RBI all set to regulate the HFCs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

The provisions of National Housing Bank Act, 1987 were amended w.e.f August 09, 2019 pursuant to the Finance Act, 2019 thereby shifting the power to govern Housing finance Companies (HFCs) from National Housing Bank (NHB) to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Consequently, the RBI on June 17, 2020, issued a draft for review of extant regulatory framework for HFCs[1] (‘Proposed Framework’), and had invited comments from the industry on the same. After considering the inputs received from the industry, the RBI, on October 22, 2020 issued the Regulatory Framework for HFCs[2] (‘Regulations’).

The Regulations intend to align the regulatory framework for HFCs with the one prevalent for NBFCs. In this write-up we bring out the significant features of the regulatory framework for HFCs.

Existing regulations to continue

The Regulations state that the existing guidelines issued by the NHB applicable to HFCs shall continue to be applicable unless the relevant provision has been provided for in the Regulations.

Though all major provisions have already been covered in the Regulations, however, certain aspects shall continue to be governed by NHB regulations such as provisions relating to transfer to reserve fund, maintenance of percentage of assets and concept of Tier I and Tier II capital. Better clarity in regards to the extant regulations that would continue to apply to HFCs would be apparent once the revised Master Directions for HFCs is issued.

Are exemptions from provisions of the RBI Act really exemptions?

The Regulations exempt HFCs from complying with the provisions of Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (RBI Act), except for the registration and Net Owned Funds (NOF) requirements. Further, specific exemption has been granted from the provisions of section 45-IB and 45-IC of the RBI Act, in place of which section 29B and 29C of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (NHB Act) shall continue to remain applicable.

Sections 29B and 29C of the NHB Act contain the same provisions as that of sections 45-IB and 45-IC of the RBI Act respectively. Hence, in essence there is no separate requirement for HFCs and the same is in line with the corresponding provisions applicable on NBFCs.

Accordingly, both NBFCs and HFCs will be on the same page since the provisions of section 45-IB and 45-IC of RBI Act are corresponding to that of section 29B and 29C of NHB Act.

Harmonisation in phased manner

Para 3 of the Proposed Framework stated that harmonisation of certain provisions such as capital adequacy requirements, Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning (IRACP) norms, concentration norms, limits on exposure to Commercial Real Estate (CRE) & Capital Market (CME) etc. shall be done in a phased manner. The Regulations, with respect to para 3, have remained silent for the time being and have stated that the same shall be issued in the upcoming two years.

Principal Business Criteria (PBC)

 

As per the Regulations, in order to be classified as an HFC, following criteria shall be required to be satisfied:

  • A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013;
  • Must be an NBFC i.e. financial assets are more than 50% of total assets and financial income is 50% or more of total income;
  • Housing Finance Assets should be 60% or more;
  • At least 50% of total assets should be towards housing finance for individuals;

Prior to the amendment in the Finance Act, the term ‘principal business’ was not referred to in the NHB Act. For the purposes of registration, NHB was recognizing companies as HFCs if such a company had, as one of its principal objects, transacting the business of providing finance for housing (directly or indirectly).  Now, the identification and registration of an HFC shall be based on meeting the PBC rather than just mentioning the same as one of the principal objects in its charter documents. Further, the requirement of minimum concentration towards ‘individuals’ is a new concept and possibly to protect the HFCs from systemic exposures.

The PBC prescribed in the Proposed Framework stated that at least 50% of ‘net assets’ shall be in the nature of qualifying assets. However, the income criteria was based on total income. Net assets means total assets reduced by cash and bank balances and money market instruments. However, gross income would include interest and other income earned from bank balances and money market instruments as well, that have been excluded from the computation of net assets. Hence, there was no parity between both the comparative bases. Vinod Kothari Consultants (VKC) had sent recommendation to the RBI suggesting to bring both the bases at parity. The RBI has considered the same and has accordingly revised the bases to total asset and total income. A company will be treated as an NBFC if its financial assets are more than 50 per cent of its total assets (netted off by intangible assets) and income from financial assets should be more than 50 per cent of the gross income. Further, for an HFC, it must have 60% of the total asset towards providing finance for housing and 50% of the total assets towards individual housing finance.

