation of the sanctions is likely to prove difficult.

According to guidance note 19 in the EU legislation, states could theoretically declare a temporary derogation.

The clause states: “If the supply of crude oil by pipeline from Russia to a landlocked member state is interrupted for reasons beyond the control of that member state, the import of seaborne crude oil from Russia into that member state should be allowed, by way of an exceptional temporary derogation, until the supply by pipeline is resumed or until the council decides that the prohibition on the import of crude oil delivered by pipeline is to apply with regard to that member state.”

“The implementation of ‘19’ is likely to be particularly challenging in practice as it’s entirely subjective,” explained one senior insurance expert.

EU ban covers ‘insurance and re-insurance of Russian ships by EU companies’.

Compromise will allow Russia’s pipeline oil exports to the EU to continue temporarily, while seaborne shipments are blocked by the end of the year

Despite the lack of clarity, assuming that the UK eventually prohibits the insurance and reinsurance of Russian oil shipments to third countries, lawyers and insurers agree that the combination of jurisdictional approaches will likely prevent many mainstream tanker owners from lifting Russian cargoes.

According to Broker BRS, however, it will not completely choke off Russian exports.

As Lloyd’s List reported this week, alternative, albeit smaller, insurance markets, notably in China and Russia, will remain open.

“Although this will discourage mainstream tanker owners from lifting cargoes, it will not likely discourage ‘niche’ tanker owners whose vessels are already involved in the transport of illicit Iranian and Venezuelan oil,”

BRS said in its latest research note. “Since the sanctions package was finalised, we are already hearing of significant insurance issues.”

Western companies are reluctant to insure voyages passing via the Black Sea.

Meanwhile, due to the restrictions placed on the Russian banking sector, companies are reluctant to insure tankers loading from the CPC terminal close to the Russian port of Novorossiysk.

Although CPC blend is composed of 90% Kazakhstani crude and thus not embargoed, if there was an accident at the terminal, it would be difficult to compensate Russian entities without falling foul of sanctions.

Lawyers and insurers await details from UK Treasury over planned Russian sanctions to match EU sixth package as concern mounts over ‘Third Party’ countries application of rules

ReplyForward

Business

Fidelity Bank boosts local rice production with N34bn

Mrs. Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe, Managing Director/CEO, Fidelity Bank Plc,

Fidelity Bank has facilitated the disbursement of over N34 Billion in direct credit to players in the Nigerian rice value chain.

The bank’s interventions in recent years have helped to unlock spontaneous financing opportunities for a large swathe of paddy rice farmers with significant contributions to the expansion of national paddy rice output.

Only recently, the bank part-financed the construction of a 400 metric tons per day mega rice mill in Kano state owned by the Gerawa Group of Companies.

Commenting on the development, Mrs. Nneka Onyeali-Ikpe, Managing Director/CEO, Fidelity Bank Plc, said, “Through our interventions in the rice space, we have created a positive impact in rural communities by way of farmer empowerment and employment generation. This is also in alignment with the business sustainability imperative of our banking business.”

Shedding light on the bank’s activities further down the value chain, Mrs. Onyeali-Ikpe stated that the bank directly financed the construction and installation of several integrated rice mills across different geo-political zones in Nigeria. These rice mills have a combined rice milling capacity in excess of 500,000 MT per annum.

Recognizing the importance of the last mile traders in the value chain, she noted, “We have also provided low-cost funds to rice traders to purchase rice from indigenous rice millers for sale to the final consumers. This has helped in stabilizing the prices of locally produced rice.”

Whilst stressing the importance of imbibing sustainability practices, Mrs. Onyeali-Ikpe points out that the bank has modeled effective social and environmental sustainability frameworks into its agribusiness deal structuring workflow to address social and environmental sustainability requirements.

This, she said, follows the CBN’s Sustainable Banking Principles and Sector Guideline, IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles.

The bank’s activities have continued to receive recognition by operators, funding partners and all other actors in the agribusiness space.

At the Bankers’ Committee meeting of December 2019, for instance, Fidelity Bank was awarded 2nd position in Sustainable Agriculture Transaction of the year.