STATE BANK OF VIET NAM
----------------
No: 2153 /NHNN-DBTKTT
On the performance of statistic
reporting regime in the fourth
quarter and 2010
To:
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Independence – Freedom – Happiness
--------------------------------
Hanoi, 17 March 2011
- Manager of State Bank of Viet Nam’s branches in provinces, cities;
- General Directors (Directors) of Credit Institutions;
With a view to implementing the Decision No. 477/2004/QD-NHNN dated 28/4/2004, the Decision No.
1747/2005/QD-NHNHH dated 01/12/2005 of the Governor of State Bank of Viet Nam (SBV) and
some directive documents of the SBV on the statistic reporting regime, the Monetary Forecasting and
Statistics Department hereby collects, makes comment and reviews the statistic reporting
performance of Units of the SBV, credit institutions (CIs) in the fourth quarter and in 2010 as follows:
I. STATISTIC OF IMPLEMENTING RESULTS:
The detailed result on the reporting of some norm groups in accordance with provisions of the
Decision No. 477/2004/QD-NHNN and the Decision No. 1747/2005/QD - NHNN in the fourth quarter
of 2010 shall be shown in five summary tables attached to this document, the Monetary Forecasting
and Statistics Department hereby requests that Units of the SBV and CIs shall develop these tables
via communication network for timely directing and reorganizing the Unit’s implementation. The
deploy shall be carried out as follows :
1. For Units of the SBV: to develop the file NHNNq42010.xls (Table 1A, 1B. The performance of
some monthly and quarterly statistic norms in groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 of the Units of the SBV – Quarter
IV/1020) and the file TCTDq42010.xls (Tables 2, 3, 4. The performance of some monthly and
quarterly statistic norms in groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the CIs – Quarter IV/1020).
SBV's branches in provinces, cities shall transmit the file TCTDq42010.xls (including Tables 2, 3, 4.
The performance of some monthly and quarterly statistic norms in group 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the
CIs - Quarter IV/1020) and the file Chenhlechsolieu.xls (Table 5- Data difference) to the head office of
CIs which are not State-owned CIs in the local area via communication network, and provide
instruction for the development of the CIs
2. For CIs: to develop the file TCTDq42010.xls (including Tables 2, 3, 4. The performance of some
monthly and quarterly statistic norms in groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 of the CIs - Quarter IV/1020) and
the file Chenhlechsolieu.xls (Table 5- Data difference).
II. THE PERFORMANCE OF STATISTIC REPORTING REGIME UNDER THE DECISION NO.
477/2004/QD-NHNN AND THE DECISION NO. 1747/2005/QD-NHNN
It can be seen from the inspection, development and the collection of statistic reports from Units of
the SBV and CIs that the performance of statistic reporting is as follows :
1. The implementation of provisions on statistic reporting regime by SBV's branches in
provinces, cities
1.1. Norm of groups 1A.1, 1B.1
During the quarter, every month there were 61 out of 63 SBV's branches in provinces and cities
sending sufficient reports in average, reaching the ratio of 96,86%, which was the highest ratio in
2010 (Quarter I: 94.71%, Quarter II: 93.65%, Quarter III: 95.24%) and still much higher than that of
Quarter IV/2009 (92.06%). (Table 1A)
SBV - Dong Nai branch failed to fully send reports in all months of Quarters II, III, IV/2010 for these
two norm groups.
Average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 95.12%, higher than the average ratio of 2009
(90.08%). In 2010, the reports sent by SBV’s branches in Hanoi city, Ho Chi Minh city, Quang Tri
province, Dong Nai province lacked of 6 out of 12 reporting periods.
1.2. Norm of groups 1A.2, 1A.5,1B.2, 1B.5
During the quarter, there were 63 out of 63 SBV branches in provinces and cities sending the
sufficient reports, reaching the ratio of 100%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 (Reporting ratio of
previous period was 96.83%) and higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (90.08%). (Table 1A).
Average report of unit ratio in 2010 reached 97,62%, the report sent by SBV’s branches in Hanoi city,
Ho Chi Minh city were lacked of 3/4 of the 2010’s reporting period .
1.3. Norm of groups 1A.3, 1B.3
There were 59 out of 63 SBV's branches in provinces and cities sending sufficient reports, reaching
the ratio of 93.65%, which was higher than the ratio of Quarter IV/2009 (88.89%), Quarter II and
Quarter III/2010 (90.48%; 87.3%), but lower than that of Quarter I/2010 (95.24%). (Table 1A).
SBV's branches in Binh Thuan, Binh Duong, Dong Nai, Can Tho provinces failed to send fully reports
for these two norm groups.
Average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 91.67%, higher than the average ratio of 2009
(82.54%). In 2010, the reports sent by some SBV’s branches lacked of 2/4 reporting periods and
more, including Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, Quang Tri, Dong Nai branches.
1.4. Norm group 1A.4, 1B.4
There were 48 out of 63 SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sending sufficient report, reaching
the ratio of 76,19%, which was the lowest ratio in 2010 (Quarter I : 76,72%, Quarter II : 79,37%,
Quarter III: 80,95% ) and even lower than that of Quarter IV/2009 (79,37%). ( Table 1A)
Some SBV branches in provinces and cities failed to send fully reports for these two norm groups
such as : Nghe An, Quang Tri, Thua Thien Hue, Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa, Ho Chi Minh city, Binh
Duong, Dong Nai, Ba Ria – Vung Tau, Long An, Kien Giang.
Average ratio of report unit in 2011 reached 78,31%, much higher than that of 2009 (60,97%). In
2010, the reports sent by some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities were lacked of 6/12 reporting
period and more, such as : Hanoi city, Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Thua
Thien Hue, Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa, Lam Dong, Long An, Dong Thap, Can Tho, Kien Giang
provinces.
1.5. Norm group 1A.6, 1B.6
The ratio of units sending sufficient report in Quarter IV/2010 reached 73,02% - the highest ratio in
2010 ( Quarter I: 76,72 %, Quarter II: 79,37%, Quarter III: 80,95%) and even lower than Quarter
IV/2009 ( 80,95%). ( Table 1A)
Some SBV branches in provinces and cities failed to send fully reports for these two norm groups
such as : Nghe An, Quang Tri, Thua Thien Hue, Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa, Ho Chi Minh city, Binh
Duong, Ba Ria – Vung Tau, Long An, Kien Giang.