Timeline for achieving the PBC

The proposed framework provides the following timelines for achieving the aforesaid PBC

Timeline Minimum percentage of total assets towards housing finance Minimum percentage of total assets towards housing finance for individuals
March 31, 2022 50 40
March 31, 2023 55 45
March 31, 2024 60 50

Existing HFCs, which currently do not fulfill the said criteria shall meet the same within the above mentioned timelines. For this purpose, the HFCs shall be required to submit a Board approved roadmap (as discussed in the ‘Actionables Box’). In case of failure to do so/achieve the PBC specific to housing loans as per the timelines, the HFC shall be treated as NBFC – Investment and Credit Companies (NBFC-ICC) and shall be required to approach the RBI for conversion to NBFC-ICC.

Definition of Housing Finance

The definition of Housing Finance provided in the Regulations is the same as that provided in the Proposed Framework for ‘qualifying asset’. Further, there is a clarification provided in the Regulations stating- “Integrated housing project comprising some commercial spaces (e.g. shopping complex, school, etc.) can be treated as residential housing, provided that the commercial area in the residential housing project does not exceed 10 percent of the total Floor Space Index (FSI) of the project.”

The aforesaid concept of integrated housing project has been drawn from the NHB Directions.

The detailed analysis of the definition of qualifying asset as compared to the erstwhile definition of Housing Finance may be referred here- http://vinodkothari.com/2020/06/comparison-between-the-proposed-and-existing-regulatory-framework-for-hfcs/

NOF requirement

The Proposed Framework stated that HFCs shall maintain a minimum NOF of Rs. 20 crores of more. The same has been retained in the Regulations. The existing NOF requirements for HFCs is Rs. 10 crores and hence, existing HFCs having a lower NOF shall be required to increase their NOF to Rs. 15 crores by March 31, 2022 and Rs. 20 crores by March 31 2023. Further, they are required to submit a statutory auditor’s certificate (as discussed in the ‘Actionables Box’). In case of failure to do so, the registration of the HFC shall be cancelled/ converted into NBFC-ICC upon request of the HFC for the same.

Definition of Tier I and Tier II Capital

The Proposed Framework provided for inclusion of PDIs in the definition of TIer I and Tier II Capital. The Regulations are silent on the same, hence, the existing definition as per the NHB Directions shall continue to be applicable

Liquidity Risk Framework (LRM) and Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR)

The Proposed Framework extended the applicability of the provisions of LRM and LCR to HFCs. VKC had recommended that the same should be made applicable in a phased manner. Considering the said recommendation, the RBI has clarified that the provisions of LCR are required to be met in a phased manner as per the following timelines:

 

It is noteworthy here that while the milestones for NBFC start from December 1, 2020, the milestones for HFCs shall commence from December 1, 2021. The LRM and LCR framework for NBFCs was introduced on November 4, 2020 and NBFCs were given a time period of more than a year to implement the LCR. Similarly, HFCs have also been given time to implement the same.

Exposure to group companies

The Proposed Framework provided for restriction on dual financing i.e. HFCs may choose to lend only at one level. That is, the HFC can either undertake an exposure on the group company in real estate business or lend to retail individual home buyers in the projects of group entities, but not do both.

The Proposed Regulations lacked clarity as to whether it extends to all kinds of group entities or only such entities which are engaged in real estate. VKC had made a recommendation to clarify the same since the Proposed Regulations used the phrase “HFC decides to take any exposure in its group entities”. It now seems clear that the intention is to cover in general all companies in a group engaged in real estate business and not just the group of the respective HFC.

Further, the language of the Regulations refers to group companies, however, the same shall also include any company engaged in real estate business. Hence, the HFC may either have an exposure towards a company engaged in real estate business or lend to retail individual home buyers in the projects of such company.

Considering the requirement for HFCs to do lend a major part of their portfolio to individuals and this restriction on dual financing, it seems that builder lending will be discouraged. In the present state of housing industry in the country, this should not be the intention of the regulator.

Further, the maximum exposure an HFC may have on a single entity in a group of companies shall be 15% of its owned funds and for the group shall be 25% of owned funds. These provisions are similar to the concentration norms applicable to NBFCs. However, these refer to exposure to a group engaged in real estate business. Further, the RBI shall release concentration norms for all exposures of HFCs in due course of time.

