IMPACT OF FAIR VALUE CHANGES ON RETAINED EARNINGS DURING FIRST TIME IND AS ADOPTION
By Beni Agarwal (beni@vinodkothari.com)
By Beni Agarwal (beni@vinodkothari.com)
By Financial Services Division, finserv@vinodkothari.com
In the wake of the recent hues and cries of the entire country in anticipation of a liquidity crisis in the NBFC sector, the Reserve Bank of India, on 29th November, 2018, issued a notification[1] to modify the Securitisation Guidelines.The amendment aims to relax the minimum holding period requirements of the guidelines, subject to conditions, temporarily. Therefore, the changes vide this notification come with an expiry date. The key takeaways of the notification have been discussed below:
a. Relaxation in the MHP requirements: As per the notification, NBFCs will now be allowed to securitise/ assign loans originated by them, with original maturity of more than 5 years, after showing record of recovery of repayments of six monthly instalments or two quarterly instalments (as applicable). Currently, for loans with original maturity more than 5 years, the MHP requirements are repayment of at least twelve monthly instalments or four quarterly instalments (as applicable).
b. Change in MRR requirements for the loans securitised under this notification: The benefit mentioned above will be available only if the NBFC retains at least 20% of the assets securitised/ assigned. Currently, the MRR requirements ranges between 5%-10% depending on the tenure of the loans.
c. Timeline for availing this benefit: As already stated above, this is a temporary measure adopted by the RBI to ease out the tension relating to liquidity issues of the NBFCs; therefore, this comes with an expiry date, which in the present case is six months from the date of issuance of the notification. Therefore, this benefit will be available for only those loans which are securitised/ assigned during a period of six months from the date of issuance of this notification.
The requirements under the guidelines remains intact.
Further, the RBI has extended the relaxation till December 31, 2019 vide its notification dated May 29, 2019.
To summarise, the MHP requirements and the MRR requirements on securitisation/ assignment of loans looks as such –
Loans assigned between 29th November, 2018 – 30th December, 2019 | Loans assigned after 31st December, 2019 | |
MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years | Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months
Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months |
Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months
Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months |
MHP requirements for loans with original maturity less than 5 years | If revised MRR requirements fulfilled – 6 months
If revised MRR requirements not fulfilled – 12 months |
Loans upto 2 years maturity – 3 months
Loans between 2 – 5 years – 6 months |
MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of less than 5 years | Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%
Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10% |
Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%
Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10% |
MRR requirements for loans with original maturity of more than 5 years | If benefit of MHP requirements availed – 20%
If benefit of MHP requirements not availed – 10% |
Loans with original maturity upto 2 years – 5%
Loans with original maturity more than 2 years – 10% |
Vinod Kothari comments:
[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11422&Mode=0
For more articles on Securitisation and Covered Bonds, refer our page here.
Also refer our article: The name is Bond. Covered Bonds.
By Richa Saraf and Ananya Raghavendra (resolution@vinodkothari.com)
The insolvency resolution process of Binani Cements have been through various ups- and downs. On 19.11.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. UltraTech Cement Ltd. & Ors. dismissed Dalmia Bharat’s plea to seek stay on Ultratech’s bid for Binani Cement, upholding the UltraTech Cement’s bid for Binani Cement sale. Previously, on 14.11.2018, the NCLAT had also held UltraTech’s offer for Binani Cement as valid, stating that Dalmia Bharat’s offer was discriminatory against some creditors[1]. Read more →