Average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 77,52%, higher than that of 2009 ( 70.5%). In 2010, the
reports sent by some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities were lacked of 6/12 and more, such as :
Hanoi city, Ho Chi Minh City, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Thua Thien Hue, Quang Ngai, Khanh
Hoa, Lam Dong, Long An, Dong Thap, Can Tho, Kien Giang provinces.
1.6. Norm group 1C.1
The ratio of units sending sufficient reports reached 100%, the highest ratio in 2010 ( The reporting
ratio in Quarter I, II, III is 96,83%) ( Table 1A)
Average report unit ratio in 2010 reaches 97,62%.The reports sent by SBV’s branches in Ha Noi city,
Ho Chi Minh City were lacked of 3/4 of the 2010’s reporting period.
1.7. Norm group 2A.1
There were 60 out of 63 SBV’s branches in cities and provinces sending sufficient report, reaching
the ratio of 95,24%, the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter I: 93,65%, Quarter II : 92,06%, Quarter III:
92,06%) and equal to the Quarter IV/2009( 95,24%). ( Table 1B)
SBV branches in Dong Nai failed to fully implement this norm group in three months in a quarter.
Average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 93,25%, which was higher than that of 2009(88,98%). In
2010, the reports sent by some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities still were lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more, such as : Ha Noi city, Ho Chi Minh city, Quang Tri, Thua Thien Hue, Dong
Nai provinces.
1.8. Norm group 2A.2
Average ratio of report unit reached 76,19, an equal to the Quarter II/1020, but it was less than
Quarter I and Quarter III/2010( 80,95%; 79,37%), equivalent with the Quarter IV/ 2009( 76,19%) (
Table 1B).
Some SBV branches in provinces and cities failed to fully send this norm group, such as: Nghe An,
Quang Tri, Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa, Ho Chi Minh city, Binh duong, Dong Nai, Kien Giang, Bac Lieu.
Average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 78,18%, which was higher than that of 2009 (71,82%). In
2010, the reports sent by some SBV branches in provinces and cities were lacked of 6/12 reporting
period and more: Ha Noi city, Ho Chi Minh city, Quang Tri, Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa,
Gia Lai, LAm Dong Dong Nai, Ben Tre, Can Tho, Kien Giang, Bac Lieu provinces.
1.9. Norm group 4A( D01)
The reporting ratio of this norm group reached 93,65%, an equal to Quarter I and Quarter II/2010 but
it was higher than that of Quarter II/2010 (90,48%), Quarter IV/2009(88.89%).
SBV branches in Dong Nai failed to fully implement this norm group in all three months in a quarter.
(Table 1B)
Average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 92,86% , which is higher than in 2009 (84,8%). In 2010,
the reports sent by some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities were lacked of 6/12 reporting period
such as : Hanoi city, Ho Chi Minh city , Dong Nai province.
1.10. Norm group 4B( Code D02), 4C( Code D03)
During the quarter, almost SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sent report timely, for example : Lai
Chau, Bac Giang, Quang Ninh, Hai Duong, Long An, Tien Giang, Can Tho. Moreover, SBV’s
branches in Ha Noi city and Ben Tre province sent the report lately (Table 1B)
1.11. Norm group 4E ( Code D05)
In general, almost units reported fully, timely and satisfied the demand of deploying and collecting the
information, updating the date of SBV, for example SBV’ branches in Ha noi city, Ho Chi Minh city,
Can Tho, Da Nang, Thai Binh, Lang Son, Ha Giang, Thai Nguyen, Ha Nam, Nam Dinh.
1.12. Norm group 5B ( Code E02)
The ratio of units which reported the Norm 5B.1 reached 80.85%, which was higher than that of
Quarter I, Quarter II/2010 ( 73,02%, 77,78%), however it was lower than the ratio of report unit in
Quarter IV/2009 and Quarter II/2010 ( 85%; 84,13).
Some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities lacked of this norm group, such as : Vinh Phuc, Thai
Nguyen, Yen Bai, Thanh Hoa, Quang Binh, Quang TRi, Long An( Table 1B)
The average ratio of unit reporting the norm 5B.1 in 2010 reached 78,97%. In 2010, the reports sent
by some SBV’s branches were lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more such as : Yen Bai, Dien
Bien, Phu Tho, Vinh Phuc, Hoa Binh, Nam Dinh, Thanh Hoa, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri,
Quang Ngai, Khanh Hoa, Long An.
The ratio of unit reporting the norm 5B.2 reached 71,43%, which was the lowest ratio in 2010 (
Quarter I: 79,37%, Quarter II : 79,37%, quarter II: 77,78%) , however it was higher than report ratio of
Quarter IV/2009 (68%).( Table 1B)
Some SBV branches in provinces and cities failed to send the quarterly report such as: Vinh Phuc,
Bac Ninh, Hung Yen, Thai Nguyen, Son La, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh,
Quang Tri,…
The average ratio of unit reporting the norm 5B.2 in 2010 reached 76,99%. In 2010, the reports sent
by some SBV’s branches in provinces and cities were lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more: Yen
Bai, Lai Chau, Bac Ninh, Phu Tho, Hoa Binh, Thanh Hoa, Nghe An, Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri,
Da Nang, Quang Ngai, Kon Tum, Dak Lak, BInh Phuoc, Long An.
The ratio of units reporting the norm 5B.4 reached 23.81%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 (
Quarter I : 90,48%, Quarter II : 100%, quarter III: 100%), but it was lower than Quarter IV/2009 (
29%). ( Table 1B)
The average ratio of units reporting the norm 5B.4 in 2010 reached 78,57%. During 2010, some SBV
branches in provinces and cities lacked of 2/4 reporting period and more such as : Lai Chau, Quang
Binh, Thua Thien Hue, Dak Lak, Long An, Dong Thap provinces.
1.13. Norm group 8B ( K02)
Though many SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sent sufficient reports in accordance with
provisions such as : Ha Giang, Nam Dinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri…, there still remained some SBV’s
branches in provinces and cities which had not seriously implemented the report sending (for
example Gia Lai lacking of 24 days, Bac Ninh lacking of 8 days, Thanh Hoa and Nghe An lacking of 6
days), in particular, SBV branches in Ninh Binh did not send the report of all days in a quarter ( Table
1B).
