RAM says Maybank 's gross impaired loans ratio has risen over the years due to "weakness in specific corporate borrowers domestic & foreign " - Maybank's Genting HK denial inconsistent with RAM analysis

by Ganesh Sahathevan 

RAM Ratings noted in a Maybank ratings update dated 27 December 2021: 

Weakness in specific corporate borrowers, both domestic and foreign, have driven up the Group’s gross impaired loans (GILs) over the years. Despite the heightened credit risk environment, Maybank’s GIL ratio was a lower 1.9% as at end-September 2021 (end-December 2020: 2.2%), helped by relief measures across the region as well as the write-off of several lumpy exposures.

RAM  Ratings reaffirmed Maybank's AAA rating and the statement above seems to be a classic case of kitchen sinking. In any case, it reveals a lender  whose special relationship with  favoured customers has led it into loss.  

It adds to this writer's opinion that Maybank's Genting HK press release reveals more than Maybank expects it will rebutt (see story below). 

Monday, January 24, 2022

Maybank provides no basis to allay "baseless" fears of Genting HK related losses , and its denial adds to the fears

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It has been reported that  Maybank has issued a press statement "slamming" reports that Maybank will suffer signifiant losses from the likely liquidation of Genting HK. 

Maybank says the reports of its  losses are "baseless" , but its press release raises many bases of concern.

Maybank states:

“While we do not comment on our exposure to customers or alleged customers owing to confidentiality obligations, Maybank would like to re-enforce that it observes strict accounting treatment related to provisioning and impairment of loans, as per International Financial Reporting Standard and Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard requirements, and these accounting treatment are also subject to comprehensive reviews by our external auditors and regulators,” the statement said.

Maybank has a rigorous asset quality monitoring process, whereby vulnerable borrowers are identified and managed accordingly from the onset of any potential asset quality weakness.

The above statement is unfortunately less than re-assuring. 

First, review of Maybank's financial records by external auditors for compliance with accounting standards is not very likely to reveal any problems with loan quality, unless those problems have been disclosed in Maybank's own records. 

Second, it is highly unlikely that Genting and its related businesses would have been considered "vulnerable borrowers" by any bank in Malaysia, including Maybank. Consequently, it is not likely that there would have been any specific provisions made for any loss on loans to Genting HK.  

A simple "no exposure" would have sufficed, but Maybank chose instead to go on an offensive. It can now provide answers to issues it has caused to arise.

TO BE READ WITH 




Maybank: Allegations of financial trouble baseless

Tuesday, 25 Jan 2022


“With regard to your query on recent news articles suggesting that Maybank is one of the three Malaysian banks that will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong, Maybank would like to state vehemently that these allegations are baseless,” Maybank said said in a written reply to query on the issue.


KUALA LUMPUR: Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank) says allegations that it will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong are baseless.

“With regard to your query on recent news articles suggesting that Maybank is one of the three Malaysian banks that will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong, Maybank would like to state vehemently that these allegations are baseless,” it said in a written reply to query on the issue.


It was reported that three Malaysian banks’ profits, including Maybank, are set to take a major hit as trouble looms over cruise operator Genting Hong Kong – a major Asian corporate casualty of the Covid-19 pandemic. The other two banks are CIMB and RHB Bank Bhd.

The report by Singapore’s Straits Times said that these three banks are among some the chief unsecured creditors of Genting Hong Kong, with a combined exposure of US$600mil (RM2.5bil).


Genting Hong Kong’s liquidation filing came just a week after its German shipbuilding subsidiary MV Werften went into insolvency, a development that triggered cross-defaults for the entire group’s various financing arrangements amounting to more than US$2.7bil (RM11.31bil), it reported.

“While we do not comment on our exposure to customers or alleged customers owing to confidentiality obligations, Maybank would like to re-enforce that it observes strict accounting treatment related to provisioning and impairment of loans, as per International Financial Reporting Standard and Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard requirements, and these accounting treatment are also subject to comprehensive reviews by our external auditors and regulators,” the statement said.

Maybank has a rigorous asset quality monitoring process, whereby vulnerable borrowers are identified and managed accordingly from the onset of any potential asset quality weakness. — Bernama

Maybank provides no basis to allay "baseless" fears of Genting HK related losses , and its denial adds to the fears

by Ganesh Sahathevan

It has been reported that  Maybank has issued a press statement "slamming" reports that Maybank will suffer signifiant losses from the likely liquidation of Genting HK. 

Maybank says the reports of its  losses are "baseless" , but its press release raises many bases of concern.

