BCA vs Danamon: What Drove Their H1 2026 Earnings Improvement?

Summary

BCA and Danamon require different earnings tests: separate recurring operating progress from relief in credit-related charges before extrapolating either bank’s profit growth. This comparison examines the six months ended June 2026—not share-price performance or which stock is cheaper.

Key takeaways

• Compare the earnings bridge, not just the growth headline.
• Falling net credit charges can coexist with rising gross provisions.
• A recovery-led improvement needs a different forecast assumption from recurring revenue growth.

The comparable starting point

Pre-provision operating profit (PPOP) is operating income minus operating expenses, before credit charges. It helps distinguish business expansion and cost control from changes in lending losses.

Sources: BCA, slide 11 and Danamon, slide 16. Percentages are issuer-reported, not recalculated from rounded tables.

Danamon: operating improvement plus credit relief

Danamon’s PPOP increased by Rp687 billion; its credit charge fell by Rp348 billion. Together they explain approximately Rp1,035 billion of improvement before subsequent items, with rounding in the presentation. About one-third of that bridge came from the lower charge. These are calculations from the consolidated presentation, not a decomposition of attributable net-profit growth.

This matters for forecasting. Hold the charge flat in a sensitivity case rather than assuming another reduction: the operating improvement remains, but the additional tailwind disappears. That is a test of repeatability, not a forecast that credit costs must rise.

The comparison uses Danamon’s restated prior-period figures. Its July release explains the common-control accounting changes involving Mandala–Adira and Home Credit. Restatement improves the accounting baseline; it does not by itself prove organic growth or realized integration benefits.

BCA: net provisions conceal a different movement

BCA reported gross provisions rising 11.6%, while loan recoveries rose 96.1%. Provision expense including recoveries fell 4.4%. Therefore, “lower provisioning” would describe the net figure but misdescribe the gross direction. BCA, slide 11.

Recoveries are economically valuable, but a forecasting model should not automatically compound their growth. A useful downside case holds recoveries steady while testing gross provisions separately. Otherwise, one blended assumption can hide deteriorating new-credit economics behind collections from older loans.

What would strengthen either case?

Over the next two reporting periods, assess three separate lines: PPOP, gross credit charges, and recoveries. For an improving earnings thesis, recurring income should cover expense growth without requiring progressively larger recoveries or repeated reductions in loss charges.

The alternative explanation deserves equal attention: recoveries could remain strong because collection capability has improved, while lower charges could reflect genuinely better credit quality. Loan seasoning, write-offs, delinquency migration and coverage provide the evidence to distinguish that case from temporary relief. A falling problem-loan ratio alone is insufficient if its denominator is expanding.

Conclusion

Use a conservative base case for credit relief, then value the operating earnings that remain. This framework avoids both dismissing legitimate recoveries and treating every recovered rupiah as a permanently recurring earnings stream.

Neither bank earns an investment ranking here. A stock decision still requires sustainable returns on equity, capital needs, attributable earnings per share and the price paid.

Published by Trade Inc Research, the research arm of Trade Inc. This is financial analysis, not a personalized investment recommendation.

Methodology and limitations

Purposive two-bank comparison, not an IDX-wide ranking. Consolidated January–June 2026 versus January–June 2025; Danamon comparatives use its latest restatement. Source review: 29 September 2026. PPOP growth uses each issuer’s definition and published rates. Danamon bridge in Rp billion: 5,863−5,176=687; 2,826−2,478=348; total 1,035; 348/1,035≈33.6%. Each displayed PPOP-minus-credit-charge subtotal is Rp1 billion below the corresponding operating-profit level because the presentation is rounded; the year-on-year changes reconcile. BCA gross provisions and recoveries are distinguished from its net charge; definitions are not assumed identical across banks. No cross-bank NIM or cost-of-credit ranking, no EPS-growth equivalence, no return simulation or current valuation. Business mix, accounting judgments and consolidated non-controlling interests limit comparability; no causal allocation of net profit is claimed.

This article is for research and information only. It is not personalized financial advice or an instruction to trade.