Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
KCB buy buy buy
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 14,211 Location: nairobi
|
xxxxx wrote:Ericsson wrote:Horton wrote:xxxxx wrote:Horton wrote:Ericsson wrote:I dont see anywhere mentioned that they have bought kcb shares. Nic bank is the one mentioned explicitly They got in last week. Also purchased GCB Eish. .how come they didn't call a press conference??  🤣🤣 coz ithe investment was in Mirriions not in birrrions 😆 Acha tungoje tuone if it will reach 75 Bob for them to exit Urghh... This folly of day trading. They should have stayed invested. Did they think the value in kcb was exhausted???? These people are a dangerous lot
KQ ABP 4.26
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/16/2014 Posts: 1,420 Location: Bohemian Grove
|
VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 5/2/2018 Posts: 267
|
whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)...
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. KQ has been in the crapper for years. Even if they do not do a complete DD, why not take collateral against it? KQ has "Pride Center" among other assets e.g. land... I do not have KCB shares but I suffered through Equity and I&M. It's interesting to note that the "foreign" banks eg BBK and SCBK weren't significantly affected. Could it be they do better DD? Or they could not be arm-twisted into lending to KQ? Or they were more sensible? Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/4/2009 Posts: 10,804 Location: NAIROBI
|
VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 14,211 Location: nairobi
|
Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? You wont get a decent response from @vvs. He states that KCB should have taken the Pride Centre as collateral and then? In the event of default, the bank would sell off government co-owned property? Huyu @vvs hunishangaza. Its for the same reason that banks do not lend on collateral to Public Universities as well as Public Hospitals and almost all mainstream Churches.. You cannot sell these collateral easily without massive reputational damage
KQ ABP 4.26
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/4/2009 Posts: 10,804 Location: NAIROBI
|
obiero wrote:Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? You wont get a decent response from @vvs. He states that KCB should have taken the Pride Centre as collateral and then? In the event of default, the bank would sell off government co-owned property? Huyu @vvs hunishangaza. Its for the same reason that banks do not lend on collateral to Public Universities as well as Public Hospitals and almost all mainstream Churches.. You cannot sell these collateral easily without massive reputational damage Well spoken like ten elders. vvs take note of that Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? I am a fan of JM and I do not understand the reason for giving KQ a loan if it was unsecured. From what I understand, Equity refused to accept the initial proposal from GoK/KQ for the Debt Conversion. Banks like I&M went "Yes, Massah" to the initial proposal. JM (who has skin in the game) tossed the initial proposal into the loo. That's why JM is who he is. What "reputation" damage would KCB (or any lender) face for selling off Pride Center? As a bank, it (among other banks) put customers' deposits at risk by lending to a bankrupt and corrupt organization. The former CFO should be in jail. His subordinates are in court for fleecing KQ. Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/23/2009 Posts: 14,211 Location: nairobi
|
VituVingiSana wrote:Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? I am a fan of JM and I do not understand the reason for giving KQ a loan if it was unsecured. From what I understand, Equity refused to accept the initial proposal from GoK/KQ for the Debt Conversion. Banks like I&M went "Yes, Massah" to the initial proposal. JM (who has skin in the game) tossed the initial proposal into the loo. That's why JM is who he is. What "reputation" damage would KCB (or any lender) face for selling off Pride Center? As a bank, it (among other banks) put customers' deposits at risk by lending to a bankrupt and corrupt organization. The former CFO should be in jail. His subordinates are in court for fleecing KQ. GoK holds 17% of KCB shares. Deposits in KCB (by my estimates) held by GoK compose over 60% of the book! You simply cannot bite the hand that feeds you.. I may be wrong, but I think I am right
KQ ABP 4.26
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/4/2016 Posts: 2,016 Location: Kitale
|
I advise them to hold the shares for long term gains.KCB is a very valuable investment option.Cyton should stop speculation. Towards the goal of financial freedom
