M O D E R N B A N K I N G
economy would recover and/or they could restructure the loans. Also, because an AMC was managed by its bank (rather than independent third party specialists) auditors would not recognise them as true sales. When the slow rate of disposal became apparent, the state took over the funding and management of these private AMCs. However, by late 1999, only about 25% of NPLs had been restructured.
In June 1997, an analysis of data revealed that none of the commercial banks had enough capital to satisfy the 8% minimum. Attempts were made to tighten prudential regulation in 1997 and again in 1998, including strict loan classification, loss provisioning and other rules. As agreed with the IMF, all insolvent financial firms were to be closed or merged, and state banks would, eventually, be privatised. Public funds were set aside to recapitalise viable banks and finance companies, provided they complied with new prudential rules on items such as loan classification, provisioning for losses, and methods for the valuation of collateral. Fearing state interference, most banks did not take up the offer.
Thailand’s experience provides a good illustration of how an inferior legal framework can exacerbate the problems. It was not until October 1997 that the Bank of Thailand had legal authority to intervene in troubled commercial banks by changing management, writing down capital,44 and so on. In western developed nations, bank supervisory authorities take such powers for granted.45 It was not until January 1998 that the Bank began to intervene, starting with the Bangkok Metropolitan Bank. By May, six banks and nine finance companies had been nationalised, accounting for 33% of total deposits. Bank runs finally subsided – recall a blanket guarantee had been in place since August 1997.
Table 8.8 shows the change in structure of the financial sector preand post-crisis. Note the large drop in finance companies, the rise in state owned commercial banks, and the
Table 8.8 Thailand’s Financial Sector, Preand Post-Crisis
|
December 1996 |
|
July 1999 |
|
No. of banks |
Market share |
|
No. of banks |
Market share |
Finance companies |
90 |
20% |
22 |
5% |
State finance company |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1% |
Commercial banks |
14 |
59% |
7 |
39% |
State owned banks, specialised |
7 |
7% |
7 |
15% |
Commercial state owned banks |
1 |
8% |
6 |
6% |
Foreign banks (branches) |
14 |
6% |
14 |
12% |
Source: Lindgren et al. (1999), p. 101.Market share: % of total assets.
Two of the private commercial banks have received substantial foreign capital injections – more than 50% of them are foreign owned.
44In Thailand, the Bank of Thailand would give a bank a short period of time to raise new capital. If it failed to do so, the Bank would order it write down the value of its existing capital and then have it recapitalised by the Financial Institutions Development Fund.
45The relevant authorities in Korea and Indonesia did not have the legal power to liquidate banks and repay affected depositors; nor could they transfer deposits from a weak to the healthy bank in a state assisted merger.
[ 429 ]
F I N A N C I A L C R I S E S
corresponding change in their share of total assets. The number of private commercial banks has been reduced by half. The increase in state owned banks is largely due to the merger of many of the banks and finance companies considered non-viable, of which the Bank of Thailand had assumed control in August 1998.
In March 2000, Thailand’s largest corporate debtor was declared insolvent, a milestone in what had been relatively slow progress in the restructuring of the corporate sector. A new bankruptcy law, and a procedure for out of court restructuring, were established.
Indonesia
Indonesia had shown strong growth in 1996, and in 1997 its inflation rate stood at 5%, with a current account deficit at 3% of GDP. The currency crisis led to floating of the rupiah in August 1997. By November 1997, the IMF had approved a programme of reforms, together with standby credit of $10.1 billion, of which $3 billion was available for immediate use. So what went wrong, and how did the country end up with a systemic banking crisis? Even before the currency crisis, there was concern about the highly geared corporate sector, poor supervision of the financial sector, high external debt and the political situation.
Furthermore, unlike Korea and Thailand, the Indonesian authorities were slow to deal with problems in the banking sector. This resulted in a sustained systemic banking crisis. The rupiah was floated in August 1997, but state intervention in the banking sector did not commence until October, and even then, as the account of the events will show, it was controversial, further undermining confidence and initiating a vicious circle of bank runs, attempts at reform, political interference, renewed loss of confidence, runs, and more reform until late 1999.