The situation of report delay by SBV in provinces and cities is fairly common, it is usually 1,2 days
late in comparison with the date of data arising, especially the last day of the month. Some SBV’s
branches in provinces and cities reported the data timely, such as Lai Chau, Son La, Hoa Binh, Thai
Nguyen, Hai Phong, Hung Yen, Thai Binh, Nam Dinh, Da Nang, Ninh Thuan, Binh Thuan,…; in
particular, the sending of report by SBV’s branch in Lao Cai were many days late against provisions.
1.14. Norm group 10D ( Code M04): No reporting data
1.15. Norm group 10E ( Code M05): No reporting data
1.16. For the index B01 ( The comprehensive report of agriculture and rural development loan)
All SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sent sufficient reports of CIs in local area as stipulated.
2. The implementation of provisions on statistical report regime with respect to some
departments and offices of SBV
While some departments and offices seriously executed the provisions on deadline of statistical
report regime assessment, such as : the Issuance and Vault Department, Payment Office, Banking
Inspection and Supervision Department, there still remains some Units sending late assessment over
the provisions ( Credit Office with 4 days late, Monetary Policy office with 13 days late, Foreign
Exchange Management Office with 13 days late). This affected the collection of joint report of Central
SBV.
3. The implementation of statistical report regime of CIs:
3.1. On the entireness of report data
3.1.1. Norm group 1A ( Code A01), 1B ( Code A02):
+ Group 1A.1: the ratio of report units reached 95,04%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter
I: 96.61%; Quarter II: 98,32%, Quarter III: 97,5%), however it was higher than that of Quarter
IV/2009( 93,22%). ( Table 2)
Almost CIs reporting this norm group are fairly good, especially the state-owned commercial banks (
CB) and governmental commercial bank. Vid Public joint-venture bank, BNP bank, Taipei Fubon
branch in Binh Thanh failed to send the report of two months within quarter.
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 96,87%, which was higher than that of 2009 (
93,29%). In 2010, CIs reporting this norm group are fairly good. Only two CIs lacked of 4/12 reporting
period : BNP- Paris bas, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh.
+ Group 1A.2: The ratio of Units sending sufficient reports reached 90,65%, which is higher than that
of Quarter I and Quarter III?2010 ( 73,73%; 82,5%), however it was lower than that of Quarter
II/2010(94,96%).(Table 2).
State owned commercial banks and governmental commercial bank, joint- venture bank, foreign
banks which executed the norm group report are fairly good, there still remain some finance
companies and finance leasing company which failed to send the reports fully, such as : Textile
Finance Company, Rubber Finance Company, Shipbuilding Finance Company, Chemical Finance
Company, Cement Finance Company, Viettin leasing company, Agribank leasing company I, ANZVTRAC,…
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 85,46%. In 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting
period and more, such as: Vietnam banks for Argriculture and Rural Development, Mekong Housing
Bank, North Asia banks, Standard Chartered Banks with 100% foreign owned, Citi Bank, Mizuho Ha
Noi, Mega International Commercial, Woori Ha noi, Korea Exchange, Textile Finance Company,
Telecommunication Finance Company, Viet Social Finance Company, Viettin leasing company, ACB
leasing company.
+Group 1A.3: the ratio of report unit reached 92,56%, which is higher than that of Quarter I, Quarter
II/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 (90,68%; 87,5%; 91,53%), but it was lower than the ratio in the Quarter
II/2010 ( 95,8%) ( Table 2).
Some CIs failed to send the quarterly report such as : BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Taipei
Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh, Textile Finance Company, EVN Finance company, PDF Finance
Company, Vietnam Toyota Finance Company, ANZ-VTRAC leasing company, Agribank leasing
company I.
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 91,64%, which is higher than that of 2009 ( 82,63%).
In 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting period such as : Mekong Housing Bank, Hongleong Bank,
BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh, Textile Finance Company,
EVN Finance company, Vietnam Toyota Finance Company, PDF Finance Company, ANZ-VTRAC
leasing company.
+ Group 1A.4 : The ratio of report unit reached 94,21%, which is higher than the ratio in Quarter I,
Quarter III/2010 and Quarter IV/2009( 89,83%;92,5%;86,44%), however it is lower than Quarter
II/2010 ( 98,32%). (Table 2)
Some CIs failed to send the report of three month within a quarter as follows: BNP-Paribas, Credit
Agricole CIB, BIDV leasing company.
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 93,72%, which was higher than the ratio in 2009
(81,56%). In 2010, there had three CIs lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more such as BNPParibas, Credit Agricole CIB, BIDV leasing company.
+ Group 1A.5: The ratio of report unit reached 87,85%. the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter I:56,78%,
Quarter II: 87,39%, Quarter III: 63,33%) ( Table 2)
State owned commercial banks and governmental commercial bank, joint- venture bank, foreign
banks which executed this norm group report are fairly good, there still remain some financial
companies and Finance leasing company which failed to send the report fully, such as : Textile
Finance Company, Rubber Finance Company, Shipbuilding Finance Company, Chemical Finance
Company, Cement Finance Company, Viettin leasing company, Agribank leasing company I, ANZVTRAC,…
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 73,84%. In 2010, there were many CIs lacking of 2/4
reporting unit and more, for example : Textile Finance Company, Handico Finance Company, Coal
and Mineral finance company BIDV Leasing Company II lacked of four quarter in a year.
+ Group 1A.6: The ratio of report unit reached 95,04%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter
I: 89,83%; Quarter II: 93,28%; Quarter III: 94,17%), and it was even higher than Quarter IV in 2009 (
85,59%) ( Table 2).
Some CIs failed to send the report within 3 months in a quarter as follows : BNP-Paribas, Credit
Agricole CIB.
The average of report unit in 2010 reached 93,08%, which was higher than the ratio in 2009(80,22%).
In 2010, there remain 3 CIs lacking of 6/12 reporting period and more such as : Vietnam - Russia
Joint Venture Bank, BNP-Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB.
+ Group 1B.1 : The ratio of report unit reached 95,04%, although this ratio was higher than the ratio
in 2009, it is the lowest ratio in 2010 (91,28%). The average of report unit in 2010 reached 96,45%,
higher than the ratio in 2009(91,28%).
In 2010, the CIs’s performance of reporting this norm is fairly good, only some CIs failed to send the
report or spreadly sent some reporting period, in particular, BNP-Paribas lacked of 11/12 reporting
period.