Maybank states:

“While we do not comment on our exposure to customers or alleged customers owing to confidentiality obligations, Maybank would like to re-enforce that it observes strict accounting treatment related to provisioning and impairment of loans, as per International Financial Reporting Standard and Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard requirements, and these accounting treatment are also subject to comprehensive reviews by our external auditors and regulators,” the statement said.

Maybank has a rigorous asset quality monitoring process, whereby vulnerable borrowers are identified and managed accordingly from the onset of any potential asset quality weakness.

The above statement is unfortunately less than re-assuring. 

First, review of Maybank's financial records by external auditors for compliance with accounting standards is not very likely to reveal any problems with loan quality, unless those problems have been disclosed in Maybank's own records. 

Second, it is highly unlikely that Genting and its related businesses would have been considered "vulnerable borrowers" by any bank in Malaysia, including Maybank. Consequently, it is not likely that there would have been any specific provisions made for any loss on loans to Genting HK.  

A simple "no exposure" would have sufficed, but Maybank chose instead to go on an offensive. It can now provide answers to issues it has caused to arise.

TO BE READ WITH 




Maybank: Allegations of financial trouble baseless

Tuesday, 25 Jan 2022


“With regard to your query on recent news articles suggesting that Maybank is one of the three Malaysian banks that will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong, Maybank would like to state vehemently that these allegations are baseless,” Maybank said said in a written reply to query on the issue.


KUALA LUMPUR: Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank) says allegations that it will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong are baseless.

“With regard to your query on recent news articles suggesting that Maybank is one of the three Malaysian banks that will face major financial trouble owing to exposure to Genting Hong Kong, Maybank would like to state vehemently that these allegations are baseless,” it said in a written reply to query on the issue.


It was reported that three Malaysian banks’ profits, including Maybank, are set to take a major hit as trouble looms over cruise operator Genting Hong Kong – a major Asian corporate casualty of the Covid-19 pandemic. The other two banks are CIMB and RHB Bank Bhd.

The report by Singapore’s Straits Times said that these three banks are among some the chief unsecured creditors of Genting Hong Kong, with a combined exposure of US$600mil (RM2.5bil).


Genting Hong Kong’s liquidation filing came just a week after its German shipbuilding subsidiary MV Werften went into insolvency, a development that triggered cross-defaults for the entire group’s various financing arrangements amounting to more than US$2.7bil (RM11.31bil), it reported.

“While we do not comment on our exposure to customers or alleged customers owing to confidentiality obligations, Maybank would like to re-enforce that it observes strict accounting treatment related to provisioning and impairment of loans, as per International Financial Reporting Standard and Malaysian Financial Reporting Standard requirements, and these accounting treatment are also subject to comprehensive reviews by our external auditors and regulators,” the statement said.

Maybank has a rigorous asset quality monitoring process, whereby vulnerable borrowers are identified and managed accordingly from the onset of any potential asset quality weakness. — Bernama

Top Education Group's share price falls to historic low of HK 0.15 - Top's law school has not enrolled new students since 2019 but regulator NSW LPAB, led by the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst ,maintains silence

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The late Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group Ltd's share price has fallen to its historic low of HK0.15.

Top Group's law school has not been enrolling new students since mid-2019. The law school and its business school are its two main businesses, so Top is in fact running on just one lung. 

The situation has deteriorated since March last year ( see story below)  but the regulator of the law school arm of the business, the NSW LPAB and its chairman, the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst, have maintained silence.

TO BE READ WITH 

Top Group's share price sinks to new low, taking with it the NSW LPAB & its chairman Tom Bathurst's standing as guardians of the NSW legal profession : Bathurst should stand down as chief justice, submit himself and his NSW LPAB to investigation; time overdue for Andrew Bell to be appointed Acting Chief Justice NSW

 by Ganesh Sahathevan-- March 19, 2021 

-

This story below was published on a related blog yesterday:

Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group sinks to new low of HK 0.22 cents: Top will not comment on suspension of law school enrolments because it might be price sensitive'

Meanwhile, the regulator responsible for granting the law school its right to issue law degrees, the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (NSW LPAB) and all others who oversee it have chosen to remain silent about these issues which are very much in the public domain:

Top Group(1752:HK) IPO investors entitled to answers from the NSW LPAB & NSW AG Mark Speakman -Suspension of Top Group law school enrolments raises questions about the value of the IPO which relied on NSW LPAB & Speakman's granting Top Group its license to issue law degrees

The issuance of that license to award  law degrees, and the IPO that followed would have raised red flags from Sydney to Hong Kong, but not it seems for Bathurst and his NSW LPAB officers, who renewed the license just before enrolments were suspended, and despite other issues: 