In the mid-1980s, Indonesia had suffered from balance of payments problems arising from a collapse in the oil market and the depreciation of the US dollar. Its external debt was denominated in non-dollar currencies such as the Japanese yen, but the country relied on dollar based oil revenues. The Suharto government moved away from a nationalistic economic policy to a ‘‘technocratic model’’ with an emphasis on growth led by a broad manufacturing export base and a liberal financial sector.46 Extensive banking reforms were introduced in 1988 under the ‘‘Pakto’’ package. Restrictions on private banks were lifted, as were limits on domestic bank branching. Foreign banks could form joint ventures with local partners. For the first time, state owned firms could place up to 50% of their deposits outside the state banks. The reserve ratio was lowered to 2% (from 15%). At the same time Bank Indonesia (BI) imposed some new prudential rules designed to limit banks’ exposure to single clients and firms. The banking sector changed overnight, with a rapid extension in the number of banks, and credit expansion to match. But much of it was named rather than analytical. By 1990, the total number of banks had increased from 108 to 147, with 1400 new branches. There were 73 new commercial banks.
The situation deteriorated over the years, so that by November 1997, the government and IMF agreed a plan of action for the banking sector. The package involved 50 banks – 16 small private banks, with a combined market share of 2.5%, were closed. The other 34
46 For more detail on the earlier background, see Anderson (1994), Heffernan (1996) and Schwartz (1991).
M O D E R N B A N K I N G
were subject to a range of orders, including more intensive supervision for the six largest private banks, rehabilitation plans for ten insolvent banks, recapitalisation, and at least one merger. Deposit insurance was introduced for the first time, to apply to small depositors at the closed banks, covering 90% of these deposits, that is, Rp 20 million ($2000) per depositor per bank. Bank Indonesia made it clear that the remaining banks would be given liquidity support in the event of bank runs.
There was a rapid decline in public confidence, for several reasons. Concern heightened because the 34 banks were not identified. The partial, limited nature of the deposit insurance was considered inadequate. One of the closed banks was effectively re-opened under a new name, suggesting that political connections,47 not a bank’s balance sheet, were influencing decisions as to which banks would be closed. High interest rates and depreciation of the rupiah contributed to an economic slow down, aggravating the positions of the bank balance sheets. Finally there was political uncertainty because of rumours about the health of President Suharto. The high state of anxiety provoked widespread runs on two-thirds of the private banks, which made up half the banking sector. The Bank of Indonesia supplied liquidity but this failed to stop the runs, and exacerbated the flight of capital out of the country, because the liquidity was supplied in rupiah and used by banks for dollar deposits.48
A letter of intent signed with the IMF did little to reassure the country because of the failure of the Indonesian authorities to abide by previous agreements. This lack of credibility aggravated the runs on banks and liquidity support from BI reached all time highs. In January 1998, the rupiah was now rapidly depreciating against the dollar49 – prompting runs not only on banks but on supermarkets as well.
At the end of January 1998, the government announced a new series of reforms to head off complete collapse of the financial system. A blanket guarantee was issued, which was to cover all depositors and creditors, and a corporate restructuring programme announced. The Indonesian Bank Restructuring Authority (part of the Ministry of Finance) was given a broad remit to deal with the problems in the financial and non-financial sectors. This included dealing with problem banks (e.g. closure, nationalisation, etc.) and acting as an AMC, i.e. the management and sale of dud assets. The assets were acquired at book value in exchange for government bonds so they could recapitalise.
These plans calmed the markets, and for the next two months the IBRA undertook a variety of actions in an attempt to stabilise the banking markets. However, under orders of the President, these operations were not publicised, and in late February, the respected head of the IBRA was removed by the President. Any confidence restored by the recent reforms began to wane, leading to renewed runs on banks. So began a cycle of IBRA attempts to restore a credible banking system, political interference, new runs on banks requiring yet more liquidity injections by BI, and riots. These cycles continued through 1998. By August 1998 reviews of 16 non-IBRA banks revealed that most (private and state) were insolvent.
47The President’s son was connected to the closed bank, and was allowed to take over another bank.
48Unlike Korea and Thailand, Indonesia was unsuccessful in its attempts to sterilise the huge liquidity injections: BI had no way of recycling the huge deposit withdrawals/capital outflows caused by months of uncertainty, creating fears of hyperinflation, an added problem for the authorities.
