biina:

Any proof?
Simply provide reference for the non-performing loan owed by the government to any of the banks that makes them the greatest debtors. Again feel free to pick any bank of your choice.

I take it that you've just landed from outer space that you don't know about the goverment direct not to "mess" with it's agents?
Well, just in case your space ship has just landed, or you've suffered a cerebrovascular accident that wiped off your memory, or you just want to retort "prove it" like you usually do, here is a link to one of our previous discussions on this issue.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343242.0.html


Enjoy, and report back later.

naijaking1:

I take it that you've just landed from outer space that you don't know about the goverment direct not to "mess" with it's agents?
Well, just in case your space ship has just landed, or you've suffered a cerebrovascular accident that wiped off your memory, or you just want to retort "prove it" like you usually do, here is a link to one of our previous discussions on this issue.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343242.0.html


Enjoy, and report back later.

Typical misrepresentation.
1. How does fuel marketers owing the banks , due to non payment by the government, equate to the govt owing the banks? Are fuel marketers now government agencies?
2. All you have is an article claiming a directive from the FG with a nameless source.
3. Yet the article said action was halted against them, not that their names were removed from the list.
4. From the article:
However, Mr. Billy Agha, acting director, Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) said names of all petroleum marketers being owed subsidy arrears by the PPPRA have been removed from the list of debtors being investigated by the EFCC.
is removal from EFCC list now the same as removal from the CBN list?

Again it has been shown that you are simply making false claims.

biina:

The interim executives are working to protect the interests of the bank, which includes the shareholders and depositors. The banks will be  back under the control of the shareholders once the CBN funds are refunded and the banks are adequately capitalized. With AMC almost ready to buy most of the toxic assests, hopefully that should happen before the end of the year. The more debts recovered, the less injection of capital are required by the banks, and the faster the shareholders can regain their banks.

@biina
I am getting a bit confused by all this words.
Let us summarise this.
CBN forcefully took over these banks from the shareholders because they were under capitalised ,insolvent and mismanaged.
The CBNs justification is that the banks owe money to the CBN and until the money is refunded, the CBN will continue to run the banks.
Are the appointed MDs answerable to the CBN ,the shareholders or are they independent ?
If they are anserable to the CBN, can we assume that for now, the CBN has assumed the role of the regulator and the regulated?

Where can you categorise the affected banks.

Bailed-out - Helped/Injected with capital or funds to be repaid later (Maybe with interest as in the case in US and UK).
Taken Over - Injected funds converted funds preference shares with CBN controling a majority stake and proportionate major boardroom powers.
Nationalised - Seized by CBN, to be resourcetated and then re-sold. All assets and liabilities are owned by CBN.
Liquidated - Administration (sell of the bank assets and compensate depositors). Withdraw their licences.
Other - Explain (within rational limits)

In a modern world you should be doing things within ethical/legal means .
This is the reason sanusi is being treated with a lot of suspision.
Because even if he claims to be doing the right thing, his methods lack any ethical or rational foundation.

While Sanusi had the right to fire the erring bank executives and appointing new MDs.
There is no where in the BOFIA act(I am not a fan ) or constitution which empowers the CBN to take over or run banks
Sanusi is well aware of this hence his application in February this year to the house of assembly.

It also demanded powers to acquire the shares of an ailing  bank up to a level that guarantees the apex bank’s control  and management provided  that the CBN shall  at the earliest  opportunity dispose  of such acquired shares  when it is satisfied that the state  of affairs of the bank concerned has improved.
http://www.proshareng.com/news/singleNews.php?id=9146

RoadStar:

@biina
I am getting a bit confused by all this words.
Let us summarise this.
CBN forcefully took over these banks from the shareholders because they were under capitalised ,insolvent and mismanaged.
The CBNs justification is that the banks owe money to the CBN and until the money is refunded, the CBN will continue to run the banks.

The first part is the reason the CBN intervened. The debts was not the justification. That they owe money to the CBN is a secondary issue. Part of the CBN debt came from the EDW and the other from the injected funds.

