Posts

Is half-truth a lie: Hidden Costs in zero-interest loans

-Chirag Agarwal & Archisman Bhattacharjee I finserv@vinodkothari.com

In the realm of personal finance, the attraction of borrowing money without incurring interest charges is an enticing prospect. Zero percent interest rate loans, often advertised as promotional offers by retail financing companies, credit card companies, retailers, and financial institutions, have garnered significant attention in recent years. But what exactly are these loans? Are they really zero-interest loans? No one would believe that the lender is getting zero income on the loans. And if the lender is indeed getting some income, even if not from the borrower, that income is not completely disconnected with the loan. Therefore, are there fair disclosure requirements that may require the lender to disclose his yield on the so-called zero interest loans?

Zero percent financing refers to a loan where no interest is applied, either throughout its duration or for a set period.

One form of zero percent interest rate loans is known as merchant subvention. In this model, the seller or manufacturer of the product assumes responsibility for paying the interest to the lender. This arrangement allows the merchant to effectively market and sell the product, attracting more customers to  the merchant’s  business. Meanwhile, the customer gets the perceived  “feel good” benefit of obtaining the product at a zero percent interest rate. If happiness is all about feeling good and not necessarily being good, it is  a mutually beneficial situation for the buyer, seller and the lender.

Another form of zero percent loan may be where lenders load additional charges in some form other than interest, and pretend to provide an interest-free loan. These could comprise of of a one-time high processing fees, or similar other charges, which disguise the  interest component . This practice, we understand,  is deceptive and is against the concept of fair lending. Hence, if the lender is charging interest in form of the so-called “other charges”,  and claims to be providing interest-free loan, that is a case of lie. However, in this article, we are not dealing with a lie – we are dealing with a half-truth. .

And what is that half truth? , If the lender is making his target yield by way of third party cashflows, such as merchant subvention, product discount, etc., is it fair for the lender to demonstrate that he is lending free of interest? .

Understanding the mechanism of merchant subvention

It is a well-established practice among dealers or manufacturers to offer subventions or discounts on products to customers availing loans from financial institutions. In such instances, banks/NBFCs, leverage their volumes and vendor relationships to secure favourable terms. Here, it becomes imperative that these benefits are passed on to customers without altering the applicable rate of interest (RoI) of the product. Furthermore, the actual discount is not provided by the bank/NBFC, but by the merchant as a part of the merchant’s customer acquisition strategy. As a regulated entity, the lender is expected to ensure full and transparent disclosure of these benefits to customers

Hence, the lender showing the loan as 0% is essentially passing the discount or benefits   provided by the merchant to the lender. It cannot be contended that the lender would have bought the product or service but for the purpose of the loan. In fact, the lender is not the actual purchaser; the lender is simply aiding or pushing the sales of the merchant by offering credit. It is the credit facility that triggers the purchase; it is the purchase that triggers the discount. Hence, there is a clear nexus between the grant of the merchant’s benefits to the lender.

Quite often, the issue is – will the customer be able to get the same discount, subvention or benefits if the customer was to make a direct purchase from the vendor? The answer will mostly be negative. The lender has a relationship with the vendor, whereby the lender gives volumes as well as regular business. But no lender will obviously do a loan without a threshold rate of return. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying that the interest charged to the customer is zero, but at the same time, to not make basic disclosure about the extent of discount or benefits that the lender gets from the merchant will be a case of half truth.

The following is a diagrammatic illustration of how the concept of merchant subvention works

The concept of annualised percentage rate (APR) has also been introduced to enhance transparency and reduce information asymmetry on financial products being offered by different regulated entities, thereby empowering borrowers to make informed financial decisions. Accordingly, discussion on what is APR and how merchant subvention should be disclosed holds precedence.