49 In December 1997, the rupiah was trading at 4600 to the dollar. By late January, it had declined to 15 000 rupiah:$1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ 431 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F I N A N C I A L C R I S E S |
|
Table 8.9 Indonesia’s Banking Sector, Preand Post-Crisis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-crisis, July 1997 |
|
Post-crisis, August 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. of banks |
Market share |
|
No. of banks |
Market share |
|
Private domestic banks |
160 |
50% |
82 |
17% |
|
|
|
State domestic banks |
34 |
42% |
43 |
73% |
|
|
|
Joint ventures/foreign banks |
44 |
8% |
40 |
10% |
|
|
Source: Lindgren et al. (1999), p. 64.Market share: % of assets.
The IBRA and BI persisted with restructuring, in the face of constant political interference. President Suharto resigned from office in May 1998, after 6 months of trying to prop up the business interests of family and friends.
Table 8.9 summarises the dramatic changes in Indonesia’s banking sector over the twoyear period, from pre-crisis to post-crisis. The number of private commercial banks nearly halved, through closure and nationalisation. The state’s share of total bank liabilities swelled to nearly three-quarters. The cost of government intervention to deal with the two crises is estimated at 50 – 60% of GDP.50
The relative success of Korea and Thailand in stopping runs suggests that quick action is advisable, to restore confidence that the system is liquid, especially when compared to the panic and bank runs experienced by Indonesia. The problem with such action (and the reason the Indonesian government was reluctant to intervene) is the effect on future incentives. However, in view of the very real systemic threat, these governments had no other option.
8.3.4. Assessment of Policy Responses in Korea, Thailand
and Indonesia
This review of the policy responses to crisis and contagion in the three countries illustrates that Korea was the most effective in managing its crisis, followed by Thailand and Indonesia. One way of illustrating this point is to look at peaks in the demand for liquidity from the central bank and the timing of key announcements. Peaks in liquidity demand can be used as a measure of confidence in the banking sector. Banks will have to approach the central bank for liquidity if they are subject to bank runs.
Korea announced a blanket guarantee for bank depositors and creditors in December 1997, the same month the won was floated and the IMF plan agreed. Even so, the demand for liquidity peaked a month later, but fell rapidly once foreign debt was rescheduled. In Thailand, banks’ demand for liquidity from the Thai central bank peaked when the suspension of the 16 finance companies was announced, and again when 42 more were suspended. When 100% deposit insurance coverage became law, the demand for liquidity
50 The estimate for Indonesia and the other Asian countries varies depending on the date of computation and what is included. Lindgren (1999) reports the cost of financial sector restructuring was $85 billion or 51% of GDP as of June 1999.
[ 432 ]
M O D E R N B A N K I N G
tailed off. Concern about the state of several small and medium-sized banks prompted runs (despite deposit insurance) and caused a third peak in early 1998. It quickly tailed off after the authorities intervened in the banks.
By contrast, Indonesia experienced three peaks in liquidity demand in late 1997, early 1998 and mid-1998. The need for three substantial liquidity injections was likely due to the relatively late intervention in the banking sector by the authorities, a failure to implement agreed IMF reforms in a timely manner, and a sustained general view that unhealthy banks were being allowed to stay open because of political corruption, favouritism and interference. Radelet and Woo (2000) also criticise the IMF for some of the early restructuring. For example, the IMF insisted on the abrupt closure of the 16 banks in November 1997. Done in volatile capital markets, with no plans for dealing with these banks’ assets, and no strategy for addressing the problems in Indonesia’s banking system, this action was bound to provoke the widespread run observed.
In light of the above, it comes as no surprise that as a percentage of GDP, the cost of dealing with the currency and banking crises was highest for Indonesia (estimated at 50 – 60% of GDP), followed by Thailand (40%), Korea (15%) and Malaysia (12%). Despite Thailand’s prompt intervention, the cost of resolving the crisis is considerably higher than Korea because of the closure of more than 50% of the finance companies, nationalisation of a third of the banking sector, and the considerable delay in dealing with private banks’ non-performing loans because they were left to form their own AMCs – in the end, the state had to intervene.51
The use of the ‘‘good bank/bad bank’’ approach first appeared when the USA created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to deal with the mounting bad assets of the increasing number of insolvent thrifts. It was considered highly successful in fulfilling its objectives. Since that time, it has become common for countries experiencing a banking crisis to create an institution with similar objectives. For example, Sweden created Securum, Japan (see below) began with a private initiative, which was later taken over by the state, and in this section, all three countries set up some form of institution to handle bad assets. A critique of the approach is found in Box 8.1.