Loan To Value Ratio (LTV) requirements

The following LTV requirements have been laid down in the Regulations:

  • For loan against shares (LAS) – 50%
  • Loans against security of gold jewellery – 75%

The LTV requirement for LAS is in line with the guidelines for NBFCs and the Proposed Framework, however, the LTV requirement for gold loans was not specified in the Proposed Framework and is a new insertion.

Levy of Foreclosure Charges

The Regulations bar HFCs from charging foreclosure charges on floating rate term loans sanctioned for purposes other than business to individual borrowers. Below figure explains how foreclosure charges may/may not be charges by HFCs:

Immediate Actionables for HFCs

 

S.no. Actionable
1. All HFCs shall submit RBI a Board approved plan within three months including a roadmap to fulfil the Principal Business Criteria and timeline for such transition
2 HFCs whose NOF is currently below Rs 20 crore, will be required to submit a statutory auditor’s certificate to RBI within a month evidencing compliance with the prescribed levels as at the end of the period mentioned by RBI for complying the same. That is in the month of April, 2022 and April, 2023.

 
3. The HFCs to whom LRM framework would be applicable (more than 100 cr asset size) shall make public disclosures on quarterly basis on their website in the format given in Appendix-1 of the guidelines

HFC Vs NBFC’

A quick comparative of the provisions applicable for HFCs and NBFCs can be seen below:

Provisions/Guidelines NBFCs HFCs Similarity/

Difference
PBC 50-50 criteria In addition to 50-50 criteria, 60-50 criteria also applicable Different- Additional criteria to be fulfilled
NOF Requirement 2 crores 20 crores Different
Applicable guidelines for fraud control Master Direction – Monitoring of Frauds in NBFCs (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 Master Direction – Monitoring of Frauds in NBFCs (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 Same
Applicability of guidelines on Information Technology Master Direction – Information Technology Framework for the NBFC Sector dated June 08, 2017. Master Direction – Information Technology Framework for the NBFC Sector dated June 08, 2017. Same
Definition of public deposits As per Master Directions on Acceptance of Public Deposits Similar to that for NBFCs along with an additional point- any amount received from NHB or any public housing agency shall also be exempted from the definition of public deposit. Similar- except for an additional insertion
Implementation of Indian Accounting Standards Circular on Implementation of Indian Accounting Standards dated March 13, 2020[3] Circular on Implementation of Indian Accounting Standards dated March 13, 2020 Same
LTV Requirements for Loan Against Shares 50% 50% Same
LTV Requirements for Gold Loans 75% 75% Same
Levy of foreclosure charges NBFCs shall not impose foreclosure charges/ pre-payment penalties on any floating rate term loan sanctioned for purposes other than business to individual borrowers HFCs shall not impose foreclosure charges/ pre-payment penalties on any floating rate term loan sanctioned for purposes other than business to individual borrowers Same
Guidelines on Securitization Transactions and reset of Credit Enhancement As per Master Directions for NBFCs and other applicable circulars As applicable to NBFCs Same
Managing Risks and Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services As per Master Directions for NBFCs As applicable to NBFCs Same
Guidelines on Liquidity Coverage Ratio As per Master Directions for NBFCs As applicable to NBFCs, as per timelines mentioned above Same
Guidelines on Liquidity Risk Management Framework: As per Master Directions for NBFCs As applicable to NBFCs Same
Exposure of HFCs to group companies engaged in real estate business: 15% of Owned Funds to single entity 25% to a group There are similar concentration norms for lending and investment Similar

 

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=959

[2] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/NT605BE165AA9E8043EFA087339829CCF469.PDF

[3] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11818&Mode=0

Our related write-ups:

HFC Regulations Harmonised with NBFC Regime

Comparison between the proposed and existing regulatory framework for HFCs

SEBI subtly mandates debt listed companies to prepare quarterly financial results

/0 Comments/in , /by
Stock exchange circular stipulates submission of financials not older than 6 months

Aanchal Kaur Nagpal | Senior Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company

 

NSE, vide clarification dated 14th July, 2020[1], has clarified that audited financials or unaudited financials with limited review, submitted by issuers for listing of their privately placed debentures, including for the stub period, shall not be older than 6 months from the date of the private placement disclosure document.