Definition of APR

In India, as per Key Facts Statement (KFS) for Loans & Advances the term APR ”is the annual cost of credit to the borrower which includes interest rate and all other charges associated with the credit facility”. The said circular covers retail loans, MSME term loans, digital loans, MFI loans, and all loans extended by banks to individuals. Our FAQs on the said circular can be read here.

Further, as per Para 2(a)(iii) of the Display of information by banks APR allows customers to compare the costs associated with borrowing across products and/ or lenders. Further, through the circular dated September 17, 2013 the RBI emphasised that it is important to ensure that the borrowers are fully aware of associated benefits, with emphasis on indiscriminately passing on such benefits without altering the Rate of Interest (RoI). To address this, the RBI directed that when discounts are provided on product prices, the loan amount sanctioned should reflect the discounted price, rather than adjusting the RoI to incorporate the benefit.

The Consumer Credit (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2010, which is a UK regulation defines the term APR as “annual percentage rate of charge for credit xx…. and the total charge for credit rules”. Further, as per the regulation, APR helps the borrowers compare different offers.

The Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) defines APR  in the case of closed-end credit as a “measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate, that relates the amount and timing of value received by the consumer to the amount and timing of payments made”.

Components of APR

       I.            India

In accordance with the definition as provided under the Key Facts Statement (KFS) for Loans & Advances APR includes the following:

  1. Rate of interest
  2. Associated charges
  1. Processing fee
  2. Valuation fee
  3. Other non-contingent charges

c. Third-party service provider fees/charges (if collected by lender on behalf of third-party)

  1. Insurance charges
  2. Legal charges
  3. Other charges of similar nature

However, excluding contingent charges like penal charges, foreclosure charges, etc.

The intent is to have simple transparent, and comparable (STC) terms of the loan communicated to the customer upfront and hence, an illustrative example for the computation is provided. The illustration includes all charges that the RE levies.

     II.            United Kingdom

In accordance with the definition provided, APR refers to the annual percentage rate of charge for credit along with the total charge for credit as provided under credit rule  As per FCA handbook, the total charge for credit, applicable to an existing or potential loan agreement, encompasses the “comprehensive cost” incurred by the borrower.

“Comprehensive cost” includes all pertinent expenses such as interest, commissions, taxes, and any other associated fees that are obligatory for the borrower to be paid in conjunction with the loan agreement.

The FCA handbook further specifies that the total cost of credit includes fees to credit brokers, account maintenance expenses, payment method costs, and ancillary service fees. However, the total cost of credit to the borrower must not take account of any discount, reward (including ‘cash back’) or other benefit to which the borrower might be entitled, whether such an entitlement is subject to conditions or otherwise.

To summarise, the components of APR as per UK regulations are:

  1. Rate of Interest
  2. Commission and taxes
  3. Fees/Charges payable by borrower to agents
  4. Expenses associated with maintaining loan account
  5. Costs linked with means of payment
  6. Costs associated with ancillary services

Further, the following shall not be considered while computing the APR and hence, will be disclosed separately:

  1. Discounts, cashback incentives;
  2. Contingent charges

  III.            USA

Section 107(a)(1)(A) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act outlines how to calculate the annual percentage rate (APR) for credit facilities other than open-ended ones. The APR is the rate that, when applied to the unpaid balance of the loan, equals the total finance charge spread out over the loan’s term. This means that the APR represents the finance charge stretched over the entire duration of the loan. Finance charges, as defined by the Act, include various fees like interest, service charges, origination fees, credit investigation fees, insurance premiums, and other related charges.