Indonesia took the decision to inject capital into all state owned banks, no matter what the cost. The plan for the private banks was to preserve an elite of a small group of the best banks. The recapitalisation programme asked private owners to contribute at least 20% of private capital, with the state injecting the rest, to bring tier 1 regulatory capital up to 4% of risk adjusted assets. Private owners would be given first refusal on the sale of government shares after 3 years. However, they had to meet stringent performance targets. In the end, the plan came to nothing. Nine banks appeared eligible, but one of the banks (Bank Niaga) could not raise the capital and was nationalised. Revised audits in March 1999 showed the recapitalisation requirements were much higher than what had been assumed in the initial proposal. The eight banks could not come up with the updated capital outlay in time,
51 Scott (2002) argues that disposal of assets at the best possible price was a secondary consideration for KAMCO and IBRA, the Korean and Indonesian government agencies charged with dealing with the banking sector’s dud loans. IBRA was plagued by political interference and an ineffective legal framework. In Korea, the first priority was to strengthen the banks’ balance sheets – the debts were purchased in exchange for government bonds.
[ 433 ]
F I N A N C I A L C R I S E S
Box 8.1 AMCs or Good Bank/Bad Bank
Korea, Thailand and Indonesia all employed a ‘‘good bank/bad bank’’ approach to deal with ‘‘dud’’ assets. A special corporation (e.g. asset management company or AMC) is established which purchases, at a discount, banks’ bad assets (usually non-performing loans), thereby cleaning up the balance sheets and allowing ‘‘good’’ banks to start afresh. The corporation tries to sell the assets. The USA established the Resolution Trust Corporation during the US thrift crisis in the 1980s, and was one of the first countries to adopt this method, though it was confined to thrifts that were already insolvent, whereas most other countries have used these corporations to help banks recover.
The main advantages:
žBank capital needs are reduced for a bank already struggling.
žBank management has a chance to focus on healthy assets, and attract new, healthy business.
žBy selling the assets, the AMC ‘‘prices’’ the loans, making the size of the losses more transparent.
žProvided the organisation buying the assets has the expertise to restructure or dispose of the assets, it can maximise the value of these assets.
The main disadvantages:
žThe effect on incentives. The borrowers whose assets are transferred no longer have an opportunity to try and restructure the debt, and any relationship the bank had built up with the borrower is lost, though this can be a positive point if banks made loans on a named rather than analytical basis.
žIf key management remains in place, banks might be led to think that any future build-up of bad assets will be passed to a third party to deal with, which is likely to increase moral hazard and risk taking.
žMany asset management companies have found it very difficult to sell bad loans, and end up doing so at a much higher discount than they expected.
žIf the percentage of non-performing loans is very high (e.g. Thailand and Indonesia) their sale results in immediate, serious losses, which can reduce the share value of financial institutions still further, and make it essential for them to raise new capital. When this was not forthcoming, the state had to intervene, leading to closure, nationalisation and mergers.
žIn developing countries, they are unlikely to have enough skilled individuals who could ensure proper asset management and/or disposal. A weak legal and judicial system aggravates the problems. Debtors soon realised there was little reason to service the debt once the debt had been transferred. All of these weaknesses, which all three countries suffered to a varying degree, prevent the AMCs from maximising the value of bank assets at disposal, and the value of any nationalised banks when they were privatised.
žThere is also the question of whether the AMCs should be state owned, as they were in the USA and Korea, or whether banks should be left to organise their own AMCs, as they were in Thailand and in the early years of Japan’s crisis.
Advantages of state ownership:
žAdditional conditions to the sale of NPLs can be imposed on the state. For example, in the USA, the RTC was obliged to use some of the real estate assets to create low cost housing.