Schedule I to SEBI (ILDS) Regulations, 2008 mandates furnishing financial parameters upto latest half year in the offer document in addition to providing abridged version of audited consolidated (wherever available) and standalone financial information ( like profit & loss statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement) for at least last three years and auditor qualifications , if any and abridged version of latest audited / limited review half yearly consolidated (wherever available) and standalone financial information (like profit & loss statement, and balance sheet) and auditors qualifications, if any.

There was no express requirement that the half yearly financial results being submitted cannot be older than 6 months. In case of Commercial Paper (‘CPs), SEBI had expressly specified that the audited financial statements to be submitted by an issuer intending to list its CPs, shall not be older than 6 months from the date of the application of listing. [Para 5.2 of Annexure I of SEBI Circular on Framework for Listing CPs dated 22nd October, 2019[2]]

Carve out from the above requirement was provided, as amended vide SEBI Circular dated December 24, 2019[3], to listed issuers who were in compliance with SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015. Such listed entities could file unaudited financials with limited review for the stub period in the current financial year, subject to making necessary disclosures in this regard including risk factors.

Impact:

While a clarification in the above context was much needed, however the requirement for financials to be not older than 6 months would pose difficulties on debt-listed companies.

Debt listed entities are required to prepare financials (unaudited or audited) on a half yearly basis within 45 days (except in case of advance intimation) from the end of each half year [Regulation 52(1) of LODR Regulations] while equity listed entities are required to prepare the financials on a quarterly basis within 45 days from the end of each quarter and within 60 days from the financial end of the year for annual financials.

The aforementioned clarification will not impact the following companies:

  1. Equity-listed entities intending to list their privately placed debentures as they would be preparing quarterly financials;
  2. Debt-listed entities that are subsidiaries of equity-listed entities as they would be required to prepare quarterly financials for the purpose of consolidation with their holding equity-listed entity.

However, debt listed entities that are neither subsidiaries of equity listed entities nor having their specified securities listed, won’t be able to raise funds pursuant to issuance of NCDs if the financials are older than 6 months.

Debt-listed entities are required to prepare their financials within the following due dates:

Period of Financials Due Date Period during which financials would be more than 6 months old
Half year ended 31st March 15th May 1st April to 14th May
Half year ended 30th September 15th November 1st October to 14th November

For e.g. a debt listed entity won’t be able to list debt securities on Oct 1 based on financial results of March 31. Such companies will have to either prepare quarterly financials till June 30 or get the half yearly results for September 30 finalized on priority.

Clarity or Complication?

The said NSE clarification serves as a complication rather than a clarity. The said circular strains the ability to raise funds by debt-listed entities. NBFCs too would take a huge hit due to the said restriction on raising funds during periods where latest financials are not available. Where the world is already in a crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic, liquidity of the debt market becomes all the more crucial.

On one hand, SEBI has mandated Large Corporates to raise minimum 25% of their incremental borrowings, by way of issuance of debt securities (as defined under SEBI ILDS Regulations), and on the other restriction by way of the said clarification has been imposed wherein the debt listed entities will have to prepare financials on a quarterly basis to be able to issue and list privately placed debt securities as and when there is requirement of funds.

Our other relevant resources –

Ease of doing business: Debt listed companies slide down to unlisted companies

[1] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/dec-2019/framework-for-listing-of-commercial-paper-amendments_45448.html

[2] https://www1.nseindia.com/content/debt/NSE_Circular_14072020_1.pdf

[3] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/oct-2019/framework-for-listing-of-commercial-paper_44715.html

One-stop guide for all Regulatory Sandbox Frameworks

/0 Comments/in /by

-Kanakprabha Jethani (kanak@vinodkothari.com)

Background

The International Financial Services Centres Authority Act, 2019 was enancted on December 19, 2019, providing powers to the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) to regulate financial products, financial services and financial institutions in the International Financial Services Centres. Under such powers, the IFSCA has on October 19, 2020, introduced a Regulatory Sandbox (RS) framework[1], to develop a world-class FinTech hub at the IFSC located at GIFT City in Gandhinagar. Under the said framework, entities operating in the capital market, banking, insurance, and financial services space shall be granted certain facilities and flexibilities to experiment with innovative FinTech solutions in a test environment. The framework details among other things the eligibility criteria, applicability, process of application, and regulatory exemption for operating in the RS..

Further, there are already separate RS frameworks issued by the sectoral regulator for various market participants. Hence, it becomes crucial to understand the unique offering of this IFSC framework. The below write-up intends to discuss the same.