+ Group 1B.2 : The ratio of unit reporting this norm reached 90,65%, which was higher than the ratio
in Quarter I, Quarter III/2010 (77,12%; 85,83%), however, it was lower than the reporting ratio in
Quarter II/2010 ( 93,28%). ( Table 2).
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 86,72%. In 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting
period such as : Vietnam banks for Argriculture and Rural Development, Mekong Housing Bank,
North Asia banks, Standard Chartered Banks, Citi Bank, United oversea, Credit Agricole CIB, Bank of
Tokyo Misubishi, Mega International Commercial, OCBC, Ho Chi Minh Mizuho, Textile Finance
Company, Telecommunication Finance Company, Viettin Bank leasing company, ACB Leasing
Company.
+ Group 1B.3: The ratio of report reached 90,08%( Table 2), much higher than Quarter II/2010
(89,17%), bit it is less than Quarter I,II/2010 and Quarter IV/2009( 93,22%;94,96%;90,68%).
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 91,86%, higher than the ratio in 2009( 81,96%). In
2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting period and more, such as : Mekong Housing Bank,
Hongleong Bank, BNP-Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Ho Chi Minh May bank, Taipei Fubon ‘s
branches in Binh Thanh, Textile Finance Company, EVN Finance Company, Toyota Financial
Services, PPF.
+ Group 1B.4 : The ratio of unit reporting this norm reached 94,21% ( Table 2), which was higher than
the ratio in Quarter I, quarter III/1020 and Quarter IV/2009 (89,93%;92,5%;86,44%), however it was
less than the ratio in Quarter II/2010(95,8%).
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 93,09%, which was higher than the ratio in 2009(
81,1%). In 2010, there were CIs lacking of 6/12 reporting period and more: BNP-Paribas, Credit
Agricole CIB, BIDV Leasing Company.
+ Group 1B.5 : The ratio of report reaches 86,92%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 (Quarter I:
58,47%, Quarter II: 86,55%, Quarter III: 63,33%). (Table 2)
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 73,82%. In 2010, many CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting
period and more : BIDV, Mekong housing Bank, Military Bank, Petrolimex, Bao Viet, VID public joint
venture bank, Vietnam - Russia Joint Venture Bank, ANZ with 100% foreign owned, HSBC’s branch
in Ho Chi Minh city with 100% foreign owned, Shinhanvina Bank, Citi bank, Taipei Fubon’s branch in
Ha noi, Mizuho’s branch in Ha noi,BNP-Paribas,Credit Agricole CIB,…
+ Group 1B.6: The reporting ratio reached 95.04%, the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter I : 88,98%,
Quarter II: 93,28%; Quarter III: 92,5%) and it was much higher than the ratio in Quarter IV/2009
(84,75%). (Table 2)
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 92,45%, which was higher than the ratio in
2009(79,07%). In 2010, there were four CIs lacking of 6/12 reporting period and more, such as
Vietnam - Russia Joint Venture Bank, BNP-Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB,BIDV Leasing Company.
As can be seen from inspection and collection, in the Quarter IV/2010, almost CIs failed to report the
groups 1A, as well as the groups 1B.
3.1.2: Norm group 1C.1 ( Code A0301):
The ratio of unit fully reporting this norm group reached 91,59%, which was higher than the Quarter I,
Quarter III/2010(72,88%;83,33%), however it was lower than the ratio in the Quarter II/2010(93,29%)
(Table 2)
Some CIs lacked of quarterly report such as : Textile Finance Company, Rubber Finance Company,
Shipbuilding Finance Company, Cement Finance Company, Viettin Bank leasing company,
Agriculture leasing company I, ANZ-VTRAC leasing company, Agriculture leasing company II, ACB
leasing company.
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 85,27%. In 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting
period and more : Gia Dinh Bank, Western bank, Credit Agricole CIB, JP Morgan Chase, IBK, Textile
Finance Company, Telecommunication leasing company, Petrolimex leasing company, PDF leasing
company, Cement leasing company and most of leasing company.
3.1.3. Norm group 1C.2( Code A0302): No reporting data
3.1.4. Norm group 1D ( Code A04) ( with respect to Finance leasing company)
In average, every month there were 11 out of 13 Finance leasing company sending sufficient reports,
reaching the ratio of 84,62%, an equal to the ratio in Quarter I/1010, however it is lower than that of
the Quarter II, Quarter III/2010, and Quarter IV/2009 ( 92,31%, 100%; 92,31%). (Table 2)
The average ratio of report unit in 2010 reached 90,39%.
3.1.5. Norm group 1E ( Code A05)
The reporting ratio sending sufficient reports reached 93,39%, equivalent with the ratio in Quarter II,
Quarter II/2010, however it is higher than Quarter I/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 ( 87,29%; 79,66%). (
Table 2 )
Some CIs failed to implement quaterly reports such as : Mekong Housing Bank, BNP-Paribas, Credit
Agricole, Maga International Commercial, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh,…
The average ratio of report in 2010 reaches 91,82%, which is much higher than that of 2009 (
71,43%). During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2 out of 4 reporting period and more such as: Mekong
Housing Bank, Nam A Bank, Techcombank, VID Public Bank, BNP-Paribas, Credit Agricole , Mega
International Commercial, Chailease.
3.1.6. Norm group 1G ( Code A06)
The ratio of units reporting fully this norm group reached 66,96%, which was higher than Quarter I,
Quarter III/2010 ( 47,46%;55%), however it was much lower than that of Quarter II/2010 (90,76%) (
Table 2)
There were many CIs failed to report of three months in a quarter such as : Nam Viet Bank, Gia Dinh
Bank, De Nhat Bank, Dai Duong bank, Western Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Cathay United,
Mega International Commercial Bank, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh and most of Finance
company and finance leasing company.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 65,05%. During 2010, there were some CIs did
not send the reports or lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more, such as, Nam Viet Bank, Gia Dinh
Bank, Western Bank, Standard Chartered Bank with 100% foreign onwed, Taipei Fubon’s branch in
Ha Noi, Korea Exchange, Cathay United, IBK, Textile Finance Company, Rubber Finance Company,
Peterolimex Finance Bank, Vietnam Social Finance Bank, Viet Nam Toyota Finance Bank, PDF, most
of Finance leasing company.
3.1.7. Norm group 1H ( Code A07), 2A.1 (Code B0101), 2A.2 ( Code B0102)
For weekly reports: On 14/9/2010, SBV launching the Official Dispatch No. 6912/NHNN-DBTKTT
announced that CIs did not have to weekly report the norm group 1H, 2A.
