Showing posts with label SIDBI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SIDBI. Show all posts

Sunday, August 9, 2020

Monetary Policy Statement 6 August 2020

 

Some Healthy Deviation and Unfulfilled Expectations

The twin objectives of Monetary Policy – Containing Inflation and Promoting Growth – have largely been addressed in the latest Monetary Policy Statement of the Governor released on the 6th August, 2020. Economy continues to face unprecedented stress in the backdrop of unabated pandemic. Inflation of 6.1% is +2% over the inflation target of RBI.

RBI says that inflation objective is further obscured by (a) the spike in food prices because of flood ravage in the north and north-east and ongoing lock down related disruptions; and (b) cost-push pressures in the form of high taxes on petroleum products, hikes in telecom charges, rising raw material costs. These factors led the Monetary Policy Committee to hold to the existing policy rates undisturbed.

Fitch and other rating institutions say that global growth tumbles in the face of pandemic growing uncertainty. ‘All manufacturing sectors remained in the negative territory excepting pharmaceutical sector. Manufacturing PMI remained in contraction at 34.2. Rural demand increase is the only silver line in the economy. Services sector indices show modest resumption of the economy. Yet tourism and aviation, passenger traffic in trains and buses do not show any signs of recovery. There is broad realization that monetary policy should drive credit in sectors that need most and the Banking sector requires more attention.

Liquidity pumped into the banking sector is of the order of Rs.9.57trillion or 4.7% of GDP with no show of risk appetite among banks. This has only assured the Depositors that the money is safe with banks and there is no need for hurried withdrawals for consumption needs.

CREDIT POLICY

The main driver of the consumption, credit activity of banks is mooted. Lot has been expected from the RBI on the credit policy front. Let me first deal with the best things first: Priority sector lending guidelines have been revised reducing regional disparities in the flow of credit and broadening the scope of priority sector to include credit to the Start-ups in the areas of renewable energy, including solar power and biogas compression plants; and, increasing the targets for lending to ‘small and marginal farmers and weaker sections.’ Incentives for lending to these sectors is related to credit flow to the lagging districts and assigning lower weight to incremental credit to priority sectors in districts where comparatively higher flow of credit had already taken place.

MSME Sector:

RBI Bulletin July 2020 indicates that during the current financial year so far, year-on-year growth is -7.6% for manufacturing MSEs and -5.4% for medium enterprises.

MSME Pulse Report indicates covid vulnerability high among 63 percent of the MSMs. Only 31 percent are strongly positioned to come back. It is these that will be pepped up by Banks and not the vulnerable even if they are standard assets. The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic will impact the profitability of MSMEs due to the declining market demand and rising operating costs in the new way of working.

Number of Studies, notably, ITC, Skoch Foundation, RGICS, CII, FICCI etc reveal that 59-74 percent of the MSMEs are highly risky and would be on the brink of closure if cash inflows do not support them upfront. GoI took the stand that they will be supported by Credit while those that are weak will be supported by sub-ordinated debt or Equity. This Equity product is yet to roll out from the government although Rs,20000cr guarantee backed fund is allocated in the package.

The Policy nowhere referred to the credit-driven Covid-19 Atma Nirbhar Abhiyan packages. Package one related to the standard assets at 20% additional working capital under Automatic Emergency Credit Relief Guarantee from National Credit Guarantee Trust. Against the Rs.3trn target under this window for standard asset ( Units that are performing or continuing their manufacturing activity) to be achieved by the end of September 2020, Banks have so far sanctioned around Rs.1.6trn of which 60% is disbursed. There are field reports that Banks are seeking to extend the existing collateral and/or guarantee to the additional working capital. The disadvantage for the borrowers is on two counts: one fresh documentation involving stamp duty of Rs.1000 and 2) their existing collateral will get extended for the additional working capital and this is quite contrary to the intentions of the scheme.