What is Regulatory Sandbox?

Regulatory sandboxes or RS is a framework that allows innovative projects to undergo live testing in a controlled environment where the regulator may or may not permit certain regulatory relaxations or may provide certain additional facilities for testing.

The objective is to allow new and innovative projects to conduct live testing and enable the approach of learning by doing. RSs are created to facilitate the development of potentially beneficial innovations, which are otherwise barred to operated due to the construct of the existing regulatory framework of the country.

We have a separate write-up on the concept, benefits, limitations and the history of RS, which may be referred here- http://vinodkothari.com/2019/04/safe-in-sandbox-india-provides-cocoon-to-fintech-start-ups/

Basic features of the IFSC RS Framework

The framework allows any person, including individuals, to make an application under the RS. This is a unique feature that allows not only businesses but students, researchers as well as professionals to apply. However, there is a geographical limit to this RS. It can only operate within IFSC GIFT city. Further, considering the need for information in such projects, the framework, as an additional step, shall provide the participants with access to market-related data, particularly, trading and holding data, which is otherwise not readily available, to enable them to test their innovations effectively before the introduction of such innovations in a live environment.

Comparison of basic features of various RS frameworks

Features IFSC framework RBI framework[2] SEBI framework[3] IRDA framework[4]
Frequency of application This is an on-tap framework. Hence, an application may be made anytime. Based on the cohort framework i.e. end-to-end sandbox. The RBI rolls out a theme based cohort, say digital payments, under which fintech intending to provide services relating to the theme shall apply.[5]

 

Applications can be made only when a cohort is live.

 This is an on-tap framework. Hence, an application may be made anytime Based on the cohort approach.[6]
Applicability/Eligibility to apply Following intending to operate in the IFSC GIFT city.

·   All entities registered with SEBI, RBI,  IRDAI and PFRDA

·   All startups registered with Startup India and meeting the criteria of a start-up[7]

·   Companies incorporated and registered in India

·   Companies  incorporated  and  regulated  in FATF compliant  jurisdictions

·   Individuals who are citizens of India

·   Individuals from FATF compliant jurisdiction[8]

 Fintech companies including startups, banks, financial institutions and any other company partnering with or providing support to financial services businesses which satisfies the detailed eligibility criteria laid down.[9] Entities registered with SEBI under section 12 of SEBI Act, 1992 ·   Insurers

·   Insurance intermediaries

·    any person (other than individual) having net worth of Rs. 10 lakhs or more in the previous financial year

·   Any other person recognized by IRDAI
Purpose Adding significant value to the existing offering in the capital market, banking, insurance or pensions sector in India/IFSC. For the introduction of innovative Products/Services in retail payments, money transfer services, marketplace lending, digital KYC, financial advisory services, wealth management services, digital identification services, smart contracts, financial inclusion products, cybersecurity products, mobile technology applications, data analytics, API services, applications under blockchain technologies, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning applications Adding  significant  value to the existing offering in the Indian securities market For promoting or implementing innovation in

insurance in India in any one or more of the following categories:

(a) Insurance Solicitation or Distribution

(b) Insurance Products

(c) Underwriting

(d) Policy and Claims Servicing

(e) Anv other category recognised by the Authority.
Timeline for review of the application 30 working days Around 4 weeks + 4 weeks + 3 weeks (including preliminary screening, test design, and application assessment) 30 days No timeline prescribed under the regulations
Testing duration Maximum 12 months, extendable upon request Maximum 12 weeks, extendable on request Maximum 12 months, extendable upon request Maximum 6 months, extendable on request
Exclusions No such exclusions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 RS  shall not be available for the following:

·       Credit registry

·       Credit information

·       Crypto currency/Crypto assets services

·       Trading/investing/settling in crypto assets

·       Initial Coin Offerings, etc.

·       Chain marketing services

·       Any product/services which have been banned by the regulators/Government of India.

 

 No such exclusions No such exclusions
Extending or exiting the RS ·      At the end of the testing period, relaxations provided on regulatory requirements shall expire.

·      Upon completion of testing, IFSCA shall decide whether to permit the innovation to be introduced.

·      The applicant may request for an extension period

·      The applicant may exit the sandbox on its own by giving a prior notice to IFSCA.

