Are we on the right
track for NPA resolution?
B. Yerram Raju*
In the last few years,
barring the 2008 Recession and its global impact, no subject other than NPAs of
the Indian Banks has occupied so much print space and media attention.
If good number of banks
in the public sector has faltered in loan origination succumbing to external
pressures, some others have failed to supervise their loan portfolio. But their
contribution to NPA portfolio may not be more than 25 percent. NPAs that turn
as bad loans are the real culprits. Only 20 percent of the total quantum of
loans at the doorsteps of legal system could be resolved to the satisfaction of
the banks, notwithstanding the projected empowerment of banks through the
SARFAESI Act. The real reason is, therefore, beyond banks – the law and
justice.
After a prolonged
discussion on the credit risks that today’s banking system is loaded with, one
of the well-meaning legal counsels has countered me with some loaded questions
and these need attention.
-
Advocate: You say that NPA is
culmination of the credit risk likely to lead to an unrecoverable debt; so, the
debt is recoverable with only a potential for non-recover. Am I right?
-
I said – Yes;
-
Advocate: What would you expect the bank
to do?
-
YR: Give a notice calling upon the
creditor to pay up or else face the legal consequences?
-
Advocate: Then what else?
-
If the borrower does not turn up with a
convincing response, what would you expect the bank to do?
-
YR: Issue a legal notice:
-
Advocate: then what?
-
YR: If there is no response, proceed
legally against the primary and collateral securities and guarantors?
-
Advocate: What do you mean by proceeding
against?
-
YR: Ask the Bank’s legal advocate to
file a suit?
-
Put for sale the securities held by the
bank armed with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act?
-
Advocate: How much time it would take?
-
YR: Three months! Not sure.
-
Advocate: Then what do you do?
-
YR: Sell it to Asset Reconstruction
Company?
-
Advocate: At what price?
-
YR: 20-30 or sometimes even 40 percent
discount?
-
Advocate: So you agree that bank is
prepared to lose its realizable value of the loan by this much percentage and
the legal expenses?
-
Advocate: Why should not bank offer at
least a portion of this as offer of settlement and permit the borrower to sell
the asset by himself up front without incurring legal expenses; without having
to wait for three to six months and lose further interest?
-
YR: Bank by this time would have lost
trust in the borrower. The present rules also do not permit the banks to do so.
-
Advocate: I am not asking of just the
small and medium borrowers; what about large borrowers where the lenders and
borrowers engage advocates to settle the NPAs that turned as bad loans.
-
Advocate: How long the courts are likely
to take?
-
YR: Not sure; going by BIFR and DRT
experience it may take anywhere between 6-20 years?
-
Advocate: How much percentage of NPAs is
settled through legal process during the last three years?
-
YR: just around 20 percent including the
SAFRAESI Act acquisitions.
-
Advocate: So 80 percent will take
another 6 to 20 years?
-
YR: Think so.
-
Advocate: Banks’ law firms to whom the
cases are entrusted, in several cases of consequence, have no domain knowledge
and keep on seeking adjournments.
-
Advocate: But I understand that there is
compromise and there is scope for arbitration. Why are banks averse to using
this instrument?
-
YR: Wilful defaulters and some bank
officials can collude and create losses if such procedure is allowed to be a
non-discretionary action.
-
Even if it is discretionary action, it
can still lead to motive-driven compromise, sharing the booty of bank loss as
gain in their pockets?
-
Then, naturally, CVC on their head!
-
Advocate: Do you think all these
processes have been able to wipe out your NPAs or bad debts?
-
YR: No, Banks would have already
provided for in their books of account as losses, leading to erosion of profits
and also eating into capital.
-
Advocate: So banks are not really
interested in reducing NPAs as much as saving their own skin?
-
YR: I should think so.
Advocate:
Banks in several cases fail to do the due diligence of the entrepreneurs,
enterprises and also do not go secure proper opinion on the documents of
properties pledged. Several properties also have undisposed legal cases in
different courts and several of them with the District Magistrate.
Law
firms engaged by the banks sit in some metropolis and the banks’ legal officers
do not equip themselves with knowledge of banking to brief the legal counsel
firm appropriately. Adjournment of cases relating to financial irregularities
should be no more than four and such adjournments should not be also for
frivolous reasons like absence of the legal counsel on either side or the
claimant. Reference to higher level of judiciary bodies also does not make
sense when the default is established as per records as wilful. If it is found
that banks have wrongfully classified an account as wilful default and did not
provide opportunity to the respondent by arbitrary sanction of limits or misuse
of discretion, bank should also be penalised and the account ordered for
restoration without burden of interest for the period from which the account
has been declared as NPA.
Banks
need to use technology to be more transparent in their loan policies and
information dissemination. One can understand the secrecy behind individual
loan account details of firms and individuals. But there is no harm in
disclosing the data on the number of enterprises/firms and the aggregate
sanctions under certain thresholds state-wise and area-wise and sector-wise.
Even the SLBCs or the other periodically released RBI data reveals such
information. RBI Trend and Progress of Banking, BSR statistics are good for
researchers and not useful for the informed public to gauge the trends of
banks’ advances. Periodic information would contain explosions like the one we
have been witnessing lately on NPAs.
The Government, banks,
and the RBI to ponder over this dialogue made public with permission from my
advocate friend. Credit risk becomes less important than covenant and legal
risks once the account becomes NPA. Finally, it is not creating another Asset
Company to hold bad assets but actual recovery of the amount that is important
for the banks and economy. This recovery after the snapping point rests on
judiciary. The economy on the growth path cannot afford the luxury of delayed
decisions affecting the industrial development.
*This
article has been published in the Business Adviser, Vol. XV (6) Dated 25th June, 2016.
file:///C:/Users/Yerram%20Raju/Downloads/Business%20Advisor%20-%20June%2025,%202016%20-%20Contributor%20copy.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment