Editor's Note: The ratio of Distressed Assets to Total Capital Cushion is a variant of the famous Texas Ratio, which was widely used by US financial regulators to predict bank failure during the US Savings and Loan Crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s. The basic premise is that a bank with Distressed Assets greater than its Capital Cushion is in danger of insolvency because a significant drop in the value of the Distressed Assets will eat into a significant amount of the bank's capital. A bank that has a Distressed Ratio greater than 100% is flagged as borderline insolvent. For a more detailed discussion of this ratio, please visit a previous blog post: The Texas Ratio of Select Philippine Banks
This is a list of the top distressed Universal and Commercial (U/KB) as well as Thrift Banks in the Philippines as of December 31, 2017. It updates a previous blog post: "The Top Distressed Philippine Banks as of September 30, 2017".
To see where your bank stands relative to these banks, please check the previous blog post: "Philippine Banks Deteriorate Slightly in the 4th Qtr. of 2017"
The list of Philippine Banks classified as distressed as of December 31, 2017 are as follows:
- Bank of China Limited - Manila Branch (Distressed Ratio of 523.65%)
- United Coconut Planters Bank (Distressed Ratio of 428.67%)
- Inter-Asia Development Bank (Distressed Ratio of 417.73%)
- Philippine Postal Savings Bank Inc (Distressed Ratio of 234.46%)
- Luzon Development Bank (Distressed Ratio of 205.77%)
- Malayan Bank Savings and Mortgage Bank Inc (Distressed Ratio of 167.21%)
- Philippine Resources Savings Banking Corporation (Distressed Ratio of 163.70%)
- Yuanta Savings Bank Philippines (Distressed Ratio of 153.33%)
- Enterprise Bank Inc (Distressed Ratio of 130.39%)
- Equicom Savings Bank (Distressed Ratio of 110.84%)
- Bataan Development Bank (Distressed Ratio of 107.89%)
Source: www.bsp.gov.ph
Disclaimer:
This list only serves as a screening guide. It is not a definitive guide and must be taken in the context of other factors. The figures are based on the individual banks' statement of condition as of December 31, 2017 as published in the BSP website (www.bsp.gov.ph). For this analysis, no attempt was made to go through the audited financial statements of each bank. Readers are suggested to make their own investigations and verify the figures presented. Both BSP and PDIC have their own problem bank screening systems that are much more sophisticated in scope and design, given that they have more access to information over the banks they regulate.
This list only serves as a screening guide. It is not a definitive guide and must be taken in the context of other factors. The figures are based on the individual banks' statement of condition as of December 31, 2017 as published in the BSP website (www.bsp.gov.ph). For this analysis, no attempt was made to go through the audited financial statements of each bank. Readers are suggested to make their own investigations and verify the figures presented. Both BSP and PDIC have their own problem bank screening systems that are much more sophisticated in scope and design, given that they have more access to information over the banks they regulate.
No comments:
Post a Comment