žThe agency has control over all the assets and collateral, making for more effective management and disposal of the assets. If allocated to the private sector, the assets and collateral are likely to be divided among several firms.
žThe government can insist on a programme of bank restructuring, as a condition for disposal of assets and collateral.
žThe state can more easily impose special legal powers to ensure efficient asset disposal.
Advantages of private ownership:
žThe private sector has more expertise in asset management, though there is no reason why a state organisation cannot work with private specialists, as the RTC did in the USA. This may be a moot point for emerging markets, where there may not be the expertise.
žAMCs are less likely to be subject to political pressure, since they are independent of government.
žIt is less likely that a profit-maximising firm will keep assets and collateral for an extended period of time. It prevents any build-up of loans and collateral over time. A government owned institution will be under less pressure and assets may remain with it over a long period of time.
žIn a private firm the assets are actively managed, but this may not happen for a state AMC, again because profits are unlikely to be at stake. This could send the wrong signals to financial firms, increasing credit problems in the financial system as investors take on more risk.
žIf the AMC is efficient and used to a competitive environment, their costs of dealing with the dud assets could be lower than in the state sector.
M O D E R N B A N K I N G
and the government’s only option was to nationalise them. All nine banks were nationalised.
Thailand, Korea and Indonesia proved unable to attract enough private investor interest to recapitalise the insolvent banks. It was to be expected in Korea where there were many small shareholders, but in the other two states it proved impossible to entice more capital from existing shareholders or new investors (either domestic or foreign). There was too much downside risk, and the governments provided no explicit protection of the shareholders should the banks fail. The shareholders had already seen creditors compensated when banks were nationalised, but investors got nothing.
8.4. The Japanese Banking Crisis
Since 1990, Japan’s economy has gone from bad to worse, with the first signs of recovery appearing as this book goes to press. Following the collapse of the stock market in 1989, the early tendency to protect failing firms, both banks and non-financial, aggravated the situation. The subsequent prolonged weakness of the financial sector is largely responsible for the world’s second largest economy being in the macro doldrums. This section discusses the background to the current situation and how Japan passed through various stages of a ‘‘bubble’’ economy. The knock-on macroeconomic effects have been very serious. Backed into a corner, Japan should, most observers agree, stimulate the economy through ongoing financial reform and monetary expansion.
8.4.1. The Japanese Financial System, 1945–Mid-1990s
To understand how Japan ended up with a chronic, but serious, banking crisis, it is helpful to briefly review the growth of Japan’s financial structure from the ruins of World War II. Japan faced a severe shortage of capital and weak financial infrastructure. The financial assets of the household sector were virtually wiped out. The priority of the US occupying force and the new Japanese government was to increase assets, which in turn could finance recovery of the real economy. The outcome was a highly segmented financial system, with strong regulatory control exerted by the Ministry of Finance (MoF), backed by the Bank of Japan. Domestic and foreign and short and long-term financial transactions were kept separate, interest rates regulated, and financial firms organised along functional lines. Table 8.10 illustrates the degree of functional segmentation.
The MoF remained the key regulator until the late 1990s, with three MoF bureaux: Banking, Securities and International Finance.52 Responsibilities included all aspects of financial institution supervision: examination of financial firms, control of interest rates and products offered by firms, supervision of the deposit protection scheme, and setting the rules on activities to be undertaken by financial firms.
The MoF used ‘‘regulatory guidance’’ (combining the statutes with its own interpretation of the laws) to operate the financial system. In the post-war era, banks, in exchange for
52 The MoF also had tax and budget bureaux.
M O D E R N B A N K I N G
providing low interest loans to large industrial firms, were protected from foreign competition, and the highly segmented markets (see Table 8.10) limited domestic competition. In return, until 1995, there was an implicit guarantee that virtually any financial firm getting into trouble would be protected – a 100% safety net. MoF officials were often given jobs by banks when they retired – evidence of the cosy relationship between the MoF and regulated bankers.
The Bank of Japan (BJ) was responsible for the implementation of monetary policy, but was not independent. MoF officials exercised strong influence through their membership of the Bank’s policy board. The Bank of Japan also acted as banker for commercial banks and government, regulated the interbank market and was consulted on regulatory decisions taken by the MoF. The Bank and MoF conducted on-site inspections of banks in alternate years.