The second scheme, involving stressed assets under the category of Special Mention Accounts-2. The broad guidelines released are:

¡  Account shall be -

Ø  Standard as on 31.03.2018

Ø  In regular operations during 2018-19/2019-20

Ø  SMA2 later or NPA as on 30.04.2020 , and;

¡  Commercially viable enterprises post revival

¡  7-yr moratorium for principal amount of subordinated debt/equity

¡  Interest payable every month

¡  Subordinated Debt amount up to 15% of Debt O/s or Rs.75 lakh, whichever is lower will be given as personal loan to the promoter for a 10-year tenure. This amount should not be used for recovery of NPA. Entrepreneur can use this to meet his cash deficit, for meeting the payments to labour and making the unit covid-19 compliant.

¡  Unit should revive in 5 years –RBI Guidelines of March 17, 2016.

¡  Unit should be on growth path for 10 years

¡  Scheme Valid till 30th September 2020.

Banks have not rolled out this package so far. RBI Master Circular of 2016 on Revival and Restructuring (RBI/16-17/338 dated March 17, 2016) stipulates: 1. Corrective Action Plan; 2. Revival and Restructuring of all viable manufacturing enterprises and 3. Recovery of the unviable through legal means. Banks have not implemented most of these instructions, save rare exceptions. Under the Subordinate Debt scheme, the enterprise should be first viable; it should be currently running whatever be the capacity utilization, and then, it should be restructured to see it as a standard asset in a year’s time and additional revival package and sovereign obligations if any to be recovered fully before the five year period concludes. Initial moratorium for the revival package would depend upon the viability arrived at. District Committees had to be formed and they should decide on the viability.

For all such units with outstanding liability of Rs.10lakhs and below, the Branch Manager is the deciding authority for reviving the unit while for the units over and above this limit, appropriate authority as decided by the Bank will take the call and place it before the District Committee. Though several Banks committed to the RBI that all such District Committees were set up even by December 2017, most of them are dysfunctional.

Under these circumstances, RBI announcing MSME revival and restructuring of enterprises falling under the category of GST-registered Standard Assets as on 1.3.2020 before 31st March 2021 looks ambivalent.

The virtuous thing about the current instruction is that the asset classification as standard may be retained as such, whereas the accounts that may have slipped into NPA category between March2, 2020 and date of implementation may be upgraded as ‘Standard asset’ from such date of implementation. Banks are expected to maintain additional provisioning of 5% over and above the provision already held by them for such assets.

RBI should have allowed such forbearance for all the assets revived under the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan -2 (Equity-driven revival). While Banks are aware that such any additional loan consequent to revision will be treated as standard asset, their reluctance to revive the viable enterprises is absolute risk aversion.

The only saving grace is that sale of securities to the ARC will now attract higher provisioning. This should trigger the thought that by reviving the asset instead of sale to ARC they would gain in provisioning as the asset is likely to be standard asset at the end of one year of revival. 

Monetary Policy viewed from the MSME perspective, is like what GoI proposes, RBI disposes. Apathy towards MSMEs still continues.  It is suggested that the RBI and GoI be on the same page in so far as MSME revival is concerned and second, shorten the period of decision making to just two weeks as against 55 days’ process indicated in the Master Circular of 2016 referred above.

Government of Telangana seems to be taking the lead in the revival of MSMEs. Telangana Industrial Health Clinic Ltd., set up by it, has put on its website, the Learning Tool for Revival and a Revival Pre-pack online for the enterprises to log in and post the details for quickly deciding on the prospects of viability.

Retail Loans:

As regards personal loans, RBI recognising that these loans falling under Retail Loan portfolio will be the next NPA balloon that will blow off, has accommodated the Banks through a resolution plan. It has been the practice of several Banks both in the Public and Private sector as also a few NBFCs to grant the personal loans wherever the related corporate accounts are held by them. Because of slow growth and the pandemic, several have lost their jobs and personal loan segment has come under severe pressure. RBI left it to the wisdom of Banks concerned to invoke the resolution plan by December 31, 2020 and shall be implemented within 90 days thereafter. There will be no requirement of third party validation or Expert Committee, or by credit rating agencies. Board Approved Policy will be necessary, and the resolution plan shall not exceed two years. Banks will have big relief on this score.

This Monetary Policy recognized the economic environment as tough to recover in the immediate short term. At the same time, it failed to provide the real growth impulses in invigorating the MSMEs to the required degree and failed to generate the risk appetite among banks. It looks more worried about the capital of banks than credit to the required sectors at the required speed.

