Showing posts with label Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Banking Reforms


 Banking Needs New Direction


Monetary Policy breathed a fresh air and for once customers felt that some comfort existed for them too. Post-liberalization Banks went on investing in technology and realizing the costs of such investments through various types of charges. Even after realizing the cost of investment in technologies over the last two decades and over, it is time to pass on the benefits to the customers in whose name and style they infused technologies. Waiver of electronic transaction charges for a year at least to start with, has been viewed as a big relief.  ‘No Frills’ accounts norms also changed. Though interest rate changes disappointed the depositors, borrowers expect some rate reduction transmission soon.

Prudential norms underwent change giving comfort to the banks and borrowers alike. Resolution process provided leeway for the corporates running after Bankruptcy Courts to resolve their debt and start production/services to their full capacities sooner than later. The present environment of banking is transiting from dissatisfaction to hope for the better. But the real challenge still remains: public sector banks realizing their raison de ‘etre of their existence: emerging context requires that banking is redefined to meet the specificities of farming, employment, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, and international finance as distinct entities. While retail banking, home loans, real estate and the failed infrastructure loans held sway during the last two decades the change should be in lending for agriculture, allied activities, MSME finance and segmentation of retail sector loans to the needy.

PSBs heaving a sigh of relief over their bad debt portfolio coming under control, should now be looking for new ways of doing businesses. But do they? Huge disappointment, however, is in the increase in bank frauds reaching >Rs.71500cr in 2018-19. Is technology facilitating frauds coupled with inability of banks to supervise staff and control them? Cultivating the technology to customers requires investment by banks in customer education, both online and offline.

Indian economy targeting double digit growth ere long has competing clientele bases in the current milieu of banking. Domain banking has moved to high tech banking. Men at counters have now become slaves of the machine instead of being masters.

Apex institutions like three and half decades’ old NABARD and almost thirty-year old SIDBI are yet to deliver the intended benefits to the sectors they are meant for. Major earnings of these institutions come from treasury business. Multiple funds held with SIDBI are yet to reach the micro and small enterprises. Both these institutions that have wealth of knowledge in their human resources, need thorough revamp and restructuring. Delaying the process would end up further wastage of huge organizational resource.

Manufacturing MSMEs are in negative growth for almost decade and half now. Several NBFCs focused on small business finance but the IL&FS and consequent failure of mutual fund promises left disappointment. PSBs have the option of exploiting the co-finance window but they are bogged by the mindset of collateralized loans. It is here they need change. Interestingly, one of the senior bureaucrats recently rued: ‘when did the banks fall in line with the aspirations and goals of the government – whether DRI loans, IRDP loans, SEEUY etc., until they were forced? Now is the time to look at the way to culture the banks into new ways of thinking and acting. This can come of only through change in governance and regulation.

With over 38% of the population still illiterate, Jan Dhan and Mudra Yojana as instruments of financial inclusion Banks are yet to treat them voluntarily favoured agenda. Institutional innovations like the Small Finance Banks, Small Payment Banks, India Post and the likes as also the MFIs have also proved inadequate to meet the needs of the present leave alone the future banking needs of the population.

India’s future still lies in rural areas; agriculture and allied activities and providing value addition to agriculture at the doorstep of the farmer; weaning away unproductive labour from farm sector to non-farm sector; revamping agriculture marketing with infusion of technology so that price discovery takes place at the source of production and building new skills and upscaling skills in farm sector with measurable outputs of such investments. Government, owner of over 82 percent of banking, should drive the sector towards this agenda.

The reach of banking should be tested in rural areas. Several PSBs are winding up rural branches. Regional Rural Banks that are supposed to cross-hold institutional risks with their principals and do social banking are set to merge with their principals. Institutions thus created for the rural areas will soon become extinct. The big question that RBI should think is – will double digit growth target of the Indian economy possible without mainstreaming rural banking efforts? Should there not be a rethinking on maintaining balance between proximate physical banking and digital banking? A committee of either RBI or GoI could look into this aspect and arrive at the future course of action.

The whole incentive system in HR in Banks should move towards such agenda. Selection of Managing Directors and Directors on the Board should discerningly look at the perceptions of such persons with such agenda.