Japan is the world’s second largest economy. But functional/geographical/segmentation and restrictions on international capital flows resulted in an excessive dependence on the banking sector unlike other major industrialised countries. In 1998, 60% of domestic corporate finance in Japan consisted of loans, compared to just over 10% in the USA. According to the IMF (2003), the major banks and trust banks hold about 25% of the financial system’s assets.
Capital markets remain underdeveloped. In the 1980s, the trading volumes on the New York and Tokyo stock markets were roughly equal but by 1996, Tokyo’s volume was about 20% of New York’s, with 70% fewer shares traded. Though some of this decline is explained by Japan’s recession, other figures underline the structural problems with this sector. For example, market share has declined. In London, about 18% of total shares in Japanese equity were traded in 1996, compared to 6% in 1990. Singapore commands just over 30% of Japanese futures trades.
Participation by foreign financial firms in the Japanese markets was also low compared to other financial centres, mainly because the Japanese believed their interests were best served if foreign firms were kept out. Token gestures were made, to avoid criticism from the world community. The number of foreign firms with a listing on the Tokyo exchange fell by 50% during the first half of the 1990s.53 In 2000, there were 118 foreign financial firms, compared to 250 in New York, 315 in London and 104 in Frankfurt.
8.4.2. Late 1980–1989: A Financial Bubble Grows and Bursts
Financial bubbles and manias were briefly discussed in Chapter 7. A financial bubble normally refers to a bubble in asset prices. The events in the Japanese financial sector provide a good description of the three phases of a financial bubble described by Allen and Gale (2000).54 Phase 1: Financial reforms and/or a policy decision by a central bank/government eases lending. The increased availability of credit increases the property and stock market prices. The phase of rising asset prices can take place for a prolonged length of time as the bubble
gets bigger.
53Source: Craig (1999).
54Allen and Gale (2000) provide a rigorous theoretical framework to explain these phases. For other theoretical contributions see Allen and Gorton (1993), Camerer (1989), Santos and Woodford (1997) and Tirole (1985).
[ 437 ]
F I N A N C I A L C R I S E S
By the early to mid-1980s, the Japanese government had accepted it would have to deregulate its financial markets, including allowing foreign firms equal access. There were two major reasons for the change in attitude. The United States and other countries were putting pressure on Japan to reduce its trade surplus, which was undermining the value of the dollar. The Ministry of Finance and Bank of Japan loosened monetary policy to reduce the value of the yen against the US dollar. Second, the USA and the European Commission had passed laws on the treatment of foreign firms in their respective financial markets. The principle adopted was one of equal treatment: foreign financial firms would be given free access to the US/European financial markets provided financial regulations in the foreign country did not discriminate against US/EU financial firms (see Chapter 5 for more detail). Japan’s regulatory regime did discriminate, which threatened foreign operations of Japanese financial firms. Financial agents in Japan anticipated a future of deregulated markets, together with an increase in the availability of credit as monetary controls were relaxed.
The outcome was the emergence of a bubble economy, as evidenced by a sixfold increase in stock market prices from 1979 to 1989. In 1985, the Nikkei index was approximately 10 000, rising to a peak of 38 916 in September 1989. See Chart 8.1. Property prices followed a similar upward spiral. Zaitech behaviour was also evident: non-financial firms were purchasing financial assets using either borrowed funds or issuing securities, often on the eurobond market. In short, companies increased their debt to invest in financial assets, ignoring or underestimating the risk of price declines.
Zaitech’s beginnings were innocent enough. Many large Japanese corporations realised they had credit ratings as good as or better than the banks from which they borrowed. It was cheaper to raise finance by issuing their own bonds, instead of borrowing from banks. These firms issued bonds with a low cash payout. At the same time, the return on financial assets was much higher than the returns on reinvesting money in manufacturing firms. Firms unable to issue their own bonds borrowed to finance the purchase of assets, usually
Chart 8.1 Nikkei index: highs and lows, 1988–2003.
Nikkei Annual Highs and Lows 88-03
|
45 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 000 |
|
38916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(JPY) |
35 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value |
25 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20833 |
|
Index |
20 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 000 |
|
|
|
|
14809 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7608 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
