Showing posts with label MSEs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSEs. Show all posts

Thursday, April 21, 2022

 Cumbersome Guarantees and Insurances for MSEs Need Redress

This Blog was published in the Times of India ( see the link below)

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are extolled as the engines of employment, growth, and key to the supply chain management of medium and large corporate enterprises, leading exporters, manufacture over 6000 products. They have been redefined during the first Covid-19 disruptions to the economy in terms of investment and turnover, replacing the earlier definition restricted to investment in plants and machinery. This sector is next to agriculture which employs the largest number of persons. 98% of enterprises are micro, mostly owned by proprietors or partners. Even partnerships are to a large extent family partners.

Access to credit for the sector is the Achilles Heel. To provide easy and better access the GoI and SIDBI have set up Credit Guarantee Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises in 2000 (CGTMSE). Even during the pandemic, GoI introduced Emergency Credit Linked Guarantee Scheme under Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan with CGTMSE holding the baby.

But did the sector gain much from the insurances and guarantees in their existing shape? This needs a probe.

Insurance:

When the small-scale industries of Yester decades used to take out insurance cover for the plant and machinery against fire, riot, and risks, through the liability jointly owned by both the credit institution and the borrowing enterprise. After universal banking was ushered in, several banks took to Bank Assurance. A transparent joint insurance policy gave place to a policy that just lists the names of the borrowing MSME firms with the amount insured. The firms are ignorant of their liability under such policy and its renewal terms annually.

There is no evidence of any insurance claim of such bank insurance of enterprise machinery as a primary asset response. On the other hand, as several MSMEs noted that banks have over-booked insurance premium amount upfront with every loan sanction – whether term loan or working capital. Never did such insurance pay off for the MSE in trouble.

Both the MSMEs and the Banks have debated their mutual deficiencies in several media discussions, and they are plagued by mutual distrust.

While the redefinition helped many scale up their enterprises and move to exports quickly, there were lakhs that shut their doors during the pandemic. The impact of redefining has been such that a negative 1.8% MSE outstanding loan in FY20 has moved to 4.8% year-on-year by the third quarter as the existing.

Guarantees:

The 'strength' of a guarantee that allows credit to the enterprises without collateral or third party, is context-dependent: it depends on its nature, the legal environments that are relevant, current practices, and the context when the lender exercises his right. Yet, for twenty years, institutional credit to the sector leaves a gaping hole of Rs.279 trillion according to the International Financial Corporation (2015) study.

RBI mandated Banks to extend credit to micro-enterprises under CGTMSE up to Rs.10lakhs per enterprise. While the CGTMSE can extend guarantees to MSEs up to Rs.2crore, the covers range from 75 to 85 percent of the loans. During the last three years (2018-21), even retail loans and the service sector are being covered with guarantees while the extent of such guarantees is limited to 50% of retail loans. One hundred Member-Lending institutions (MLIs) that include 23 NBFCs are availing of the facility and yet several of them express serious reservations over such ailment.

Annual Report of CGTMSE for Fy2021 reveals that 47 percent of guarantees pertained to loan amounts of less than Rs.10lakhs (mandated by the RBI to extend without any collateral); 18% are in the range of loan amount of Rs.10lakhs-25lakhs; 14% are in the range of Rs.25lakhs-50lakhs; 12% are in the range of Rs.50lakhs-100lakhs, and 9% are in the range of Rs.100lakhs-200lakhs. Rs.45,851crore have been provided guarantee cover during the year 2020-21.

MLI concerns:

The guarantee portfolio increased after the retail, hybrid-collateral, and NBFCs joined, as these three constituted 49% of the guarantees extended during FY 21. It is the 1.18crore of the 6.3crore MSMEs that need a guarantee more than the rest. MLIs opine that the guarantee premium of 1-1.25 percent involved a lot of paperwork, follow-up for receiving the claim amount that too, after declaring the asset as NPA.

Banks have to prove that they have taken all the measures that include issuing legal notices, follow-up on recovery, provisioning for the loans, and proceeding against the borrowers under SARFAESI Act where the assets are partially guaranteed. These factors lead to a lack of trust by the CGTMSE both the MSEs and Banks.

