Bangladesh Bank Ties CEO Pay and Jobs to New KPI Scorecard as Bad Loans Hit Record 32.78 Percent
Bangladesh Bank has introduced a uniform Key Performance Indicator framework for every scheduled bank's managing director and CEO, grading them on roughly 30 indicators every six months starting October 1, with underperformers facing possible removal and their pay, reappointment and succession directly tied to the results. Three quarters of the score rests on solvency, asset quality and governance, while six critical metrics including the NPL ratio and large loan concentration can trigger an automatic 25 percent penalty if a bank falls below half its target. The framework arrives weeks after this publication reported Bangladesh's non-performing loan ratio hit a record 32.78 percent and detailed a bribery scandal at Bangladesh Commerce Bank, both pointing to the unchecked patronage the new scorecard is meant to check.
A New Scorecard for Bank Bosses
Bangladesh Bank has introduced a uniform Key Performance Indicator framework for the managing directors and chief executives of every scheduled bank in the country, formally instructing all bank chairmen to comply with a bi-annual evaluation regime that will grade bank leaders on roughly 30 separate indicators starting October 1. Central bank officials have been blunt about the stakes: underperforming MDs and CEOs may ultimately face removal, and the results will feed directly into decisions on remuneration, incentives, reappointment, tenure extensions and succession planning.
The move is Bangladesh Bank's most systematic attempt yet to hold individual bank leadership personally accountable for the health of the institutions they run, rather than treating governance failures as problems to be managed after the fact through bailouts, rescheduling windows and regulatory forbearance.
How the Score Is Built
The framework grades each MD or CEO across five weighted categories. Bank solvency and liquidity accounts for 25 percent of the score, asset quality another 25 percent, and governance and internal control a further 25 percent, meaning three quarters of a leader's entire evaluation rests on the fundamentals of running a safe, well-capitalised institution. The remaining quarter splits between inclusion, customer and market conduct at 15 percent and profitability at just 10 percent, a weighting that explicitly signals the central bank cares more about a bank being sound and fair to customers than about how much money it makes.
| Category | Weight |
|---|---|
| Bank solvency and liquidity | 25% |
| Asset quality | 25% |
| Governance and internal control | 25% |
| Inclusion, customer and market conduct | 15% |
| Profitability | 10% |
Scores translate into three bands: 75 or above is rated Above Average, 65 to just under 75 is Average, and anything below 65 falls into Below Average. Crucially, a CEO only earns credit for an individual indicator at all if the bank achieves at least 50 percent of the predetermined target for it, a floor designed to stop leaders from padding their overall score with strong performance in easy categories while quietly neglecting harder ones.
The Six Areas That Can Sink a Score
Beyond the headline weightings, the framework singles out six specific metrics as critical performance areas: the advance to deposit ratio, both gross and net non-performing loan ratios, large loan and top borrower concentration, recovery rates on classified and written off loans, and outreach in CMSME lending, agriculture, green finance and financial inclusion more broadly. Falling below 50 percent of target in any of these six areas triggers an automatic 25 percent penalty deduction from the leader's overall weighted score, regardless of how well the bank performs elsewhere. That structure effectively creates a set of non-negotiable minimums sitting underneath the broader five-category scoring system, aimed squarely at the specific failure modes that have driven Bangladesh's banking crisis in recent years: loan concentration among a small number of large borrowers, weak recovery of bad debt, and neglect of smaller, harder to service borrowers in favour of easier corporate lending.
From Reviews to Removal
The first formal assessment period runs from October 1, 2026 through March 31, 2027, with evaluations repeating every six months after that on a rolling basis. Banks must submit their board-approved KPI frameworks to Bangladesh Bank within seven working days of approval, and performance reviews are due within 15 days of each assessment period's close, a compressed timeline that leaves little room for banks to slow-walk their reporting obligations. Bangladesh Bank has stated plainly that KPI outcomes will directly influence a leader's remuneration and incentive package as well as decisions on whether to reappoint them, extend their tenure, or begin planning their succession, effectively tying a bank CEO's career and pay packet to a scorecard the central bank itself now controls.
