The
national banking industry was now in the effort to implement Bank Indonesia’s
policy on shares ownership of banks. As known, regulations on ownerships
structure of banks was linked with the rules on multi-licence. This was related
to banks’ activities based on their capabilities. The objective was that BI
wished to change capacity, habit and attitude of banks.
The
regulation was applied on conventional banks and syari’ah banks, domestic or foreign. Broadly
speaking, financial institutions could own maximum shares of 40 percent, legal
institutions maximum 30 percent, and personal or families maximum 20 percent.
Somehow
it was still permissible for banks to own 40% shares of other banks provided
they met some requirements and had BI’s approval. The pre-conditions were bank
must be in a healthy condition, had gone public, agreed to buy promissory notes
which was equity, had the commitment to develop prioritized sectors of
Indonesia’s economy, and had the commitment to own bank in a certain period of
time as stipulated by the supervisory authorities.
By
approving banks to buy promissory notes of equity, in the event that something
happened bank did not have to use public’s money. In other words banks would be
able to help themselves. So banks could own shares of other banks up to 99
percent, one of the pre requirements was that banks must prepare some fund for
buying bonds from investment bank as reserve capital.
Government’s
Regulations of 1999 stipulated that investors that investors could buy bank
shares in Indonesia up to 99%. There were three categories of banks being
exempted from this regulation, they were: Regional Development Banks, (BPD) and
Government owned banks. However, as mentioned by Irwan, BI kept encouraging BPD to increase
core capital.
In
reality, bank would be appraised of
their health and were given time to improve in up to 3 times 6 months or
up to December 31, 2013. Bank must get good rating, i.e. 1 or 2 for risk
profile, management, capitalizing and profitability. In thee event that by 31
December 2013 bank’s rating was still 3,4, or even 5, bank must dive state
their shares. Previous owner must comply to maximum deadline of shares ownership.
In
the event that investors owned shares of some banks, BI allowed the investor to
set up a holding company encompassing the existing banks. This holding company
was given incentive to merger. In case of dive station a period of 5 years was
given to comply to the rules. The objective was to stimulate banks to be
efficient, healthy and strong.
During
post-release of BI’s regulation on bank ownership in June 2012 last,
predictably many foreign or local investors would apply for permit to acquire
local banks. Investors, foreign or local, were willing to comply with the
rules, i.e. to command over maximum 40% of shares; meaning investors would not
mind even if they did not possess majority of shares.
Foreign
investors seemed more dominant than local investors. Investor’s appetite to
acquire local banks were high because the Indonesian banking sector was highly
reputable in maintaining company’s stability from the tremors of global crisis.
for example as per July 2012 or reaching Rp 2.487 trillion while Third Party
Fund (DPK) rose by 20% to become Rp
2.961 trillion.
This
increase Margin (NIM) which stimulated investors’ appetite. By July, NIM was
posted at 5.41 percent. A word was out that out that many local banks were in a
queue to be acquired. Indonesia’s banking sector was still highly potential for
growth in the future; the prospect of banking business in Indonesia was still
appetizing.
On
notable thing was when BI planned to make it mandatory for foreign banks in
Indonesia to be based on local law (company) monetary authorities of a
neighboring country moved faster to outrace Indonesia before Indonesia even
realized the concept. Last June, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
announced some changes in the Qualifying Full Bank (QFB) to deepen business
root in Singapore and the same time strengthen financial stability in that
country.
Singapore
was asking important and firm rooted QBF in the domestic market to establish a
legal body for retail operations in Singapore; the objective of the Regulation
was to determine which bank needed to do this MAS considered some factors such
as QBF market share in domestic deposits. The Monetary authorities in Singapore
would consult with QBF about the criteria for banks which had to rest on a
legal institution.
To
banks which belonged to this category, MAS would give away 25 extra business
locations 10 of which were branch offices. This condition was only applicable
to banks of countries having Free Trade relationship with Singapore. With this
additional QBF would have a total of 50 offices?
Whether
or not QBF would enter depended on many factors for example having majority of
representative directors in Singapore. Singapore was the main market of that
group of banks, contributing profit and assets to the group of banks. The bank
had headquarters in Singapore as main business line and decision maker.
QBF
had privileges greater than that of other banks. Among them the number of
offices that could be opened more than other foreign banks. The number of QBF increased
from four banks in 1999 to six banks in 2001 and eight this year 2012. Eight
QBF in Singapore, i.e. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, BNP
Paribas, Singapore Citibank Limited, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Limited, ICICI Bank Limited, Malayan Banking Berhad, Standard Chartered Bank and State
Bank of India.
Citibank
is already based on local law while Standard Chartered Bank February 2012
announced they would soon set up a local legal body for retail operations. Now
there were 112 commercial banks only 6. Furthermore of 112 commercial banks
only 27 banks were licensed for retail operations. The Government of Singapore
wished at least to command over half of people’s fixed deposits.
Most
probably Singapore’s policy was an act to copy Indonesia who planned to oblige
representatives of foreign banks to be in the form of company (PT). Rumors had
it that a number of foreign banks operating in Indonesia were ready to adapt
them selves to the new condition.
Banking
circles in Indonesia rated that MAS seemed to respond to the BI regulations on
Bank ownership so MAS wasa making
it more difficult and protect retail bank business in Singapore. The
application of Singapore’s new policy was rated as a barrier that makes it
difficult for national banks to expand to Singapore.
In
that case it was advisable that the principle of reciprocal be immediately
implemented by BI to that equal treatment be felt by foreign banks who were
freely operating in Indonesia. Or else, soon or late, national banks would be
dominated by foreign banks. What is BI waiting for?.
Business News - October 12, 2012