The views are personal. This is an invited article from Skoch Foundation.

 

 

 

Friday, January 17, 2020

Banking reforms the Budget should not miss


Banking Reforms the Budget should not miss

Former President of India, Pratibha Patil, in her address to the Lok Sabha on 4th June 2009 said: “Our immediate priorities and programmes must be to focus on the management of the economy that will counter the effect of global (domestic) slowdown by a combination of sectoral and macrolevel policies.” She laid emphasis on accelerating growth that is ‘socially and regionally more inclusive’. 

The objective of overall policy in India is accelerated inclusive growth with macroeconomic stability. This approach is likely to reverberate in the ensuing Budget Session.
FM needs to give a measured response to the imperative outlined. In order to take the States on board, she may announce clearance of all the dues on GST to the States once the present audit of GST concludes. She may also like to give a new financial sector reform agenda to resolve the existing imbroglio. A few of the available options will be the focus of this article.

FM is at crosshairs between fiscal austerity and enhancing public spending to stimulate growth. Discomfort lies in the worst performance of Public Sector Banks (PSBs) and failure of NBFCs. While the RBI is balancing inflation and growth objectives, the recently released Financial Stability Report re-emphasis on the need for ‘good governance across board’, improving the performance of PSBs and the necessity to build buffers against their disproportionate operational risk losses.

None of the recent bank mergers added to her comfort. Hence there is need to look at the unfinished earlier reform agenda suggested by various Committees since 1991 and announce either a Reform Agenda or appointment of a High-Level Committee with a specific timeframe for actionable agenda that could stonewall criticism against the PSB failures, bank frauds and twin balance sheet problems. 
The issues surrounding banking are not peripheral.

The moral hazard consequence of banks receiving bailout is worrisome now and therefore, she may refrain from any further bailout announcement. Stress in the NBFCs and Cooperative banking seemed to have forced re-look at the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance Bill, 2017. While the Bill proposes to establish a Resolution Corporation to monitor the health of the financial providers on an ongoing basis, the bail-in by depositors and stakeholders is worrisome.
Increasing stress in various buckets of assets stands unabated and calls for a surgical strike. Banks’ credit origination risks need urgent evaluation. It is important to relook at the universal banking model the country adopted aping the west. Customer preferences and customer rights have taken a back seat.

Market-led reforms of the past have replaced social banking with profit-banking objective. 2025 $5trn GDP target should look at more efficient performance of banking as key to its achievement. There is a need for reconciling satisfactorily the dilemma of policies appropriate for short term with those suitable for the long term.

Governor, RBI in a recent address indicated that he would like to look at the priority sector categorization afresh to ensure that it delivers the intended. This assumes greater importance in financial inclusion agenda as efforts hitherto like Jandhan, Mudra etc could make only numerical and not qualitative advances. Provision of adequate and timely credit to the rural areas in general and agriculture, micro and small enterprises and weaker and vulnerable sectors, remained a major challenge for Indian banks for decades.

Direct credit programmes in Korea, Japan in 1950s and 1980s revealed the need for narrowly focused and nuanced programmes with sunset clauses delivered the results. The problem with directed credit is essentially three-fold: First, pricing at its true market level, second, avoidance of the persons who are not credit-constrained, and third, selection of focused areas and regions without political interference in undefined democracy.

Credit discipline and equity, the twin principles of credit dispensation suffered a systemic failure with politically motivated loan write-offs in several States. Both farm and micro and small enterprises require credit with extension, handholding, monitoring and supervision as key deliverable. This calls for out-of-the-box thinking.

While there has been broad recognition that increasing supply to cope with the rising demand through diversified lending institutions like small finance banks, and NBFCs of various hues, ever-increasing demand to cope with new technologies, low labour productivity, and absence of aggregators structurally to resolve the pricing of produce at the farmer’s doorstep, are all issues that require comprehensive solutions. Resources should not fall short of the requirement for such effort. Budget 2020-21 should make a bold and strategic announcement regarding the direction of investments in farm sector supportive for responsible credit flow. FM would do well to avoid announcing any crop loan targets and leave it to the RBI’s priority sector reformulation.