Are the appointed MDs answerable to the CBN ,the shareholders or are they independent ?
If they are anserable to the CBN, can we assume that for now, the CBN has assumed the role of the regulator and the regulated?

The appointed executives are independent within the broad directives given by the CBN to turnaround the banks. I see it as just being more direct, as all the bank executives in the sector are ultimately answerable to the CBN. The CBN does not own the banks, so I dont see how the CBN has become both regulator and regulated.

Where can you categorise the affected banks.
Bailed-out - Helped/Injected with capital or funds to be repaid later (Maybe with interest as in the case in US and UK).
Taken Over - Injected funds converted funds preference shares with CBN controling a majority stake and proportionate major boardroom powers.
Nationalised - Seized by CBN, to be resourcetated and then re-sold. All assets and liabilities are owned by CBN.
Liquidated - Administration (sell of the bank assets and compensate depositors). Withdraw their licences.
Other - Explain (within rational limits)

Bailed out with a pseudo takeover. It is not ideal, but that is the best that can be done under the existing framework. The CBN cannot buy majority shares, so has injected tier-2 capital in form of a subordinated debt.

In a modern world you should be doing things within ethical/legal means .
This is the reason sanusi is being treated with a lot of suspision.
Because even if he claims to be doing the right thing, his methods lack any ethical or rational foundation.

I dont see the ethical or legal issues. The CBN is trying to protect depositors and shareholders interest.

While Sanusi had the right to fire the erring bank executives and appointing new MDs.
There is no where in the BOFIA act(I am not a fan ) or constitution which empowers the CBN to take over or run banks
Sanusi is well aware of this hence his application in February this year to the house of assembly.

It also demanded powers to acquire the shares of an ailing  bank up to a level that guarantees the apex bank’s control  and management provided  that the CBN shall  at the earliest  opportunity dispose  of such acquired shares  when it is satisfied that the state  of affairs of the bank concerned has improved.
http://www.proshareng.com/news/singleNews.php?id=9146

The CBN does not own the banks. The actions of the CBN are supported by section 33 of the BOFIA. Having the ability to buy majority shares simply enables the CBN to easily restructure the non-executive side of things. I am personally not really in support of this (cos of the subjective time frame), as I dont want bank executives being political appointees like we had in the 1980s under the 'golden shares'.

Please note that the issue of control is not black and white but more of hierarchy and level of autonomy.

@ Violent/ Biina - The mass sack was in fact specifically ordered by the CBN. The Governor denied it but then Renaissance Professionals published in the papers a copy of his letter instructing banks to "rationalize" staff. This is blatantly illegal. No Banking regulator has the powers to determine the amount of staff that a Bank may chose to hire. That's entirely up to the Bank's business plan. At all events why did the Governor deny the allegation, only to have the lie exposed as his letter in that regard was published? ? ? The printing and injection of N620 billion by the Governor was the greatest and most brazen illegality in the history of mankind. Have you no idea about the provisions of the constitution on appropriation and disbursements of ALL public funds? ? ? Regulators should be sober and not loquacious. His Fire Brigade style created panic and loss of confidence in the Industry. Nowadays no Letter of Credit issued by a Nigerian Bank is accepted abroad. This was not the case before Sanusi's irresponsible and ill-thought tornado. This is a fact. The guy simply had no plan. Nothing at all. His hurriedly put together "blueprint" came only after the Minister of State for Finance, Remi Babalola deplored his "as the spirit directs" style. The Guardian in its editorial deconstructed the so called blue print and showed just how empty it was. Besides how can a blueprint be issued a whole 10 months after all the major steps have already been taken? ? ? Stop and think.

^^^^
Thank you, but please wait for biina to come back and retort "prove it"

Publishing their names has been effective and it is legal because these are non performing loans. If you don't like it, go pay up. Ever wonder why other people's names were not on the list? And this is a country where you can be locked up for not paying your debt.