Zhu Minshen announces that NSW LPAB review "went smoothly": AG NSW Mark Speakman and officers unconcerned by Clive Hamilton's disclosures of threats, intimidation and defiance of AFP directives ,share price collapse

For all of the above  reasons and more Mr Bathurst needs to stand down as Chief Justice of NSW and submit himself and his team at the NSW LPAB to investigation. The President Of the Court Of Appeal, Andrew Bell, can be appointed as Acting Chief Justice:

NSW LPAB has a new Executive Officer: Three EOs in under two years suggest even more audit red flags and more reasons why LPAB Chair Tom Bathurst should step down as chair, and as chief justice


As Chief Justice Tom Bathurst has been intent on pursuing a social and political agenda. In doing so he has walked into a matter of national security.In doing so he seems to have neglected his actual duties.

- March 19, 2021 

Stricter criminal background checks for lawyers born in Asia seeking admission in NSW - A legacy of NSW CJ Tom Bathurst that will have to be addressed by the incoming Chief Justice

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                 NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst is also Chairman of the NSW LPAB

Lawyers and law graduates seeking admission to the Supreme Court Of NSW must provide the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board a statement from NSW Police that will satisfy the NSW LPAB and its chairman the Chief Justice NSW that the applicant has no criminal record.

In the case of applicants from Asia, there seems to be an unwritten requirement that the person also prove that he or she has no criminal record in any other jurisdiction. Additionally applicants must also prove that they have not been the subject of any investigation by the relevant agencies in any foreign jurisdiction.  

This was in fact the experience of this  writer, who was found not fit and proper for admission to practise, for among other reasons, the possibility of criminal activity in a foreign jurisdiction.A clean police record from NSW Police had already been provided.

Consequently the Chief Justice's suspicion had to be addressed by this writer requesting from the Attorney General's Chambers Malaysia a statement directed to the Chief Justice NSW confirming that this writer had not even been investigated for any crimes in Malaysia. The AG's Chambers Malaysia also offered to assist the Chief Justice with any additional concerns that he may have had. 

This additional hurdle seems to have been introduced by the current chairman of the NSW LPAB, the Chief Justice NSW Tom Bathurst. It is left to be seen if his successor, who is due to take over from him in March 2022, maintains that practise.

TO BE READ WITH 

Bizarre blog claims used to deny man right to practise law
The Australian 
EXCLUSIVE

BEN BUTLER
BUSINESS REPORTER
12:00AM JANUARY 17, 2019
2 COMMENTS


The body overseen by Chief Justice Tom Bathurst responsible for deciding who can practise law in NSW relied on a wildly defamatory Malaysian blog depicting ABC journalists, former British prime minister Tony Blair, financier George Soros and others as part of a global conspiracy when deciding to deny a would-be solicitor a certificate to practise.

Chief Justice Bathurst and Legal Practitioner Admission Board executive officer Louise Pritchard declined to answer The Australian’s questions about how the article came into the board’s hands and why its members felt the conspiracy-laden material could be relied upon as part of a decision to deny Sydney man Ganesh Sahathevan admission as a lawyer. Nor would either say which of the 10 members of the LPAB, three of whom are serving NSW Supreme Court judges, was on the deciding panel.

Ms Pritchard has left her role at the LPAB since The Australian began making inquiries in September. The article, published in December 2017 on website The Third Force, accuses Mr Sahathevan of engaging in a conspiracy to attack then Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak.

READ NEXT

EXCLUSIVE
Would-be lawyer denied by blog
BEN BUTLER

Mahathir Mohamad, who returned as prime minister after toppling Mr Najib in elections held last May, is also smeared as a participant in the globe-spanning conspiracy.

Mr Najib was under pressure at the time over the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB, which the US Department of Justice says has been looted of billions of dollars that was spent on property, art, jewels and the Leonardo DiCaprio film, The Wolf of Wall Street.

Malaysian authorities have charged Mr Najib with dozens of corruption offences that could attract decades in jail over his role in the 1MDB scandal, which allegedly included the flow of about $US1 billion through his personal bank account.

The article’s author, Malaysian political operative and Najib loyalist Raggie Jessy, also accused Rewcastle-Brown, Stein and Besser of receiving money, totalling millions of dollars, to participate in a Four Corners program exposing the 1MDB scandal that aired on the ABC in March 2016.

There is no suggestion any of Mr Jessy’s bizarre allegations are true. However, the LPAB cited the piece when denying Mr Sahathevan admission as a lawyer in an undated and unsigned set of reasons sent to him on August 3 last year.