Hence, the components of APR as per USA include:

  1. Rate of interest;
  2. Discounts;
  3. Associated charges
  1. Service fees;
  2. Fees associated with loan origination
  3. Charges for credit investigation or reports

d. Third-party service provider charges (such as insurance charges)

Comparative analysis

Upon examining international practices, it becomes evident that the APR encompasses more than just the rate of return; it also incorporates additional charges, often in the form of finance charges, which are annualised over the tenure of the loan. To summarise and consolidate the various laws discussed above, the following factors are considered in determining the APR:

  1. Rate of Interest;
  2. Service charges;
  3. Fees associated with loan origination;
  4. Charges for credit investigation and reports;
  5. Charges for mandatory credit-related insurances, when not separately disclosed in the Key Facts Statement (KFS);
  6. Expenses related to maintaining the account

However, certain elements which are not included in the calculation of APR:

  1. Contingent charges;
  2. Discounts applied to the interest rate.

While US law suggests factoring in discounts when calculating the APR, the stance established by the RBI is clear that: discounts cannot be incorporated when declaring the APR- as the same would be deceptive and shall not disclose the actual bifurcation of cost. Similarly, the perspective under UK law aligns with this stance to separately disclose the merchant discount and deduct it from the APR.

Regulatory concerns

The RBI addressed regulatory concerns pertaining to zero percent loans facilitated by merchant subvention through its circular dated September 17, 2013. A key focus was ensuring borrowers full awareness of associated benefits, with emphasis on indiscriminately passing on such benefits without altering the Rate of Interest (RoI). To address this, the RBI directed that when discounts are provided on product prices, the loan amount sanctioned should reflect the discounted price, rather than adjusting the RoI to incorporate the benefit.

Disclosure of merchant subvention by lenders

As discussed, the rate of interest is a part of the Annual Percentage Rate (APR), which is a measure used by borrowers to compare similar products from different lenders. If the lender changes the rate of interest, it affects the entire APR, making it difficult for customers to compare different loan products. It is important to understand that whether or not there’s a merchant subvention, the rate of return for the lender remains unchanged, hence the APR irrespective of there being any merchant subvention should also remain unaltered.

The RBI through its circular dated September 17, 2013 notified certain “pernicious” practices being followed by banks regarding merchant subvention, whereunder it had provided a specific way of disclosing the discount, which directed that when discounts are provided on product prices, the loan amount sanctioned should reflect the discounted price, rather than adjusting the RoI to incorporate the benefit. We have aimed to understand the requirement of by RBI via an example below:

Assume a lender offers a loan of Rs. 100,000 for 6 months to someone without charging any interest. However, the lender only gives Rs. 95,000 to the merchant, and the remaining Rs. 5,000 is covered by the merchant i.e., the interest component of the loan is recovered from the merchant. The lender still expects the borrower to repay Rs. 100,000. So, to show the true cost in the APR, the lender should disclose the actual amount lent, which is Rs. 95,000, instead of the full Rs. 100,000. Additionally, the lender should include the interest rate the lender is effectively earning, on Rs 95000.  This transparency helps customers understand exactly what they’re paying, making it easier to compare different loan options and lenders.

The circular as mentioned above was directed specifically for banks, however, NBFCs should also be guided by the same principles. There could be another method of disclosing the discount provided by the merchant. For instance, considering the above scenario, let say, the lender provides a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 and the merchant provides a subvention of Rs. 5,000. In this case, the APR is disclosed considering the subvention received from the merchant. Accordingly, the lender shows the loan to be Rs.1,00,000 and the interest of Rs.5000 is shown as a discount to the borrower, which has been recovered from the merchant. Even though the disclosure is being done for the subvention amount, this method does not depict the actual IRR of the lender.  .

Note, however, that the APR computation in the two approaches will be different. The Table below shows the two APRs:

ParticularsFirst optionSecond option
Cost of the asset100000100000
Less: Discount5000 
Net cashflow of the lender95000100000
Interest on the cashflow for 6 months(IRR computed on monthly intervals)10.30%10%
Amount of interest50005000
Less: Discount -5000
Amount paid by the borrower100000100000

As may be noted from the above computation, the first option, computing the APR on a loan size of Rs 95000 shows the APR as 10.30%, while the second approach makes a simple interest computation for 6 months @ 10%. The second approach shows a lower APR than the actual yield.