For monthly reports: During the quarter, in average, every month there were 114 out of 121 CIs
reporting the norm group 2A.1; reaching the ratio of 94,21%, which is the highest ratio in 2010 (
Quarter I: 94,07%, Quarter II: 99,16%; Quarter III: 94,17%), however it is higher than that of Quarter
IV/2009(91,53%). BIDV leasing company, Vietcombank leasing company did not implement the norm
group 2A.1 in three months in a quarter.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 95,4%, which is higher than that of
2009(91,74%). During 2010, the CIs’s implementation of norm group report is fairly good. However,
there still remain some CIs which did not send some reporting period such as: BNP- Paribas, Bank of
China, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh, BIDV leasing company, Vietcombank leasing company.
There were 115 out of 121 CIs reporting norm group 2A.2, reaching the ratio of 95,04%, which is
higher than that of Quarter I, Quarter III/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 ( 93,22%; 94,17%; 88,98%),
however it is lower than Quarter II/2010; (96,64%) (Table 3). Three CIs failed to implement the report
of three months in a quarter such as: BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Vietnam Lao Ha noi.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 94,77%, which was higher than that of 2009
(86,08%). During 2010, there were three CIs lacking of 6/12 reporting period such as: BNP – Paribas,
Credit Agricole CIB, Vietnam Lao Hanoi.
3.1.8. Norm group 2B.1
The ratio of reporting units reached 87,6%, which was higher than that of Quarter I, Quarter III/2010
and Quarter IV/2009 ( 70,34%; 58,33%; 61,54%), however it was lower than the reporting ratio of
Quarter II/2010(88,24%).(Table 3).
Some CIs failed to report this norm group of three months in a quarter such as: SHB, May bank’s
branch in Ha Noi, Mega International Commercial Bank, May Bank’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, BIDC.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 76,13%. During 2010, some CIs failed to send
6/12 reporting period and more: VP bank, SHB, Dai A bank, Kien Long bank, Bank of China, Mega
International Commercial, May bank’s branch in Ho Chi Minh and many Finance Companies, Finance
leasing companies.
3.1.9. Norm group 4B (Code D02), 4C ( Code D03)
BIDV, Agribank, Viettinbank, Vietcombank fully sent the reporting norm, however, the reporting time
were still late against stipulated deadlines.
3.1.10. Norm group 4D ( Code D04)
There were 67 out of 76 CIs with international payment activities reporting fully the norm 4D ( in which
there were CIs without data arising). The ratio of reporting units reached 88,16%, which was the
lowest ratio in 2010 (Quarter I: 89,04%; Quarter II: 93,42%, Quarter III: 89,47%), however it was
higher than Quarter IV/2009 (80,09%) (Table 3).
Some CIs failed to send sufficient reports of three months in a quarter such as : An Binh Bank, ANZ
with 100% foreign owned, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha noi, BNP-Paribas.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 90,02%, which was higher than the ratio in
2009(83,42%). During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more such as VP bank,
Dai Duong bank, ANZ with 100% foreign owned, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi, BNP- Paribas,
Credit Agricole CIB.
3.1.11. Norm group 5A.1 (Code E0101)
For the norm group from 5A.1.1 to 5A.1.35: The ratio of units sending sufficient report reached
90,72% ( Table 3), the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter I: 86,17%, Quarter II: 90,63%, Quarter III:
89,58%), and it is also higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (87,18%). However, almost finance
company lacked of this norm of three months in a quarter.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 89,28%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more such as : Dai Tin Bank, Rubber Finance Company, Petrolimex Finance
Company, Handico Finance Company, Da River Finance Company, EVN , PDF, Chemical, Viettel
Finance Company.
Norm group 5A.1.36: The ratio of unit sending ufficient reports reached 90,72% (Table 3), which is
the highest ratio in 2010 ( quarter I : 86,17%; Quarter II: 90,63%; Quarter III: 89,58%), and it is even
higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (87,18%). However, most of finance company lacked of this norm
of three months in a quarter.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 89,28%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more such as : Dai Tin Bank, Rubber Finance Company, Petrolimex Finance
Company, Handico Finance Company, Da River Finance Company, EVN , PDF, Chemical, Viettel
Finance Company.
3.1.12. Norm group 5A.2 ( Code E0102):
The ratio of reporting units fully reported this norm reached 93,33%, which is the highest ratio in 2010
( Quarter I: 90,91%; Quarter II: 89,89%, Quarter III: 93,26%), however it is lower than that of Quarter
IV/2009 (96%). ( Table 3)
Some Cis lacked of reports of three months in a quarter such as: Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha noi,
Lao- Viet bank’s branch in Ha noi, Ca Thay United.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 91,85%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more such as : BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Lao- Viet bank’s branch in Ha
noi, Ca Thay United, Woori’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh.
3.1.13. Norm group 5A.3 (Code E0103)
The ratio of reporting units reached 92,22%, which was higher than that of Quarter III/2010 (89,58%),
however it was lower than that of Quarter I,II/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 (96,59%; 95,51%;95%).
(Table 3)
Some Cis lacked of reports of three months in a quarter such as : Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi,
May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Sumitomo’s branch in Ha Noi.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 93,48%. During 2010, only Credit Agricole CIB
failed to send 6/12 reporting period and more.
3.1.14. Norm group 5A.4( Code 0104):
The ratio of reporting units reached 95,56% ( Table 3), which was the highest in 2010 (Quarter I:
72,73%; Quarter II:74,16%, Quarter III: 93,26%), and it was even higher than that of Quarter
IV/2009(94%).
Some Cis failed to send quarterly report such as: Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi, May Bank’s
branch in Ha Noi, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Sumitomo’s branch in Ha Noi.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 83,93%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4
reporting period and more such as: Agribank, Nam A Bank, Techcombank, International bank, Ocean
Bank, Dai A Bank, Standarded Chartered Bank with 100% foreign owned, and many foreign’s
branches.
3.1.15: Norm group 5A.5 (Code E0105):
The ratio of reporting units reached 91,11% which was the highest in 2010 (Quarter I: 77,27%;
Quarter II:80,89%, Quarter III: 90,01%), and it was even higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (86%).