Supply-side issues cannot be adequately and appropriately addressed without institutional reforms focusing restructuring NABARD and giving a new mandate consistent with the future goals of the economy. SIDBI the second surviving DFI is living on interest arbitrage and enjoying the munificence of the Finance Ministry to the detriment of the sector it was intended to protect and promote. This also begs either closure or restructuring.

As regards governance of banks, the unattended reforms of Narasimham Committee -II deserve attention: Removing 10% voting rights; reducing the legally required public shareholding in PSBs from 51 to 33 percent; improving the Boards qualitatively with well-defined independent and functional directors’ roles.

Since the FM already announced that she is exploring the amendment to the Cooperative Act to skip the duality of regulation of cooperative banks by both the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and RBI, she would be going one step further in eliminating similar duality between her Department of Banking and RBI in so far as the PSBs are concerned, particularly because the RBI created separate Departments of Supervision and Regulation and College of Supervisors to improve the supervisory skills of RBI personnel.
the Hindu Business Line, 16.1.2020 https://t.co/eNEANVcaW8?amp=1

Thursday, October 10, 2019

Institutions loosing their relevance


Agri, MSME DFIs are failing to meet their objectives

The focus needs to shift from public sector banks to NABARD and SIDBI, whose functions greatly differ from their intended role

When one sees high inflation, the RBI comes to mind. When capital markets misbehave, SEBI is on the radar. When an insurance problem surfaces, the IRDA comes into the picture. These are institutions with proven credibility.

But when credit does not flow to agriculture or when farmers commit suicide, why does NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) not come to mind? Why do farmers go to the government for a resolution? Similarly, when MSMEs do not get credit on time or do not get the services promised, why is SIDBI not under scanner? Why should the RBI still have a department to resolve issues relating to agriculture and MSMEs and prescribe priority sector boundaries, despite these other institutions?
Agricultural credit

NABARD, a statutory corporation, was set up in 1982, to take up the work of the Agricultural Refinance and Development Corporation (or, Agriculture Refinance Corporation, till 1970), as well as some functions of the Agriculture Credit Department.

The NABARD Act was passed in 1981. Its preamble states that it is: “An Act to establish a development bank...for providing and regulating credit and other facilities for the promotion and development of agriculture (micro-enterprises, small enterprises and medium enterprises, cottage and village industries, handlooms), handicrafts and other rural crafts and other allied economic activities in rural areas with a view to promoting integrated rural development and securing prosperity of rural areas, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

NABARD is a development finance institution (DFI) established under the statute to serve the purpose of providing and regulating credit and other facilities for the promotion and development of agriculture. It started regulating cooperative credit, but that space was ceded to commercial banks. It also started with regulating RRBs, but most of them merged into larger entities and RRB branches are now mostly seen in urban and metro centres.

When the statute provided for regulation of credit to agriculture, why did the RBI continue to hold the reins? Is it because of lack of confidence in NABARD, or a reluctance to cede control?
The Rural Infrastructure Development Fund is administered by NABARD. Why should NABARD fund States for infrastructure projects, and in the bargain became a banker for the State — not for agriculture and allied activities, rural and cottage industries? It undertakes more treasury business (pure financial operations) than refinancing of cooperative banks and RRBs at very soft rates, and through them, lends to the farmers of all hues. There has been a compromise of objectives, with full concurrence of both the RBI and the government. NABARD’s income comes more from investments than refinancing or development projects.

Commercial lending

Let us see the other DFI — set up under a separate statute in 1989 — the Small Industries Development Bank of India, or SIDBI. There are several Centrally-supported ‘funds’ for the development of small enterprises. But there is no review in the public domain as to how these funds are performing.

The Centre established SIDBI Venture Capital and the ventures funded were of the real estate sector and MFIs. It has no credible record of financing and promoting micro and small manufacturing enterprises or clusters. SIDBI started direct lending sparsely, with a minimum of ₹50 lakh. It did not consider, during the first decade financing, SME marketing activity as a term lending portfolio. Manufacturing enterprises did not get venture capital at a lower cost than the normal venture capital funds.

Commercial objectives continue to govern its functioning. Its regional offices are so autonomous that they do not even consider responding to RBI guidelines. Most of SIDBI’s lending is through collateral securities. It basks under sovereign protection to diversified activities.