The Way Forward

MSEs in manufacturing that forms an important component of sustainable supply chain management of Industry 4.0 need different forms of credit acceleration and insurance mechanism.

While the Banks should evaluate the credit risks of such enterprises on transparent parameters and extend credit to MSEs along with counseling, mentoring, and follow-up, the enterprises should digitize their operations and derive benefits from a large number of schemes recently floated by the Ministry of MSME, GoI.

Since fourteen states take 88 percent of MSE outstanding credit, and these MSEs reported less NPAs than their elder brothers in the corporate sector, each enterprise can be insured for various risks that include, fire, riot risks, natural calamities, the pandemic-like situations, plant and machinery, storage, other supply-chain disruptions, and cash flows on a graded scale. Once the enterprise pays the premium based on the risk it chooses to cover, and such risks are well-measured, insurance will ensure that the enterprise will be a going concern, and banks can extend the needed help duly assessing their risk cover as well. It is time for a change the guarantee is looked at and replaced it with Insurance, for which purpose, the GoI may appoint a High-powered Committee.

The policy should be transparent and discussed with the stakeholders in at least ten of the fourteen MSME-dominant states before introduction.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/fincorp/cumbersome-guarantees-and-insurances-for-mses-need-redress/

 

 

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Enable MSEs breath fresh air



B. Yerram Raju
Banks want to revive. Large industry wants to revive. Firms like Jet Airways, Zee, Essar Steel and the big are given breather by the Banks and they are all NPAs for more than a year. Reserve Bank of India also encourages Banks to come out of the red. But when it comes to the micro and small enterprises (MSE) who have been vendors to the large firms and part of the supply chain, Banks almost shut the doors.


Interesting backdrop emerges from the latest Financial Stability Report. Discussing the sectoral deployment of Gross Bank Credit, exposure to industry sector expanded by 2.3% in Q2 FY19 as compared a meagre 0.7% in Q4 FY18. Large industry gained the most with almost 3% increase in exposure in the most recent quarter, as compared to 0.8% recorded in March 2018.

The manufacturing MSME segment on the other hand languished further as it experienced a negative growth of (-) 1.4% in September as compared to nearly 1% credit expansion recorded in March. Banks continued to be risk averse as much of credit increase occurred in working capital segment and not term loan segment.

Banks are no less to blame than the MSEs for their ills. Many MSE projects have been financed without consideration of the total costs of the project in most cases that came to our notice, that includes machinery installation costs, rates and taxes including GST, loading and unloading charges, transit insurance costs and other connected expenses.  Trial run for commercial production that should be part of pre-operative costs is also not included in the total project cost.  In addition, interest during the construction period is also debited to the working capital account opened simultaneously with the Term Loan account while such working capital account should be opened only from the date of commercial operations. Consequently, even by the time the unit starts commercial production, the unit becomes sick.

Moratorium should start from the date of release of last installment whereas most banks are starting from the date of first installment.  Sometimes, project implementation delays like delay in release of successive term loan instalments, receipt of imported machinery and its erection etc., would result in time overruns and cost overruns besides repayment starting well before commercial production.  This practice leads to inadequate financing of the enterprise and this is another contributory factor for sickness of the enterprise.

RBI’s Master Directions dated March 17, 2016 on Revival and Restructuring suggest that each Bank appoint Zonal Committee to consider revival. Corrective Action was to be initiated for Special Mention Accounts – SMA within certain time frame: SMA-0 to be provided corrective action. SMA-1 to go for restructuring and SMA-2 for recovery. Zonal Committees were not formed; even where formed, there is no record as to how many have been revived following the Directives.  Though RBI Empowered Committee meets every quarter no reliable data on the revival of manufacturing MSEs was available. RBI’s instructions on manufacturing micro and small enterprise revival seem glossy.

Yielding to the pressure of MSME Ministry, RBI on January 1, 2019, i.e., after a lapse of two years and over since the Master Directions, new directions for restructuring were issued. This circular clearly says that the standard assets SMA-0,1,2 need to be restructured and the exercise should be completed by March 2020 for loans up to Rs.25cr. There is an overdrive among banks now to restructure the SMA accounts. This is certainly a very efficient NPA-preventive tool if effectively implemented.