Some Cis failed to send quarterly report such as: Standarded Chartered Bank, Taipei Fubon’s branch
in Ha Noi, May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi, Credit Agricole CIB, Mega International Commercial Bank,
May Bank’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh, Taipei Fubon’s branch in
Ha Noi, ICBC’s branch in Ha Noi
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 85,07%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4
reporting period and more such as: Nam A, Ocean, Dai A bank, Vid Public Bank, Shinhavina bank,
Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi, May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi, BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB,
Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi.
3.1.16. Norm group 5A.6 ( Code 0106)
The ratio of reporting units reached 94,44%, which was lower than that of Quarter III/2010(96,63%),
but it was lower than that of Quarter I,II/2010 and Quarter IV/2009( 56,82%, 79,78%;77%). ( Table 3).
Some Cis failed to send quarterly report such as:Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi,May Bank’s branch
in Ha Noi, BNP- Paribas, Credit Agricole CIB, Lao Viet bank in Ha Noi.
The ratio of reporting units reached 81,92%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4 reporting period
and more such as: Nam A Bank, International bank, Ocean Bank,, Vietnam – Russian joint venture
bank, Citibank, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha Noi, May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi, BNP- Paribas, Far
East national Bank, Credit Agricole CIB, Viet nam- Lao bank’s branch in Ha noi, Cathay United,
Woori’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh.
3.1.17. Norm group 7A:
The ratio of reporting units reached 76,71%, which was the highest ratio in 2010 ( Quarter I: 36,14%;
Quarter II: 75,34%, Quarter III: 38,36%) and it was much higher than that of Quarter IV/2009
(32,88%). (Table 3). The reporting data in 2010 shows the Cis’s implementation of this norm is not
stable.
Some Cis failed to send quarterly report such as: Agribank, Social Policy bank, Maritime Bank,
Eastern Asia Bank, Southern Asia Bank, VP Bank, Military Bank, Gia dinh bank, GP bank,…
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 56,64%. During 2010, many Cis lacked of 2/4
reporting period and more, in particular, some Cis did not send four reporting periods such as :
Agribank, Maritime Bank, VP Bank Bank, Military bank.
3.1.18. Norm group 8A.1:
The ratio of units sending sufficient report reached 73,18%, which was the highest ratio in 2010
(Quarter I: 62,71%, Quarter II: 68,07%, Quarter III: 72,5%) (Table 3)
Some Cis failed to report or lacked of reports of three months in a quarter such as: Mekong housing
bank, Sai gon – Ha noi Bank, Dai A bank, May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi, HSBC’s branch in Ha Noi,
Lao Viet Ha Noi and most of finance company or finance leasing companies.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 69,14%. During 2010, some Cis did not send or
lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more, in particular, some CIs did not send or lacked of all
reporting periods in a year, such as : Mekong housing bank, VP Bank, Dai A bank, Lao Viet Ha Noi
and most of finance company or finance leasing company.
3.19. Norm group 8A.2:
Most of reporting CIs did not arise this norm ( Table 3)
3.1.20: Norm group 8A.3
Most of reporting CIs did not arise this norm.
3.1.21: Norm group 9A.1:
The ratio of reporting units reached 100%, an equal to Quarter II,III/2010, which is higher than
Quarter I/2010 and Quarter IV/2009(77,12%;82,05%). (Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 94,28%; upon the inspectation, the Cis’s
performance of this norm report is fairly well.
3.1.22. Norm group 9A.2.
The ratio of reporting units reached 95,85%; which was lower than Quarter II, Quarter III/2010
(100%), which is higher than Quarter IV/2010 (61,86%) and Quarter I/2010 (61,68%). (Table 4).
Most of Cis report this norm well, only some finance companies did not send report such as : Rubber,
Ship buliding, Petrolimex, Da River Finance Company.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 89,4%, upon the inspection, the Cis’s
performance of this norm report is fairly good.
3.1.23. Norm group 9A.3:
The ratio of reporting units reached 93,67%, which was lower than Quarter II, Quarter III/2010 (
100%), higher than Quarter IV/2009 and Quarter I/2010 (56,79%; 24,1%). Upon the 2010’s data , the
Cis’s implementation of this norm group is instable..(Table 4).
Most of Cis reported this norm well, only some finance companies did not send report such as
Rubber, Ship buliding, Petrolimex, Da River, Viettel Finance Company.
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 79,44%. After the quarter I/2010, due to the
supervision and fully reminder of SBV, Cis reported this norm well in Quarter II,III,IV/2010.
3.1.24. Norm group 9A.4
The ratio of reporting units reached 76,67%, equivalent with Quarter I, Quarter II/2010 ( 76,4%;
75,56%), which is lower than that of Quarter II/2010(88,76%), which is higher than that of Quarter
IV/2009 ( Table 4). Some Cis failed to send reports of three months in a quarter: Social Policy Bank,
Nam Viet Bank, Tin Nghia Bank, Ocean Bank, Petrolimex Bank, Viettin Bank, Standarded charter
with 100% foreign owned, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha noi, Ca thay United, May Bank branch’s in Ho
Chi Mih, BIDC…
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 79,35%. During 2010, some Cis did not send or
lacked of 6/12 reporting period and more, in particular, some Cis did not send or lacked of reports of
all 2010’s reporting period such as : Mekong housing bank, VP Bank, Dai A bank, Lao Viet bank’s
branch in Ha Noi and most of Finance company and finance leasing company.
3.1.25. Norm group 9A.5:
The ratio of reporting units reached 56,96%, which was higher than that of Quarter I, Quarter III/2010
(53,01%; 19,23%), much higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (6,17%), however it was lower than that
of Quarter II/2010 (83,33%). The 2010’s data showed the Cis’s instable implementation of this norm
group.( Table 4).
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 53,31%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more, in particular, some Cis lacked of all reporting periods in a year such as :
BIDV, Mekong housing bank.
3.1.26. Norm group 9A.6:
The ratio of reporting units reached 52,07%, which was higher than that of Quarter I, Quarter III/2010
(31,36%;30,00%) and it was much higher than that of Quarter IV/2009(7,63%), however it was lower
than that of Quarter II/2010(79,83%). The 2010’s data shows the Cis’s irregular implementation of this
norm group. ( Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 48,32%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4
reporting period and more, in particular, some Cis lacked of all reporting period in a year such as :
HaBuBank, Maritime bank, Petrolimex bank, Dai A bank, Kien Long Bank, VID Public Bank, Far East
Asia Bank, Credit Agricole CIB, Lao Viet bank’s branch in Ha Noi, Human Commercial Bank.