 ·      At the end of the sandbox period, the relaxations provided will expire and the entity must exit the RS.

·      In case an extension is required, the entity should apply to the RBI at least 1 month before the expiration thereof extended period.

·      The entity may also exit from the RS by informing the RBI, 1 month in advance.

 ·      At the end of the testing period, relaxations provided on regulatory requirements shall expire.

·      Upon completion of testing, SEBI shall decide whether to permit the innovation to be introduced.

·      The applicant may request for an extension period

·      The applicant may exit the sandbox on its own by giving a prior notice to SEBI.

 ·      Applicant may request IRDAI for extension for a maximum of 6 months

·      Applicant shall submit a report within 15 days of completion of testing period on how the proposal met the stated objectives, based on which the project may be launched under the extant regulatory framework
Revocation of the approval IFSCA may revoke the approval at any time before the end of the testing period, if the applicant:

·   fails to carry out risk mitigants.

·   Submits false information or conceals material facts in the application

·   Contravenes any applicable law

·   Suffers a loss of reputation

·   Undergoes into liquidation

·   Carries on business in a manner detrimental to users or the public

·   Fails to   address any   defects in the   project

·   Fails to implement directions given by IFSCA

 The testing will be discontinued any time at the discretion of the RBI:

·   if the entity does not achieve its intended purpose

·   if the entity is unable to comply with the relevant regulatory requirements and other conditions

·   if the entity has not acted in the best interest of consumers

 SEBI may revoke the approval at any time before the end of the testing period, if the applicant:

·   fails to carry out risk mitigants

·   Submits false information or conceals material facts in the application

·   Contravenes any applicable law

·   Suffers a loss of reputation

·   Undergoes into liquidation

·   Carries on business in a manner detrimental to users or the public

·   Fails to   address any   defects in the   project

·   Fails to implement directions given by IFSCA

 The Chairperson of the IRDAI may revoke the permission so granted at any time, if it is of the view that the

activities carried out are not meeting the prescribed conditions/ are in violation of the provisions of applicable laws.

 

Conclusion

The IFSC RS framework seems to be drafted on lines of the RS framework issued by the SEBI. The only differentiating factor is the inclusion of all kinds of applicants operating for various purposes. Each of the frameworks discussed above has their peculiarities, and hence, the suitability to one’s design of business may vary. None of the RSs other than the ones introduced by IRDAI have been able to reap any concrete results lately. However, with the growing acceptance of technology, it is only a matter of time before we see various kinds of innovations in the way we transact every day.

 

[1] https://ifsca.gov.in/Viewer/Index/99

[2] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=938

[3] https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/jun-2020/framework-for-regulatory-sandbox_46778.html

 

[4] https://www.irdai.gov.in/ADMINCMS/cms/frmGeneral_NoYearLayout.aspx?page=PageNo3886

[5] After the introduction of the framework in August 2019, only 1 cohort has been announced i.e. in November 2019 themed ‘Retail Payments’ (https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=48550)

[6] After introduction of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Regulatory Sandbox) Regulations, 2019 in July 2019, 2 cohorts have been introduced:

[7] Definition of startups- https://www.startupindia.gov.in/content/dam/invest-india/Templates/public/198117.pdf

[8]List of FATF compliant jurisdictions- https://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/

[9] Refer- http://vinodkothari.com/2019/04/safe-in-sandbox-india-provides-cocoon-to-fintech-start-ups/

 

Other related write-ups:

Safe in sandbox: India provides cocoon to fintech start-ups

Fintech Framework: Regulatory responses to financial innovation

 

 

Modes of Restructuring of Stressed Accounts

/1 Comment/in , /by

Our detailed write-ups on these frameworks may be referred here:

FAQs on Resolution of Loan Accounts under COVID-19 stress

Additional relief from COVID-19 disruptions

Resolution Framework for Covid-19-related stress

Reprieve for banks and NBFCs

 

Desirability of Liquidation Sales at Undisclosed Reserve Price

/0 Comments/in /by

-Megha Mittal (mittal@vinodkothari.com) As per Regulation 39 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 (“Liquidation Regulations”), a liquidator shall endeavour to maximize recovery and realisation from all assets of and dues to the corporate debtor. Realisation from assets of the corporate debtor shall be done by way of sale as […]

Read more →

Fractured Factoring: Amendments may give a push to a potent trade finance solution