Schemes such as MUDRA, CGTMSE, 59Minute Loan are all under its umbrella, albeit indirectly. No one has questioned SIDBI’s way of functioning in relation to the objectives spelt out in the statute: “An Act to establish the Small Industries Development Bank of India as the principal financial institution for the promotion, financing and development of industry in the small-scale sector and to co-ordinate the functions of the institutions engaged in the promotion, financing or developing industry in the small-scale sector and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Thus, both the DFIs targeting specific sectors are non-performers in their supposedly dedicated domains. At a time when the Finance Minister is keen on bringing about institutional reforms, she should shift her antenna from mergers to these two DFIs.
The writer is an economist and risk management specialist. Views are personal


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.


































































MSMEs and the Union Budget


MSMEs and the Union Budget 2019-20

The time is ripe for expectations on a few counts: The first time Woman FM would be compassionate; since she combines in her portfolio the Corporate Affairs as well, the B2B can expect some reliefs for the micro and small manufacturing enterprises; fiscal reliefs will have a slant towards production and employment to push growth and would deal harshly the wilful defaulters both on tax and loan fronts.

Banks bit by huge corporate loan defaults started looking at MSMEs afresh as windows of opportunity although their attitude towards funding manufacturing enterprises still hangs on the unforeseen risks. This is so mainly because of the need for monitoring and supervision of these fledgling enterprises who will continually need mentoring, counselling and handholding and these involve manpower and related costs.

Post liberalization Banks have cut down costs on this count but at the same time charge for them in their books of accounts to ward off accountability. Banks can be legitimized to outsource such tasks at a small price from a few accredited institutions provided the banks do not charge their clients on this count. This is a non-budgetary intervention that the FM can make.

The cascading effect of large corporate defaulters on their vendors in the small sector and the banks’ unwillingness to buy this argument before applying their sledge hammer of SARFAESI Act action needs a novel treatment to the defaults arising therefrom.The allowable leeway for corporates that June 7, 2019 circular of RBI could be extended to MSMEs in the following areas: firstly, the lenders should have a Board approved policy for Resolution Plan; second, they should conform to transparent timelines for implementing Resolution Plan; third, they shall require independent credit evaluation (ICE) of the residual debt by credit rating agencies (CRAs) specifically authorised by the Reserve Bank for this purpose. Fourth, the cost of such independent credit evaluation should be borne by the lender and not the borrower.

Because of the large numbers requiring such effort, Union Ministry of MSMEs can accredit institutions like the Industrial Health Clinics wherever promoted by the State Governments and at least one more Accounting Firm that should pass the independent test of legitimacy with passion for the MSME sector.

Several units where power itself a major input like induction furnaces is, rubber, rolling mills, etc., the reforms in the power sector jacked up the price of this input by as much as 100% making them uncompetitive. Hence in the interest of the employment intensive manufacturing micro and small enterprises, the cost of power can be subsidized linked to GST as it will enable sharing the cost of subsidy equal with that of the state government.

Start-up manufacturing MSEs find it almost impossible to invest in land because of its prohibitive cost. Building rural industrial townships by the States with the required infrastructure like, safe drinking water, industrial water, electricity, packaging, testing and branding or co-branding facilities, multi-storied residential complexes for the workers on lease basis with industry participation, primary and upper primary schools, crèches, play grounds and cultural spaces would be the best alternative to boost this sector. Fiscal incentives like income tax exemption for a five-year period for investments in such infrastructure would be in order.

Hand looms and handicrafts cost the consumer high and leave little margins for the producers. Therefore, there is need for providing safe havens at both the ends to maintain production demand-driven. Present incentive system needs revisit to rationalize them.

Existing urban industrial estates should be up-scaled and modified to provide all the logistic facilities closer to the MSEs under PPP mode. It is important for India that has competing demands on land space to develop lease markets in a big way sooner than later to keep double digit growth moving sustainably.

Industrial work space should be made available on leasehold basis for 15-20 years with permission to mortgage leasehold rights in favour of lending institutions. The caveat should be that the lending institutions should be ordained to take recourse to this security only if it is sold to a frim of similar manufacturing facility and not for real estate or housing purposes.

