Distressed banks and FIs in Bangladesh: lessons learned and the way forward

Once upon a time, banks in Bangladesh were regarded as highly reliable financial institutions. Any walk-in customer could open an account at a nearby branch and deposit their money without much concern for risk, as the perceived risk was virtually zero.

Financial Institutions (FIs), however, were considered less trustworthy. Only individuals with personal connections to FI officials or those familiar with their operational framework and oversight by the central bank, Bangladesh Bank, were willing to place funds there—mainly to earn higher returns than banks offered.

Public confidence in FIs deteriorated following the collapse of several institutions over the past decade. Although banks continued operations during this period, the acute liquidity crisis of Farmers Bank Ltd. in 2017 significantly undermined public trust in the banking sector.

This incident compelled people to reconsider the safety of keeping their savings in banks, intensifying concerns over the sector’s credibility and stability. Nevertheless, depositors did not withdraw their money en masse. Many banks, however, have since experienced prolonged financial distress and face substantial challenges in managing operational funds.

The required regulatory measures in 2024–25 constrained fund inflows, slowing deposit growth and, in some cases, increasing withdrawals, leading to a major setback for the sector and further erosion of public confidence.

Numerous factors contribute to vulnerabilities in the banking sector, most of which fall under the broad umbrella of corporate governance failure. Corporate governance encompasses institutional structure, internal systems, policies, implementation mechanisms, oversight processes, internal controls, audit functions, and consistent reporting to Boards and regulators.

While structural frameworks often align with global standards, deficiencies persist in implementation and oversight. Weaknesses in monitoring, execution of responsibilities by management and Boards, and ineffective audit functions—including internal audit—reflect a gap between formal compliance and the competence required for robust governance.

Senior management and boards should ensure strict compliance with policies across all stages of credit and investment operations:

(a) initial screening, including checkpoints such as the coachability of owners, legal compliance, financial performance, and sectoral outlook;

(b) rigorous due diligence covering financial and marketing performance, legal compliance, risk assessment, and management frameworks, concluding with structured investment decisions addressing repayment terms, security coverage, and monitoring as per agreement and covenant clauses;

(c) ongoing monitoring of borrowers’ operations and financial performance, ensuring adherence to agreements;

(d) effective functioning of Internal Control and Compliance Departments and Audit Committees; and

(e) implementation of early alert systems to identify and mitigate emerging risks.

Management must adhere strictly to these policies, while Boards should review implementation through regular reports and provide guidance, exercising oversight without interference, including political influence. Such processes were grossly neglected in vulnerable banks.

In practice, these policies were often only on paper, with many investments pre-decided due to personal connections or political influence (“name-lending”). Investment memos were sometimes based on illegal or non-compliant financial statements, with insufficient knowledge of the legally acceptable requirements under the Companies Act 1994.

Banks failing to comply with rigorous policies accumulated poor-quality loan portfolios and generated misleading reports that obscured asset classifications, creating persistent warning signals. The undue flexibility of Boards and regulators, instead of enforcing early corrective measures, contributed to recurring weaknesses, ultimately bringing banks to the brink of collapse.

All distressed banks should undergo independent compliance audits to identify wrongdoing and strengthen governance.

To restore public trust, they must ensure adequate capitalization, timely depositor repayment, prudent lending, regulatory compliance, transparent reporting, robust risk management, strong internal controls, and accountable, ethical leadership with effective oversight by Boards, audit committees, and regulators.

The writer is a fellow member of ICAB and partner at Basu Banerjee Nath & Co., Chartered Accountants.