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? I am a fan of JM and I do not understand the reason for giving KQ a loan if it was unsecured. From what I understand, Equity refused to accept the initial proposal from GoK/KQ for the Debt Conversion. Banks like I&M went "Yes, Massah" to the initial proposal. JM (who has skin in the game) tossed the initial proposal into the loo. That's why JM is who he is. What "reputation" damage would KCB (or any lender) face for selling off Pride Center? As a bank, it (among other banks) put customers' deposits at risk by lending to a bankrupt and corrupt organization. The former CFO should be in jail. His subordinates are in court for fleecing KQ. GoK holds 17% of KCB shares. Deposits in KCB (by my estimates) held by GoK compose over 60% of the book! You simply cannot bite the hand that feeds you.. I may be wrong, but I think I am right What’s the reputational risk to KCB in asking KQ for collateral? And what’s the reputational risk if KCB sold Pride Center at a fair price to recover a debt KQ couldn’t pay? Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Chief Joined: 1/3/2007 Posts: 18,342 Location: Nairobi
|
Ebenyo wrote:I advise them to hold the shares for long term gains.KCB is a very valuable investment option.Cyton should stop speculation. They seem to have done well with that approach. I am not an Investor in Cytonn or KCB but if it works for them... Greedy when others are fearful. Very fearful when others are greedy - to paraphrase Warren Buffett
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 12/4/2009 Posts: 10,804 Location: NAIROBI
|
VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Ericsson wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:Superprime1 wrote:whiteowl wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:mwekez@ji wrote:obiero wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:Angelica _ann wrote:VituVingiSana wrote:obiero wrote:KQ helping its shareholder KCB by narrowing provisions for bad debts: Down 37% from KShs. 958Mn to KShs. 600Mn. Not true. KCB converted a loan (probably secured) to (unsecured) equity. Not reverse, asking for a friend? It's as @vvs has stated but why he believes it would have no impact on provisions defeats logic Substance over Form. Yes, it probably reduced the provisions but not because there were recoveries or regularization of the loans. The Capital Ratios took a hit. "Equity" investments in entities like KQLC are not included in critical Capital Ratios calculations. If all the NPLs for any bank were converted to shares in (bankrupt) firms, would the bank become healthier? Of course not if the amount was significant but in this case it's not! KCB assets are fast approaching 1trillion!!! Actually, KCB converted unsecured loan to a secured loan (secured partly by the KQ shares through KQLC and partly by government guarantee) Why would KCB have lent KQ UNSECURED funds? I can understand lending unsecured funds to strong firms with a good management, decent cashflow and strong parents like BAT, even EABL with its problems, among others but KQ has been losing billions since 2012. KCB should have had better insight into KQ than we do. Most banks dont conduct due diligence when lending to "big companies" as it was the Case with Nakumatt. Plus the aspect of a common shareholder (The Treasury)... That makes sense. KCB could have been arm-twisted into lending to KQ. Then what about Equity, I&M and other local banks? Equity and I&M were desperately looking for customers to lend money. Why is the interest rate at which kcb charged kq higher than that of Equity bank and I&M? I am a fan of JM and I do not understand the reason for giving KQ a loan if it was unsecured. From what I understand, Equity refused to accept the initial proposal from GoK/KQ for the Debt Conversion. Banks like I&M went "Yes, Massah" to the initial proposal. JM (who has skin in the game) tossed the initial proposal into the loo. That's why JM is who he is. What "reputation" damage would KCB (or any lender) face for selling off Pride Center? As a bank, it (among other banks) put customers' deposits at risk by lending to a bankrupt and corrupt organization. The former CFO should be in jail. His subordinates are in court for fleecing KQ. GoK holds 17% of KCB shares. Deposits in KCB (by my estimates) held by GoK compose over 60% of the book! You simply cannot bite the hand that feeds you.. I may be wrong, but I think I am right What’s the reputational risk to KCB in asking KQ for collateral? And what’s the reputational risk if KCB sold Pride Center at a fair price to recover a debt KQ couldn’t pay? The debt kq owes kcb will be repaid in one way or another irrespective of who is in power. The debts are covenants guaranteed by GoK. Wealth is built through a relatively simple equation
Wealth=Income + Investments - Lifestyle
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Investor
»
Stocks
»
KCB buy buy buy
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|