Latest IMF report paints gloomy picture
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
Thursday, 23 June 2011 20:04
By Jimmy Girdlestone
‘O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us!’— Robert Burns.
FED on a constant official diet of the country’s vast natural resources
presenting an irresistible magnet to capital rich foreigners desperate to
profit from the current world commodity boom — a potent combination of
circumstances which could not fail to lift Zimbabweans from their near
subsistence existence and into fortune — the IMF report on the latest
consultations with local authorities may well come as an unexpected major
disappointment. The executive board, while welcoming the continuation of
economic recovery, albeit from an uneven and low base, as well as the
improvement in humanitarian conditions, concludes that “the recovery remains
fragile and enormous challenges persist”.
Such a verdict may be dismissed as no more than a thinly disguised
reiteration of unfounded, biased Western criticism of the country and its
prospects. Those of a more cerebral bent, however, will be more likely to
want an explanation as to quite why this influential and important
multilateral organisation has come to such an uncomforting judgement. Since
the IMF’s prime function is to lend out cash to countries suffering a major
currency or capital account crisis, an insight into this aspect of Zimbabwe’s
economic activity would seem to provide the best starting point for those
genuinely seeking a convincing explanation for such a highly qualified
statement.
Since 2008 Zimbabwe has experienced heavy, annual deficits on its balance of
payments’ current account. Notwithstanding favourable external conditions
and high commodity prices, merchandise exports, at US$3,382 million by last
year, had little more than doubled due largely to an uncompetitive and
uncongenial local business climate. Imports have risen at an only slightly
lower pace to a value of just more than one-and-a-half times that of
exports, financed by substantial humanitarian aid and short- term capital
inflows without which the overall balance would have been considerably worse
than the US$649 million of 2010. Even more tellingly, the current level of
monetary reserves has shrunk to under 13 days of imports, about equal to one
month of government expenditure, which is why the IMF continues to stress
the need for fiscal discipline to enable the build-up of precautionary
buffers to two months of budget expenditures. Zimbabwe, however, remains
deeply mired in debt distress with an unsustainable debt-stock of 118% of
GDP – mostly arrears at 80% GDP – at the end of 2010.
Without a doubt, however, the most severe jolt to any lingering national
complacency that might still remain after this survey of the country’s
external financial relations is provided by the IMF’s stark warning that
Zimbabwe’s position as a primary commodity producer and oil importer, with a
history of political and economic instability, weak institutions and the
absence of the lender of last resort, renders it extremely vulnerable to
terms-of-trade shocks. In current international conditions of highly
volatile commodity and oil price fluctuations, rapid and substantial changes
in domestic liquidity conditions cannot be discounted, particularly in a
situation in which credit and deposit expansion is already forecast to slow
down significantly. Such developments would have very serious consequences
for the local banking system, the vulnerabilities of which are judged to
have increased.
In stark contrast to the anodyne statement from the Bankers’ Association
concerning the recent debacle at Renaissance Merchant Bank, IMF staff
investigations revealed that although overall, or on average, measurements
of risk in the sector are not altogether cause for concern. They frequently
conceal serious divergences in homogeneity of circumstance, not just among
banks in different fields of activity, but often among institutions
providing similar services. Many banks are weakly capitalised, particularly
some of the smaller institutions. The quality of bank capital is weak
because of exposure, to the extent of 40% of their capital, to the
financially distressed Reserve Bank. Some bank’s capital is prone to
potential asset valuation losses because the value of their premises is
included in it and because of persistent operating losses.
The average solvency rate, at 15,3% in December 2010, was well above the 10%
minimum requirement. But seven smaller banks are undercapitalised and some
are even operating with negative capital. The value of nonperforming loans
tripled in 2010 and although the average reported non-performance of loans
remains below 5%, the ratio of smaller banks, particularly the
undercapitalised ones, ranges from 6% – 36%.
This suggests a lack of ability to assess loan quality, unsound lending
practices and poor risk management. The IMF also noted that “routine
rollover of short term loans appears to be a common practice”.
The average liquidity ratio, excluding illiquid claims on the RBZ, exceeded
30% as of February 2011. But it was below 20% for eight banks and below 25%
for 11 banks. Excluding illiquid claims on the RBZ and interbank claims, 15
banks had a liquidity ratio below 20%.
The report recommends that the plan to restructure the RBZ’s balance sheet
should be expedited; that the high liquidity risk urgently needs to be
addressed through “requiring a minimum liquidity ratio of 25%, or higher”;
and that the RBZ must intervene swiftly to enforce minimum capital and
capital adequacy requirements while banking supervision should ensure early
compliance with such minimum standards. Banking supervision should also
continue to improve stress testing of all banks and ensure sound loan
underwriting standards and practices.
Speedily implemented, these recommendations have the capability to raise
confidence in banking sector solvency and in the soundness of its individual
institutions – but not before time. The IMF already notes how smaller banks
have become more risk-taking, “reaching for lower-end and sometimes
unbankable customers, potentially heightening the volatility to bank income
and profitability”.
Robert Burns, the much acclaimed 18th century Scottish poet to whom this
article owes opening quote, hoped the gift he craved would free us from many
blunders and foolish notions. These would undoubtedly include discarding the
age-old fiduciary responsibility to savers, especially the elderly, so as to
be able to play, at the latter’s cost, the roulette wheel of speculative
banking.
Jimmy Girdlestone is a consultant economist with the Tetrad Group and
writes in his personal capacity.