To provide comfort to the micro and small enterprises in mainstreaming themselves into the economy, both ease of doing business and exit should be of greater comfort than now. Enterprises should be incentivized for vertical growth and all perverse incentives that led to spawning of enterprises horizontally should end. Lately, MoCA is seen to be over-regulating, making small and medium enterprises shun equity markets. There is need for extending regulatory reprieve for SMEs to access bourses.

IBC-like code for micro and small enterprises is imperative for providing easy exit route. Invariably apart from the debt overhang, sovereign dues pose severe problem for those that would like to exit the enterprise sector. Accommodative stance in this regard would be dis-allowing Banks to attach and to sell the only dwelling house of the entrepreneur under SARFAESI Act provisions.

If the enterprise has availed state incentives either while establishing or running the enterprise (like the interest rate pegged to 3 percent per annum in some states), such enterprises shall be eligible for exit route only after ensuring that they have not been diverted to building non-manufacturing assets: wherever capital subsidy has been availed by the unit, the State shall have the first right of recourse to such asset if the enterprise seeks winding up within five years of establishment.

In order that unorganised MSEs become organised and employment is truly reflected in the musters, even zero-based GST-applied manufacturing MSEs should be ordained to submit the GST returns quarterly. Firms that offer cloud-based but customised ERP solutions to the MSEs should be incentivised so that the MSEs embrace this accounting solution at least cost.

MSEs with turnover of up to Rs.10cr that engage accounting consultancy services should be provided fiscal incentive by way of income tax reduction. Tax compliance in the process will be incentivized.
Guarantees of CGTMSE did not provide the much-needed comfort as banks did not buy the scheme for enterprises drawing credit for more than Rs.10lakhs. MSEs look to the budget in terms of the banks sharing the guarantee premium on 50:50 basis with the MSEs or reduced premium for those buying the higher guarantee cover. Wherever the banks take collateral to hedge the uncovered guarantee risk, units should secure credit at lower rate of interest than otherwise.

The FM would do well to include in the budget tax incentives for strategic partners’ investments in the organisations meant for revival of the potentially viable units. This can be by way of exempting them from income tax for the first three years up to a limit of R.500lakh per unit. This will speed up restructuring of viable enterprises faster and in larger numbers.

MSEs particularly suffer from the absence of responsible and credible consulting services. Hence dedicated consulting firms with stakeholder participated – either promoted/partnered by the state governments or NBFCs through a separate Corpus Fund dedicated to the cause of MSEs should be qualified for GST exemption for five years, provided they work on low-yielding assets.

Government departments of both union and state governments should mandatorily become members of the Registered Trade Exchanges to deliver the advantages of e-commerce to the MSMEs and facilitate online payments of bills drawn on the former. It is pertinent to mention that so far trading has not moved significantly in this direction and most delayed payments are by the government departments and PSUs. MSE Facilitation Councils have inherent conflict of interests and the best would be to do away with them and the costs saved can move to incentivise e-commerce.


Thursday, July 19, 2018

Proportionate Regulation helps MSMEs



Huge NPAs in corporate sector of the order exceeding Rs.10trillion and the increasing credit outflow for MSMEs from the NBFCs, on the verge of taking away the meat our of the portfolio have woken up the commercial banks to lend to this sector more responsibly. Banks like SBI, Canara Bank, Indian Bank, Syndicate Bank, and PNB are in the lead while the others are still in wait and watch approach. This context demands an inquest of the present status. Definition of the sector matters when we want to measure the MSME credit growth.

SIDBI defines MSMEs having credit outstanding of less than Rs.1cr as micro; 1cr-25cr as small and Rs.25cr-100cr as medium and beyond Rs.100cr as large for measuring credit growth while the MSME Development Act 2006 defines manufacturing MSMEs by way of investment in plant and machinery as of now: Less than Rs.25lakhs as micro; Rs.25lakhs-500lakhs as small; and Rs.500-1000lakhs as medium. An amendment is awaiting Parliament’s nod for changing the measure to turnover to make the sector ‘globally’ competitive and investment friendly. The new definition keeps micro enterprises at Rs.5cr annual turnover. SIDBI’s analysis follows neither the impending change nor the existing pattern for analyzing the MSME credit growth.