It used the article as evidence in a passage dealing with legal conflicts between Mr Sahathevan, who has largely worked in the past as a journalist, his former employer, Malaysia’s Sun Media Group, and the company’s owner, tycoon Vincent Tan.

In that context, the board said the Third Force article reported “that Mr Sahathevan was investigated for blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation”. While the article claims that blackmail, extortion, bribery and defamation “are but some of the transgressions many from around the world attribute” to Mr Sahathevan, The Australian was unable to find any reference in it to an investigation into him on these grounds.

It is unclear why the board felt the need to rely on the article, as it also made adverse findings about Mr Sahathevan’s character based on a series of other allegations including that he used “threatening and intimidating” language in emails to the College of Law and the NSW Attorney General and did not disclose his sacking from a previous job to the board.

Mr Sahathevan has denied the allegations in correspondence with the board.

The board also cited evidence that one of Mr Sahathevan’s blogs on Malaysian politics was banned by the Najib regime as indicating his poor character.

In an email to Chief Justice Bathurst, sent on August 30, Rewcastle-Brown said her site, Sarawak Report, which exposed much of the 1MDB scandal, was banned by the Malaysian government.

“I along with other critics of the 1MDB scandal (which includes Mr Sahathevan) became the target of immense state-backed vilification, intimidation and online defamation campaigns on behalf of the Malaysian government,” she said.

She said the board’s use of the Third Force article against Mr Sahathevan displayed “a troubling level of misjudgment and poor quality research, giving a strong impression that someone seeking to find reasons to disqualify this candidate simply went through the internet looking for ‘dirt’ against him”.

“The Third Force has consistently been by far the most outlandish, libellous, vicious and frankly ludicrous of all the publications that were commissioned as part of former prime minister Najib Razak’s self-proclaimed ‘cyber army’ which he paid (and continues to pay) to defame his perceived enemies and critics,” she said.

Besser, who now works in the ABC’s London bureau, told The Australian: “It’s clearly nonsense and comes from the darkest corners of some pretty wild Malaysian conspiracy theorists.”

Mr Sahathevan’s application is to be reconsidered at an LPAB meeting next month (Sahathevan was found not fir and proper for admission to practise in a decision of the NSW LPAB handed down in February 2019).

BEN BUTLER

BUSINESS REPORTER
Business reporter Ben Butler has covered everything from tractors to fashion to corporate collapses. He has previously worked for the Herald Sun and as a senior business reporter with The Age and Sydney Morning... Read more

Dubai Tennis Championships could replace the Australian Open as a Grand Slam tournament - Dubai has the cash, is closer to Europe & the US, and understands business; Australia & Victoria has none of these advantages

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                        Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

The Dubai Tennis Championships could replace the Australian Open as a Grand Slam tournament.

Dubai has the cash, is closer to Europe and the US, and understands business. Its ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum , loves sport, and understands the business of sport.

Australia and  Victoria has none of these, and after the Novack Djokovic  debacle, has demonstrated  that the political risks at the Commonwealth and state level has come to a point where  business can no longer be certain that political risks are minimal.

Additionally, Dubai has attractions that Melbourne has never been able to match, and after two years of lockdown, probably never will. 

END 

SC failed to pursue editors of The Sun for promoting the Litrak IPO, and witholding from the market information detrimental to the IPO-Litrak shareholders included a number of politicians , ministers ,senior civil servants

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The Securities Commission's recent determination to pursue cases of share trading have brought to mind the matter of the LITRAK Bhd IPO in 1997, and the part played by the then editors of The Sun Daily in promoting the IPO, while witholding from the market information detrimental to the IPO. 

In 2007 DAP politician Ronnie Liu posted on his ColourBlind blog the story below about Litrak Bhd. The story was based on information from this writer. 

It can now also be disclosed that the problems with the Litrak IPO were brought to the attention of Securities Commission officers before the IPO. 

The SC took  no action against Litrak and against the Sun editors who were responsible for witholding from the market information provided by this writer about a number of problems with the IPO.

TO BE READ WITH 

The Sun reporters sacked for exposing Litrak in 1999

I am reproducing this message sent to me today for readers of Colour-blind.

Both Ganesh Sahathevan and Alan Yeoh were sacked after writing several articles concerning Litrak, See Hoy Chan and EPF. Gamuda’s executive director Dato’ Lin Yun Ling happens to be the brother of Dr Lin See Yan, the former deputy Governor of Bank Negara. Tan Sri Ramon has responded to say that he only owns 1,000 shares and he bought the shares after retirement from civil service. We were not sure how much shares were owned by AAB and Napsiah Omar.