Neither the RBI nor the Banks consider ‘a known devil is better than an unknown angel’. Some unknown angels are fast turning into unknown devils as well.

The major issues in revival are: NPAs for revival require fresh margins from the beleaguered enterprise; provisioning continues at the same level even after revival; Banks do not have time to have dialogue with the entrepreneur when the unit develops symptoms of sickness; long drawn illness turns into a potential cancer turning the unit unviable. Weeding out willful defaulters is possible even in the first quarter of default during which time banks invariably tolerate.

It is intriguing that the units closed for six months due to failure to pay up electricity dues remain active in banks’ books of accounts. Good number of them has the potential to revive unless they willfully defaulted. During the first 3months of such non-payment of electricity dues proper diagnostics would help the revival.
1.         All NPA-MSMEs in manufacturing sector up to Rs.1cr due for consideration for revival even though the banker may take a different view, should be referred to an external accredited institution (EAI):
a.         Such accreditation could be given for an independent organization like the Industrial Health Clinic wherever set up or to a Committee set up by the State Government involving bank representatives that should include MSME-DI. The Committee should also hear the entrepreneur.
2.         Above Rs.1cr but up to Rs.25cr, such consideration for revival shall be referred to a Committee of the Bank at the appropriate level that should include ‘MSME Expert’, MSME-DI representative, and a State Government representative in order that interests of sovereign dues is taken due notice of and equitable attention is devoted for their recovery as part of revival package.  The committee before taking any decision should hear the view point of the entrepreneur, Revival Policy of the state government and record the same in the minutes for considering or otherwise duly giving valid reasons thereof.
4.         All such revival package shall consider the following financial facilitation:
a.         Freezing the status of the classification of asset on the date of reference to the external institution or the Committee of the Bank for one year or till the date of rejection.
b.         Reversal of penal interest and other penal charges;
c.         Charging simple interest at MCLR from the date of reference for one year;
d.         Fees/Charges levied by the EAI including IHCs should be borne by the GoI through a special fund set up for the purpose;
e.         Bank should share ‘pari pasu’ charge on the borrower’s assets for any external funding towards borrower’s margin including such funding by the IHCs;
f.          Additional funding where required, should be charged at MCLR by the involved agencies.

Such guidelines should be applicable to all the Banks, NBFCs, SIDBI and SFCs. ‘Behind every small enterprise, there is a story worth knowing.’


Saturday, February 3, 2018

Tepid Union Budget 2018

This budget has an increment of Rs.11000cr over the previous outlay. But the direction has changed more to the health and education sectors. The effect of these interventions will be experienced more in future than immediate present. 

In so far as Agriculture is concerned the farmers get some announcements and hopefully, appropriate rules will be made to ensure that the farmers get 1.5 times the cost price for their produce. So far they have not been able to get the dividend out of the MSP. E-Nam spread though welcome has not so far stabilised in delivering the intended benefits to the farmers. 

A non-budget allocation of Rs.11lakh crores to farm credit is again a please all announcement. If NITi Aayog comes up with a modicum of lending to the tenant farmers with the owners' interests duly protected, things may change in the short term credit. Any short term credit not matched with the term lending or investment credit for farm sector as has happened so far, would end up in only irresponsible target chase. 

Agriculture should have been provided a separate budget because of the low growth experienced (just around 2.1%) and the already admitted climate change risks in the Economic Survey 2018. 

In so far as MSMEs are concerned, emphasis on the food processing, leather and apparels would provide great fillip. National Bamboo Mission would provide the bamboo based artisans and small enterprises in rural areas and tribal areas a great opportunity for developing branding and move to export zone. 

MSEs' major problem is availability of land for setting up the enterprise as the land prices everywhere are just soaring to unbearable heights. If he had announced tax exemption for five years for infrastructure and land cost in Rural Industrial Parks - either private or state - it would have been of great help.

