Barclays Bank of Kenya (BBK) this
week announced plans to shut down seven of its branches beginning
October 1, raising fears that hundreds of jobs in the targeted units may
be lost. The bank last month also rolled out a voluntary early
retirement scheme that is expected to get about 130 people from its
payroll as it moves to trim costs. The Business Daily talked to the
bank’s chief executive, Jeremy Awori, on the road ahead and how the
lender plans to navigate the tough business terrain. Here are the
excerpts.
***
Why are you closing branches?
Technically
what we are doing is merging branches. We have invested significantly
in overall infrastructure over the last three or four years. That was
done to ensure we remain relevant to customers. For example, we have
replaced over 230 ATMs. We have invested in Internet banking, mobile
banking and you have seen agency banking. We want to make banking
convenient for customers in line with what they want. We have seen over
time a change in our transaction profile where we probably had 20 or 30
per cent of transactions going through alternate channels and that
number is almost 70 per cent. Essentially what that has meant in real
terms is that transactions going through branches have been on the
decline. So it was not efficient to have some of these branches like in
the case of Moi Avenue [in Nairobi] where just a few metres away is
Queens Way branch, which is also a bigger branch.
Is there the risk of congestion at a time when customers are very choosy?
If
you take Moi Avenue and Queensway we have empty teller cubicles which
customers were complaining about. We will fill those empty cubicles with
the tellers from Moi. The beauty of the merger is you actually have
more resources to deliver services. We are very mindful of that. We have
already invested in other technologies; things like cash counters, cash
deposit ATMs, adding infrastructure, so we can offer better services at
the new location.
You
recently announced a voluntary early retirement scheme for your staff,
affecting 130 people. Is that the final tally or do we expect more staff
to be released?
It is not a perfect science
because you don’t know who is going to apply. It is also driven by how
much funds are available; we don’t have limitless resources to spend in
releasing people. Indicatively it was in the region of 130, it could be
plus or minus, depending on who applies and how much we are willing to
spend but as a general rule we want to minimise any kind of job losses,
that’s why we’ve made it voluntary. It’s not a forced redundancy.
How much have you set aside for the whole exercise and how are you ensuring those affected get a smooth transition?
One
thing that I will state is we take such a process seriously and have
very robust and fair processes behind it. We involved all stakeholders.
We want to make sure those leaving have success outside of Barclays.
Sometimes people fear the worst and all I can tell them is what I know
as managing director of this firm. I am telling them to keep calm. We
are not doing this because we are financially in dire straits but
because of customer needs.
What is the status of your reorganisation following the reduction of Barclays Plc’s shareholding in Barclays Africa?
Essentially
the transaction is now almost complete. Barclays Plc remains the
single-largest shareholder in the bank but it is not the majority
shareholder — that’s the difference. We are now working through the
transition process to transit from services that Barclays Plc has
traditionally provided. That process is ongoing and is going to take the
next three years and beyond. The important thing to remember is that
Barclays is not cutting loose but is retaining a stake because it does
see the advantage of being a shareholder in a growing business and
region. We have always said Barclays Plc did this because of regulatory
and accounting reasons. So the process is almost complete from a
transaction perspective.
Why have banks like
you reduced lending to customers in the wake of the rate capping law? Is
it a ploy to arm-twist the authorities into changing the law?
Banks
like other economic entities are in business to give decent returns to
shareholders. Otherwise those shareholders will take away their money
and invest where they can get better returns. The effect of the interest
rate law was that it took away the ability to price the risk in one
swoop. What a lot of banks have said is we are going to slow down
lending in those sectors. But banks have also said if I’ve got the
opportunity to lend to government through government securities at 10,
11, 12, 13 per cent almost risk-free why would I lend to a risky
borrower at 14 per cent? At Barclays, however, we have not necessarily
reduced our risk appetite. In fact we are lending faster than the
market. It is not a thing of we are going to switch off the taps so that
we can force them to do it.
Is it sustainable for banks to concentrate their lending to government only?
I
don’t think it’s the prudent thing to do. Otherwise why do you have a
bank? A bank is supposed to be an intermediary to take deposits and lend
to people who need the money to finance businesses. What we are seeing
is a short-term reaction by banks to try and boost their income, which
is logical. And we are seeing the realities of a government that needs
to borrow. I don’t think you can do it long term.
Some
experts say the Central bank of kenya is hamstrung in its monetary
policy having made the mistake of picking CBR as the applicable base in
pricing lending. It had the option of picking the KBRR, which takes into
account both the CBR and the prevailing Treasury bill rates. What is
your view?
To a certain extent that may be
manifesting because before, the CBR was an indicative rate. It wasn’t
the rate at which lending was based. Now they’ve linked the two. And now
you’ve got this challenge where you have inflation growing and
typically once inflation grows they would increase rates to help manage
inflation. Now in this instance people are saying, is there a conflict?
By increasing interest rates are you going to slow down credit growth
even further? There is a school of thought that actually says if you
increase interest rates maybe more lending will happen, not less lending
because you get a better return than you did with lower interest rates.
That is something the central bank has to grapple with. The CBK is
worrying itself with monetary policy and I think they are quite astute
about this risk. I am sure there will be a review over time as to what
is the most effective benchmark to use to price lending.
bnjoroge@ke.nationmedia.com
No comments :
Post a Comment