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 08:31:35 PDT
From: ganesh sahathevan <g_sahathevan@hotmail.com>
Subject: LDP Highway:A highway to Government indulgence

The owners of the privatised Lebuhraya Damansara Puchong(LDP), Lingkaran Trans Kota Holdings Bhd (Litrak),have just announced that their revenue is , and will continue to be higher then expected.

It’s executive director and substantial shareholder,Dato Lin Yun Ling,
has even announced that the company has a surplus of about RM 200 m in
cash.

All this after the Government agreed to pay Litark RM 85 million,at the
height of the recession, in “compensation”, for revenues lost when the
company agreed not to raise toll rates by RM0.50, as provided in the
concession agreement with the Government.

This “compensation” may sound fair, but one must consider the assistance
that the Government has ALREADY provided the company.

First, there was a RM535 million fixed rate loan from the Employees
Provident Fund (EPF), for a term of 13 years which even Lin Yun Ling
described as “uncommon”; EPF normally lends for only 5-8 years.

Then,there was a RM98 million loan at concessional rates.  The rates
have yet to be disclosed by the Finance Ministry.

On top of all this there is also a RM 100 million grant to pay for land
acquisition.

Some analysts say that the RM 85 million the Government has given Litrak
is actually in excess of the revenue that the company might have lost by
it’s own estimates.

The main beneficiary of the Government’s kindness has been Lin Yun Ling,
whose Gamuda Bhd,constructed the LDP in a joint venture with Yusof Daud,
for a cost of RM 600 million, or RM 40 million per km. In comparison,the
NKVE only cost RM 10 million per km.Lin and Raja Elena of Perak are
Gamuda’s two largest shareholders.

What are the reasons for such special treatment?  Perhaps the answer
lies in Litrak’s shareholders.

The largest shareholder is now Gamuda, a company linked with Perak
royalty and a number of ex-civil servants.

Ministers Napsiah Omar, and Dollah Badawi are also shareholders as is
former secretary general of the Treasury , Ramon Navaratnam.  Then there
is also Institut Kefahaman Islam (IKIM), various state bodies, and even
Rating Agency Malaysia.

Most mysterious of all shareholders is Litrak executive director, Haji
Yussof Daud, who controlled , before listing, 51% of the company, via a
company with a paid-up capital of only RM 100,000.He now controls about
30%.

A more mysterious shareholder is one who controls 600,000 shares via a
dormant, RM 2 company, whose directors are Gamuda finance managers.
They in turn, report to Gamuda and Litrak director Saw Wah Theng.  Saw
is an alternate director to Lin on the Litrak board.

SEE ALSO 

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Securities Commission wants answers from Azmi Baki about share ownership, but what about BVI, Cayman, Labuan incorporated shareholders of BursaMalaysia listed companies?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The Securities Commisison Malaysia has directed MACC chief Azmi Baki to provide details of his share ownership (see details above, click to enlarge).

Meanwhile, it does not appear as if the SC has done anything about ascertaining and making known the ultimate beneficiaries of BVI, Cayman and Labuan incorporated shareholders of Bursa Malaysia listed companies whose identities remain secret. 

This has been a long standing problem for anyone seeking any kind of transparency in shareholding of the companies affected. The extent of the problem can be demonstrated by searching the Bursa website using the relevant search terms.

END 

Australian Govt boasts its people are the most highly vaccinated in the world but fears that Novak Djokovic's presence will cause Australians " to act inconsistently" with its vaccination & booster policies

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

Morrison expressing solidarity with his people 

The following is an extract from the Notice of Filing filed on 15 January 2022 by Novak Djokovic in the matter of NOVAK DJOKOVIC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

14. In the same way, the Minister found in relation to good order that having regard to, inter alia, his “publicly stated views as well as his unvaccinated status,” his presence in Australia may pose a risk to the good order of the Australian community (D [33]) in that: 

(a) it might encourage people to act inconsistently with public health advice and policies in Australia, including but not limited to, becoming vaccinated against COVID-19 or receiving a booster vaccine (D [33]); 

(b) it may lead to “an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community,” potentially leading to unrest (D [34])

Meanwhile just two weeks ago Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared: 

“We have one of the lowest death rates and the highest vaccination rates from COVID anywhere in the world.”

The Australian Government and Morrison's fear of Jokovic is not consistent with its confidence expressed just two weeks ago. It is worth noting that Australians must give written consent in order to be vaccinated.

END