Kisan Bank for farmers, allied agriculture and agriculture marketing; Udyog Mitra Bank for lending to micro and small manufacturing enterprises and small business finance, Vanijya Bank for retail banking, home, education and transport loans, Moulika Vitta Vitarana Bank ( revive the Development Finance institutions for lending to infrastructure) would make banking portfolio banking with capacities to cross-hold inherent risks of lending. GoI would do well to have brainstorming sessions on these areas as the sector is trying to breath fresh air now.


































































Thursday, June 29, 2017

Obstinate NPAs refuse to leave

Dynamics of NPAs Defy Sensitivities
B. Yerram Raju*
Non-performing Assets (NPA) are a dynamic statistic moving from Rs. 2.50trn in 2013 by nearly four times in four years! Unless the patient cooperates the medicine never works in the sense that it has to be taken on time and in required dose. Here the doctor has been experimenting with the medicine and the patient is unwilling to take it.

Corporate Debt Restructuring measure suggested post 2008 crisis, corrective action plans, Joint Lenders’ forum, 5:25 scheme, strategic debt restructuring (SDR), Sustainable structuring of stressed assets (S4) Scheme have all proved a damp squib and now the regulator-led solution through amendment to the Banking Regulation Act to invoke the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the wilful defaulters is made to appear a surgical strike at bad debts.

Any credit decision is bounded by certain forecasts or predictions about future. It is unlikely that every such decision would end up as expected. Hence NPAs are inevitable in lending. But credit assessed for corporate entities requires a finesse. The promoters and directors should be put to the rigor of scrutiny. Environment and economic risks should be part of enterprise risk assessment. When we look at the largesse in lending in the corporate sector, hindsight and individual appraisal of the directors and promoters as also post disbursement monitoring appear to have taken a beating. Banks’ scrutiny lapses could not be drubbed as willful default for a forceful recovery.

The Banks, Government owning most of them, and the RBI have been in the know of the devil in detail. After the Development Banks have been wound up and universal banking came into being where banks started selling credit, mutual funds, insurance etc., and bank-participated rating institutions or their semblance commenced rating the companies, credit risk assessment has become farcical. Lenders are aware that they are lending short term resources for long term investments prone to very high risk of losses. Banks say they were forced to lend to PSUs.

Bank executives eyeing for the top post or those that are in such high post wanting to hold to the chair compromised institutional interests.  The other reason for such credit for infrastructure, real estate, housing, and retail facilitated arm chair lending suiting their limitations in staff recruitment. They earned profits at the cost of efficiency with impunity. 
Bank Boards having the regulators’ and the GOI representatives as Directors liberally subscribed their signatures to the sanctions. Risk management committees, audit committees of Boards, regular audits and inspection reports at annual intervals should have been the instruments of Board oversight mechanism.  Unfortunately all these would appear to have muted. Failures of governance are beyond action.

CDR mechanism helped greening the balance sheets of banks. The postponed debt obligations swooped on the banks after the CDR ended. Banks realized that they had to provide 30 percent of the secured portion and 100 percent of the unsecured for all the doubtful accounts. By the time the CDR ended Banks realized that the tangible securities have all vanished. To save the banks, RBI introduced SDR. Under SDR, banks can convert 51% of debt into equity to be owned by them and also change the management. New investors could hardly be found as the amount involved is over Rs.2trillion.  Management changes could hardly be seen. In the consortium of bankers another peculiarity noticeable was that while one bank declared the asset as standard asset other bank(s) declared it as doubtful calling for action due to the former finding ways to push the ghost of NPA under the carpet.

S4 can be termed a non-starter. Unanimity in restructuring effort proved rarity. On top of this, banks started showing ‘vigilance’ from agencies like the CBI as villains. In most cases where such vigilance stumbled upon, many skeletons in the cupboard of such banks came out and some executive directors and chair persons were also exposed!!

The latest RBI measure to invoke the IBC and also provide for deep haircuts without fear of the ‘vigilance’ bodies has to prove itself as the IBC requires thorough understanding of the art and science of negotiation and arbitration. Until all the stakeholders, advocates and the jury fully acquaint the terms used in the IBC, resolution through this process would be a long and difficult journey given the fact that the banks have not been able to make use of the easiest Sarfaesi Act and its rules in good measure.Recovery effort in most of the cases instead of ‘squeezing oil out of sand’ may be a milking cow for the errant.

It is time for the RBI to step out of the Bank Boards notwithstanding the losses that their planted directors by way of intangibles could be subject to. Regulatory arbitrage shall not take place to preserve the sanctity of central bank. In more than one way, dynamics of NPAs thus far defied sensitivities in resolution. Hopefully, RBI will be able to doctor a solution to the five-star hospital patient.