3.1.27. Norm group 9B:
There were 7 out of 13 SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sending the sufficient reports,
reaching the rate of 53,85%, equivalent with Quarte III/2010, which was higher than that of Quarter
I/2010(46,15%), however it was lower than that of Quarter II/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 (100%;
69,23%). ( Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 63,46%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 2/4
reporting period and more, such as BIDV’s leasing company, Agribank leasing company, Shipbuilding
leasing company, Viet Nam International leasing company, Chailease.
3.1.28. Norm group 9C ( For joint venture bank)
The ratio of reporting units reached 100%, an equal to the ratio of Quarter II/2010, but it was higher
than that of Quarter I, Quarter III/2010 and Quarter IV/2009 ( 80%; 60%;60%). (Table 4).
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 85%.During 2010, two Cis lacked of this norm
report in many reporting periods : VID Public Bank (3/4 reporting periods); Viet Nga joint venture bank
(4/4 reporting periods).
3.1.29. Norm group 9D
The ratio of reporting units reached 73,38%, which was the lowest in 2010 ( Quarter I: 80%, Quarter
II: 100%, Quarter II : 89,19%), , but it is higher than that of Quarter IV/2009 (78%(. (Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 86,9%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more, such as : Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha noi, May Bank’s branch in Ha Noi,
Cathay United.
3.1.30. Norm group 9E
The ratio of reporting units reached 83,33%, which is higher than that of Quarter I. Quarter II/2010
and Quarter IV/2009 (82,61%; 80,1 %; 78,26%), however it is lower than that of Quarter
II/2010(100%).(Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 86,51%. During 2010, two Cis lacked of this
norm report in many reporting periods : Taipei Fubon’s branch in Ha noi (7/12 reporting period),
Cathay United (9/12 reporting reporting period).
3.1.31. Norm group 9G
This norm group were only applicable for Central People’s Credit Funds (CCF), it sent sufficient
reports. ( Table 4)
3.1.32. Norm group 9H
There were 56 out of 56 SBV’s branches in provinces and cities sending the sufficient reports of CCF
in local area to SBV.
3.1.33. Norm group10A (Code M01):
The ratio of reporting units reached 26,76%, an equal to that of Quarter IV/2009, however it was the
lowest ratio in 2010 (Quarter I: 27,4%; Quarter II: 76,27%, Quarter III: 100%), it is because of the fact
that many Cis did not arise this norm group without reporting. The 2010’s data shows the Cis’s
irregular implementation of this norm group. (Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 57,61%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more, such as : Mekong Housing Bank, Nam A Bank, Ocean Bank, Dai A bank,
VID Public Bank, Shihanvina Bank, ANZ with 100% foreign owned, Far East National, Lao Viet bank’s
branch in Ho Chi Minh, Credit Agricole CIB…
3.1.34 Norm group 10B (Code M02):
The ratio of reporting units reached 17,75%, which was lower than that of Quarter II, Quarter III/2010
(6,1%;100%), however it was higher than that of Quarter I/1020 and Quarter IV/2009(16,1%;15,66%).
The 2010’s data shows the Cis’s irregular implementation of this norm group. (Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached low level of 49,94%. During 2010, some CIs
lacked of 2/4 reporting period and more, such as: BIDV, Agribank, Mekong Housing Bank,
International bank, Dai A bank, Lien Viet bank, ANZ with 100% foreign owned, Natexis Banques
Bank, Citi Bank, Far East National, Lao Viet bank’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, United Oversea bank,
Bank of China, Credit Agricole CIB, Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi,…
3.1.35. Norm group 10C (Code M03)
The ratio of reporting units reached 47,89%, which was lower than that of Quarter
II,III/2010(83,89%;100%), however it was higher than that of Quarter I/2010 and Quarter
IV/2009(42,48%;40,96%). The 2010’s data shows the Cis’s irregular implementation of this norm
group. ( Table 4)
The average ratio of reporting units in 2010 reached 68,57%. During 2010, some CIs lacked of 6/12
reporting period and more, such as : Mekong Housing bank, Social Policy bank, Nam A bank,
Techcombank, Nothern Asia bank, Gia Dinh bank, An Dinh bank, Viet Asia Bank, Dai A bank, Dai Tin
Bank, Mekong development bank, Shinhanvina Bank, Viet Thailand Bank, Viet Russia Russia Bank,
Lao Viet bank’s branch in Ho Chi Minh, Bank of China, Credit Agricole CIB,…
3.1.36. Norm group 11,12:
The foreign exchange management office of SBV should send the report in writing to collect these
data due to lacking of Cis’s data report over the two norm group.
3.1.37. Norm group B01 ( The comprehensive report on loan for rural and agricultural development in
accordance with Official Dispatch No. 1369/NHNN-TD):
Most of Cis sent reports in line with Table B01 fully, timely. Social policy bank, CCP lacked of reports
in line with Table 01 in Quarter IV/2010.
3.1.38. Norm group B02 ( Report on the credit investment status in accordance with State schedule –
( For Viettin Bank, Vietcombank, Agribank with respect to Official Dispatch No. 1369/NHNN- TD):
Only BIDV sent sufficient reports of three months in a quarter, Vietcombank sent report of
December,2010, the other bank did not make any reports.
III. The reporting performance in accordance with some SBV’s documents:
1. For the report on Import-export activities in line with the Official Dispatch No. 13684/NHNNCSTT dated 26/12/2007
During the quarter, CIs reported the import-export activities fairly well, fully, timely and accurate
figure.
2. For the report on maximum ratio of short-term capital used for medium or long term loan in
accordance with the Official Dispatch No. 8025/NHNN-DBTKTT dated 12/10/2009
During the quarter, CIs generally sent report fully and timely as stipulated, Telecommunication
Finance Company alone sent report 5 days overdue as stipulated
3. The implementation of provisions on balance sheet report dated
Upon the instructions of Governor of SBV, since 01/11/2009, CIs shall set up and send the daily
balance sheet for SBV (Official Dispatch No. 6798/NHNN-DBTKTT dated 03/9/2009).