Why Now: The Backdrop of a Record Bad Loan Ratio
The timing is not incidental. This publication reported earlier this month that Bangladesh's non-performing loan ratio climbed to 32.78 percent in June, the worst on record, with just ten banks responsible for more than 72 percent of a bad debt pile now standing at Tk6,06,555 crore, and several lenders carrying default ratios above 90 percent. Days later, this publication also detailed a Tk4 crore bribery scandal at Bangladesh Commerce Bank, in which regulators found bank officials had funneled money into personal accounts disguised as hospitality expenses and deposit incentives, with 13 officials facing disciplinary action and two senior figures facing outright dismissal. Bankers and economists quoted in that reporting pointed to exactly the kind of unchecked internal and political patronage the new KPI framework appears designed to counter, patronage that regulators have increasingly identified as a root cause of the sector's deteriorating asset quality rather than a series of isolated incidents.
Seen against that backdrop, the KPI framework reads less like a routine administrative update and more like an attempt to close the gap between individual accountability and institutional outcomes that has persisted through years of worsening bank health. Bangladesh Bank has tried other levers this year, including a longer rescheduling window for the largest defaulters and a new network of 131 valuation firms to check inflated loan collateral, but both of those measures target the mechanics of bad lending after it happens. The KPI scorecard, by contrast, is aimed at the individuals who approve the lending in the first place, and at making sure their own compensation and career prospects are directly exposed to the consequences of the loans their institutions make.
Will Scorecards Actually Change Behaviour?
Whether a KPI framework can meaningfully change outcomes in a banking sector where non-performing loans have climbed for consecutive years despite repeated regulatory intervention is an open question. Skeptics within the industry are likely to note that similar performance-linked accountability measures have existed in other forms before, and that boards heavily influenced by the same politically connected shareholders blamed for past patronage problems will ultimately decide how strictly the framework gets applied to any individual CEO. The KPI system's real test will not be its design, which is detailed and reasonably comprehensive on paper, but whether Bangladesh Bank is willing to follow through on removing or penalising well-connected bank leaders whose institutions score poorly, something the central bank has historically found politically difficult to do even when the underlying numbers left little room for doubt.
References
Read next
Tk4 Crore Bribery Scandal at Commerce Bank Exposes Deeper Rot in Bangladesh's Banking Sector
Bangladesh Bank has ordered disciplinary action against 13 officials of Bangladesh Commerce Bank after investigators found Tk4 crore quietly funneled into personal accounts, dressed up on paper as hospitality expenses and deposit incentives, then hauled away in sacks to two private clubs in Dhaka. Two senior officials face outright dismissal, one of them a man already wanted in a separate Tk74 crore embezzlement case at his previous employer. The scandal lands just as the central bank's own data shows non performing loans climbing to 32.78 percent of all outstanding credit, the worst on record, with bankers and economists increasingly blaming exactly this kind of unchecked political and internal patronage for the rot. Regulators are framing individual cases like this one as a test of whether Bangladesh Bank can finally make consequences stick.
Bangladesh Cuts Rates for the First Time in Six Years, But Businesses Still Won't Borrow
Bangladesh Bank cut its policy rate to 9.5 percent in July, its first reduction in six years, yet private sector credit growth fell to 4.47 percent in June, the slowest pace in 33 years. Excess liquidity sitting idle in the banking system has surged to roughly Tk4.08 lakh crore, up nearly 40 percent in a year, as banks find creditworthy borrowers scarce and businesses cite gas and electricity shortages rather than interest rates as the real barrier to expansion. Bankers describe an economy where cheaper money alone is not enough, with years of energy constraints, political uncertainty and a record bad loan ratio all weighing on the willingness to lend and to borrow alike.
Ten Banks Now Hold 72 Percent of Bangladesh's Bad Loans as Sector Ratio Hits 32.78 Percent
Bangladesh's non performing loan ratio climbed to 32.78 percent in June 2026, with ten banks alone responsible for more than 72 percent of the sector's Tk 6,06,555 crore bad debt pile. Islami Bank Bangladesh, Janata Bank and First Security Islami Bank lead the list, with several lenders now carrying default ratios above 90 percent. Bangladesh Bank has responded with a longer rescheduling window for big defaulters and a new push to verify inflated loan collateral, though officials admit the crisis runs deeper than any single fix.