MSME Pulse April-June 2018, an arm of SIDBI measures growth in the sector by credit exposure mentioned above: MSME with a portfolio of Rs.12.6trn is pitched at 22.2% for micro and 12.8% for small Y-o-Y at the end of March 2018. Medium and large industry has recorded 7.2% and 5.9% correspondingly. The market share of new private banks and NBFCs has been growing at 30% and 10.9% respectively. NBFCs are now permitted the CGTMSE cover as well and this measure would see further growth in lending by these enterprises.

RBI Bulletin June 18 puts the micro and small, medium (as defined under MSMED Act) and large enterprises’ credit growth Y-0-Y at 1%, 0.3% and 3.6% respectively while in the financial year so far (up to end April), -1.8%,-2.7% and -0.9% correspondingly. Manufacturing enterprises under micro and small segments registered just 0.3% Y-o-Y reflecting the poor risk perception of the banks of these enterprises. Viewing from the risk perspective, even according to MSME Plus, NPAs of micro enterprises have been stable and range bound at 8.8% while for SME segment it is 11.2%. NPAs of MSMEs have a cascading effect of the NPAs in the corporate sector to which they act as vendors.

The Corporate entities issue cheques for the bills payable to the MSMEs before the last date of the quarter only to ask them not to present during the first week of the following month lest their order book shrinks. This measure will help conformance to the rule that above Rs.2lakhs dues to the MSMEs should be reflected in their quarterly balance sheets. No MSME can complain openly as they are in captive markets.

Most of the PSUs and Government departments do not honor the bills on time and the MSEs approaching the MSE Facilitation Council gets hardly a reprieve. The lender is a government owned bank; the defaulter is a government department or PSU; the arbitrator is a Government Executive. With such deep rooted conflict of interest, the MSEs hardly got justice. Even the disputed claims are not followed up with deposit of 75% of the amount settled by the Council. Even if deposited such amount would be in the Court but would not go for credit of the judgment debtor MSE that is reeling under NPA. Banks left with no option are proceeding under SARFAESI Act provisions even against the only dwelling house of the entrepreneur. They hardly have capacity and financial muscle to fight legally. Many capable of producing to capacity close their shutters prematurely.

Trade related electronic discounting system (TReDS) has on board only 34 PSUs. Several Government departments are yet to register on the exchange. This is a platform created for facilitating payment of 75% of the bill amount traded through this exchange for MSMEs that also register on the exchange and sell their goods to the registered members. Only a few banks registered on the exchange. Several state run firms did not register on this exchange. To swear by this instrument as a big boon to MSMEs will be  unrealistic.

Banks have not been putting their Board approved policy on their websites either for MSME lending or OTS or Revival and Restructuring. Banks are also reported to be charging huge penalties at no less than 18% p.a., on irregularities in the accounts and collecting inspection charges for inspections they rarely did. So is the case with SME Exporters. Banks have been mandated in June 2016 itself to set up zonal committees to ensure conformance to put in place corrective action plan, revival and restructuring and as a last resort recovery. But these instructions are sparingly implemented. The recent amendment to NPA recognition at 180days is hard to implement as the systems do not allow.

In the current environment of trust deficit, proportionate regulation by the RBI should help. RBI should move away from its stance of distancing from micro management since banks are failing the MSMEs. They levy inspection charges for visits to the units that were not made; debit interest and penal interest on the overdue amount fully knowing that the account became overdue not because of willful default but due to the cascading effect of the corporate NPAs. RBI should therefore prescribe boundaries of penalties for the irregular accounts; charges on forex dealings; modifying the IRAC norms and better monitoring of the revival and restructuring processes. Instances are staring at us where the proprietor or proprietrix falling terminally sick and unable to run the industry seeks exit but has no exit route. Government of India would do well to amend the SARFAESI Act 2002 provisions exempting the only dwelling house offered as collateral and not recognizing collateral going concurrent with the CGTMSE thresholds on par with the agricultural lands.
*The Author is Adviser, Government of Telangana, Telangana Industrial Health Clinic Ltd., The views are personal.

 Published on 12.07.2018



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.