In the name of MSME sector, the corporate tax exemption threshold rise to Rs.250 crores would help the medium enterprises and mid-corporates that constitute less than 2% of the total number of MSMEs. This is more an apology of support to the sector.

Mudra Loans target increase by 3lakhs should have been more specific to manufacturing MSEs. So far less than 3% of the total loans have been given to manufacturing. 

SHG credit allocation of Rs.75000 cr - a non-budget allocation would be rebalancing the gender portfolio of banks in the MSME sector.


As a senior citizen I am happy that my medical bill is better met now than before. The FM deserves thanks for this concern.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

NPAs of MSEs Need Alert Banking

NPAs of MSEs Need alert Banking


Grouped under unorganized sector, micro, small enterprises (MSEs) are suppliers to the organized medium and large enterprises. With GST they would migrate from unorganized to organized territory ere long.

Many entrepreneurs have been wondering about their future as their working capital cycles shake up. Credit to them has been on the continuous decline from the banks. In spite of GoI guidelines of June 2015 and master directions of the RBI, several deserving non-willful defaulters’ accounts have not been revived/restructured. Zonal Committees for MSME stressed asset resolution continue to make an apology of their presence. The remedy suggested by the RBI in its master directions with SMA(0,1,2) proved worse than the disease going by the analysis presented below based on the data in RBI Bulletin January 2017.

Friday, September 30, 2016

Lack of oversight on credit guarantee raises concerns

Lack of oversight on credit guarantees raises concerns

Just a year back, Pradeep Malgaonkar, the chief executive (CEO) of Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) scheme was extolling the great strides it made in the geographical space of such guarantees. The Trust has issued cumulative guarantees to 23.23 lakh MSE loans involving an aggregate credit of Rs1.08 lakh crore over the past 16 years. Its corpus grew to Rs4,328 crore as of 31 March 2016. About 133 member lending institutions are participating in the scheme. 

But the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in its Annual Report for 2016 expressed concerns about overleveraging of corpus and the way the guarantee scheme is functioning. Information asymmetry and adverse selection on the part of member lending institutions seem to worry the regulator. More worrisome issue is the absence of regulatory oversight on this institution. 

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Industrial Health Clinic for Telangana MSEs on the Anvil


Telangana Government has already put in place transparent, accountable, progressive and globally acclaimed industrial policy through TSiPass, T-Hub etc. Its inclusive industrial growth agenda required that the MSEs that actually oil the wheels of innovation shall be put on even keel with non-discriminatory promotional framework.

This has propelled the Industries Minister to adequately and appropriately respond to the call of the MSME Associations in the State that bee-lined to him to pour out their woes with the bank’s hurried actions in declaring them as NPAs only to sell of their silver that included their only dwelling house!!. KT. Rama Rao, Minister for Telangana deserves kudos for taking the initiative of reaching the Governor RBI directly – the first ever such effort in the Federal Republic of India to bat for the MSEs’ issues.

Friday, August 19, 2016



STRENGTHEN THE MSE FACILITATION COUNCIL SOONER THAN LATER

Most micro and small enterprises suffer from delayed payments for their supplies and services. Several contractual engagements with both the government and public sector undertakings also are not honoured.

In line with the long-standing demand of small-scale sector to alleviate the problem of delayed payments the Delayed Payments Act came into being in 1993. The hope that the small scale industries would be relieved of the stress in working capital was short-lived due to ineffective implementation. The Act has been amended in September 1998 providing for payment of penal interest at 150% of the prime lending rate of SBI, defining default period as 120 days. It also provided for an alternative mechanism of arbitration and conciliation and also redefined the term supplier to include any institution, agency or undertaking notified as such by the Union Government. Industrial Facilitation Councils empowered to act as arbitrators/conciliators were to be notified by the State/UT governments. The amendments were effected to strengthen the Act, to make it more useful without disturbing the buyer - seller cordial relations and to provide a relief to the small suppliers from undergoing the cumbersome recourse of legal redressal through civil suits.

Subsequently, in 2006 when the MSME Development Act was brought in, the Delayed Payments Act was subsumed in Sections 15to18 of the MSMED Act whereby the MSE Facilitation Councils replaced the Industrial Facilitation Councils.