/0 Comments/in , /by

 

Our other write-ups on Factoring:

Growth of factoring services in India

 

Export Factoring in India

 

http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FAQs_on_factoring_by_RBI-1.pdf

http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Export_Factoring.pdf

Impact of GST on factoring transactions

Factoring Business: Business Threshold lowered

 

RBI takes steps to prepare for the aftermath of the pandemic

/0 Comments/in , /by

-Kanakprabha Jethani (kanak@vinodkothari.com)

Background

On October 9, 2020, the RBI released its Statement of Developmental and Regulatory Policies[1] which lays down the next steps of the RBI in the direction of coping up with the impact of the pandemic. The intended moves of the RBI seem to ensure preparing the financial sector to support the economy get in track with the new normal. Below are a few highlights proposed by the RBI with respect to the financial sector.

With respect to capital adequacy of banks

Banks and NBFCs are required to maintain certain capital ratios prescribed by the RBI. As for banks, they are required to maintain a Capital to Risk-weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR) of 9%. For the calculation of risk-weighted assets, the RBI prescribes the weights to be assigned to each on and off the balance sheet assets of the banks.

Increase in the size- limit for regulatory retail portfolio

The RBI has prescribed 75% risk weight for the ‘regulatory retail portfolio’ of banks. For an exposure to qualify into the regulatory retail portfolio[2], the following conditions are required to be met:

  • The exposure shall towards an individual person or persons or small business;
  • The exposure shall be in the form of revolving credits, line of credit, term loans and leases, student and educational loans and small business facilities and commitments;
  • No aggregate exposure to one counterparty should exceed 0.2% of the overall regulatory retail portfolio;
  • The maximum aggregated retail exposure to one counterparty should not exceed Rs. 5 crores.

The above limit of Rs. 5 crores has now been increased to Rs. 7.5 crores for fresh facilities and incremental qualifying exposures. This has been done with an intent to reduce the cost of credit and to harmonisation the regulations with the Basel guidelines[3]. This measure is expected to increase the much-needed credit flow to the small business segment.

Revision in risk weights

The risk weights for housing loans to individuals have also been changed. The table below shows the change in risk weighting requirements:

Earlier Risk weighting requirements[4]

Outstanding Loan LTV ratio (%) Risk Weight (%)
Upto Rs. 30 lakhs <=80 35
>80 and <=90 50
Above Rs. 30 lakhs and upto Rs. 75 lakhs <=80 35
Above Rs. 75 lakhs <=75 50

Revised requirement:

LTV ratio (%) Risk Weight (%)
<=80 35
>80 and <=90 50

Under the existing regulations, differential risk weights are assigned to individual housing loans, based on the size of the loan as well as the loan-to-value ratio (LTV). In order to rationalise the risk weights, the regulator has linked them to LTV ratios only for all new housing loans sanctioned up to March 31, 2022. This measure is expected to give a fillip to the real estate sector. However, the determination of LTV is still linked to the size of the loan[5]. Hence, there is only a minimal change with this revision of limits, which is not likely to have much impact on housing loans extended by banks.

Wider inclusion with respect to priority sector lending

Loans co-originated by banks and NBFC-SIs were allowed to qualify for priority sector lending targets[6]. The RBI has now allowed loans co-originated by banks with NBFC-NSIs and HFCs as well for qualifying as priority sector loans. The detailed guidelines in this regard are awaited.

There already exist co-lending arrangements between banks and smaller NBFC and HFCs, however, they are not regulated by any specific guidelines. Though in spirit most of these arrangements are structured in accordance with the existing guidelines for NBFC-SI, however, some of the norms may be a challenge to implement- one of them being the minimum risk sharing of 20% by way of direct exposure by the NBFC.

Conclusion

These steps introduced by the RBI are not exactly a major move taken by the regulator, however, several such changes may have an impact in the long run. Further, the inclusion of NBFC-NSIs and HFCs in the scope of co-origination guidelines is a welcome move and is expected to work in the benefit of smaller NBFCs and HFCs.

 

 

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=50480

[2] Refer: https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasCirculardetails.aspx?id=4353

[3] Refer: https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128b.pdf

[4] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=10995&Mode=0

[5] Refer: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewMasCirculardetails.aspx?id=9851

[6] Refer: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11376&Mode=0