3.1. For CIs
3.1.1. In respect of the entireness of report
In general, CIs has implemented the reporting regime well. However, there still remain some CIs
which did not send the report fully or send lately and send error file to SBV such as : North Asia Bank,
Mega International commercial bank, Taipei Fubon ‘s branch in Ha Noi, Taipei Fubon ‘s branch in
Binh Thanh, Telecommunication Finance Company, Texttile Finance Company,…
3.1.2 In respect of the report quality
Some CIs sent the report fully in terms of quantity and quality, such as : Eastern Bank, Southeast
Asia Bank, Gia Dinh Bank, Indovina joint venture bank, OCBC bank, United Oversea Bank, Mizuho’s
branch in Ho Chi Minh, Lao-viet Bank Ho Chi Minh City Branch, May Bank Ho Chi Minh branch, Coal
and Mineral Finance Company, Viet Nam International leasing company, Sacom leasing company…
However, there still remained some CIs having the data difference on daily and monthly balance such
as Techcombank, An Binh Bank, Credit Agricole CIB, Citi Bank’s Foreign branches…
3.2. For SBV’s branches in provinces and cities
In the fourth quarter, SBV’s branches as a whole fully disseminated the daily balance sheet report.
4. For the report on credit activities in regions in accordance with the Official Dispatch No.
1369/NHNN-TD dated 26/02/2007
During the quarter III/2010, there have been 63/63 SBV’s branches in provinces and cities fully
reported as stipulated.
IV. SOME ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATITICS REGIME IN QUARTER
IV/2010
1. On the statistics reporting quality
1.1. The reporting data of norm group 1A, 1B of many CIs got a big difference compared to the data
from balance sheet of 12/2010, in particular, the reporting data of some CIs experienced a big
shortcoming, for example: Viet Nam Bank for Social Policy, VID Public Bank, 100% foreign owned
Standard Chartered Bank,…. (Table 5)
1.2. For the norm group 1G: While many CIs reported fully and accurately such as : Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietcombank, An Binh Bank, GP Bank, Sacombank, Eastern
Asia Bank, Asia Commercial Bank, Eximbank, Southern Bank, Eastern Bank, Shinhan Vina Bank,
Bangkok Bank,… there still remain some CIs lacking of original norm such as : VP Bank, Tin nghia
Bank, Dai Tin Bank, Korea Exchange Bank, Mega International Commercial Bank, BNP-Paribas, JP
Morgan Chase Bank, Huanan Commercial Bank,.
1.3. A big difference occurs between the general data of capital mobilization of norm group 2A and
the general data of capital mobilization of balance sheet in 12/2010 in many CIs such as Viet Nam
Bank for Social Policy, 100% foreign owned Standard Chartered Bank, Huanan Commercial Bank.
(Table 5)
1.4. Reports of norm group 8A.1 sent by some CIs were lacked of the norm (only reported the
turnover without interest rate) such as: Habubank, Saigon - Hanoi Bank, Telecommunication Finance
Company, ANZ leasing company, VTRAC leasing company,..
2. On the fullness of statistics report
2.1. During the quarter, the implementation of statistics report regime of SBV’s branches in provinces
and cities has not been good, only 12/25 norm group having an increase of ratio compared to Quarter
III/2010(Meanwhile the proportion of Quarter III to Quarter II/2010 is 21/25).
2.2. During the quarter, the proportion of norm group reported by CIs which experienced the higher
ratio of reporting units than that in Quarter III/2010 is 28/52 (The ration in Quarter III to Quarter
II/2010 is 27/52).
2.3. Although Central Bank has speeded up and reminded many times, many SBV’s branches in
provinces and cities still did not report or sent report overdue compared to stipulated deadline. This
shows the shortcoming in the awareness of implementation and law compliance of Units.
Generally, in 2010, the implementation of statistics report regime by SBV’s branches in provinces and
cities and CIs was better than that in 2009, many reported norm experiences the higher average
reported ratio compared to 2009. However, in some norm groups, Units still did not report fully,
frequently, timely such as group 7A, 9A.3, 9A.6, 10B, it was because of the poor awareness of
implementation of statistic reporting regime by Units, and simultaneously there lacks of a timely
supervision and reminder of some SBV’s functional units.
While many units fully and timely sent reports, there still remained some units which failed to send
reports or failed to send sufficient reports, causing impact on the data collection for reporting to the
Governor of SBV and reports to Government's office, National Assembly's Economic Committee,
National Financial Supervisory Commission. For example (i) SBV’s branches in provinces and cities:
Ha noi, Ho Chi Minh, Quang Tri, Quang Ngai, Quang Binh, Dong Nai…(ii) Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development, Mekong Housing Bank, Citi Bank, Taipei FUbon’s branch in Hanoi, BNPParibas, Bank of China, Credit Agricole CIB, Taipei Fubon’s branch in Binh Thanh,…
IV. SOME PROPOSALS
For continuing to enhance the reporting quality and well implement the statistic reporting regime in
the branch, it is proposed that related units should implement some following matters:
1. For the SBV’s Units:
1.1. To take the initiative in speeding up, correcting and proposing some measures for dealing with
violation of CIs to the statistic reporting Regime;
1.2. The head of Central Bank’s Units, Office, Department should direct the plan building for the
implementation of Circular 21/2010/TT-NHNN, the Official Dispatch No. 991/ NHNN- CNTH dated
29/01/2011 which provides guidance on the implementation on the Circular 21 of Information
technology and related contents, collection and soon feedbacks on the queries of Units and CIs on
the Circular No 21 ‘s contents.
2. For CIs
Chairman of the Board of Directors, General Director (Director) of CIs shall direct the implementation
of some following contents:
2.1. To seriously implement statistic reporting regime in accordance with Decision No. 447 and
Decision No. 1747, to takes corrective measures for the shortcomings and limitations in the SRR’s
implementation, especially the Units which frequently violate the report regime;
2.2 To build plans, prepare the technical facilities for the implementation of Circular No 21, in
particular new contents mentioned in the training workshop on the implementation of Circular dated
12/2010, Official Dispatch No. 991/NHNN-CNTH dated 29/01/2010 which provide SBV’s guidance on
the implementation of Circular 21 on the Information technology and related contents. Timely reflect
to Central Bank (the Monetary Forecasting and Statistics Department) the difficulties, queries arising
in the implementation of Circular 21.
SBV shall collect, comment and assess the implementation of Statistic report regime in Quarter IV
and the year 2010, and kindly requests units to seriously implement provisions of the Governor on
statistic reporting Regime.
Note: Some norm groups do not have comparative figure with the average one in 2009, it is because
the units in charge gave no comment on the full compliance with statistic reporting regime in all
quarters of 2009.