Accounting

As per IND AS 109 Effective Interest Rate (EIR) has been defined as “The rate that exactly discounts estimated future cash payments or receipts through the expected life of the financial asset or financial liability to the gross carrying amount of a financial asset or to the amortised cost of a financial liability. When calculating the effective interest rate, an entity shall estimate the expected cash flows by considering all the contractual terms of the financial instrument (for example, prepayment, extension, call and similar options) but shall not consider the expected credit losses. The calculation includes all fees and points paid or received between parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest rate,transaction costs, and all other premiums or discounts”.

The definition states that the calculation of EIR will include fees and points paid or received between the parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest. While in normal course, this should refer to the cashflows emanating from the contract between the lender and the borrower. But in the present case, if only the cash flows between the lender and borrower is considered, it will give an EIR of 0%, indicating that the lender is not earning from the transaction, which is not the true picture. The subvention from the third party is an essential element in the entire scheme of things, it is through this the lender is recovering its income. Therefore, in the present context, a wider meaning should be ascribed to  expression parties to the contract that are an integral part of the effective interest; and subvention received from third parties should also be considered for the purpose of determining the effective interest rate and the gross carrying amount of the loan.

The essence of the accounting definition is that cashflows that are “integral part” of the credit facility are included in EIR computation. While the subvention is paid by a third party and not a party to the contract, but it cannot be contended that the subvention is not an integral part of the loan. Taking such a view would lead to an impracticality showing the loan as having zero EIR.

Conclusion

The lure of zero percent interest rate loans is increasingly being used by vendors and lenders, in the realm of personal finance. However, it is crucial to understand the nuances and implications associated with such loans, particularly those facilitated through merchant subvention arrangements. Regulatory concerns have arisen regarding the transparency and fair disclosure of these loans, particularly in ensuring that the actual cost of credit is accurately represented to consumers. Distorting the interest rate structure compromises transparency and hampers informed decision-making by borrowers.

The components of the APR vary across different jurisdictions but universally include factors such as the rate of interest, associated charges, fees, and expenses related to the loan. However, discounts and contingent charges are typically excluded from the APR calculation. To uphold fair lending practices and ensure transparency, lenders must disclose the true cost of credit, including any merchant subvention arrangements, without altering the APR. This transparency empowers consumers to make informed choices and fosters trust in the financial system. A half truth reminds one of the Mahabharat anecdote of “Ashwatthama is dead”, suppressing whether it was elephant or man.

Webinar on KFS and APR– New RBI rules on Retail & MSME Lending

Watch our Webinar here: https://youtu.be/DBCROyxRJEY

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [216.65 KB]

India securitisation volumes 2024: Has co-lending taken the sheen?

Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Three rating agencies reported different numbers, but barring the exception of one, the other two hold that the volumes in FY 24 have been lower than the last peak, FY 20. FY 20 was exceptional – it was the year post ILFS, where all balance sheet lenders and investors to NBFCs rushed to off balance sheet transactions, as bankruptcy remoteness became the key objective. The next year was an exception again – Covid wave. However, FY24 was a year of brisk economic lending, and retail credit expansion. There were, therefore, strong reasons that the watermark reached in FY 20 will be crossed. However, it just remained slightly off that, or, if the numbers given by Care Ratings are to be trusted, marginally crossed the mark.

One obvious reason is the merger of HDFC with HDFC Bank. The two contributed major chunks to Direct assignment volumes. Estimated volume lost due to the merger is around INR 40000 crores[1]. However, the other instrument that has dug a shovel in securitsation/ DA volumes is the rise in co-lending.

Read more

Amendments to Credit Card and Debit Card Master Direction: Enhancing Consumer Protection

-Archisman Bhattacharjee I finserv@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [428.76 KB]

Choppy landing for soft lending: Regulatory concerns on quality of lending

– Vinod Kothari, finserv@vinodkothari.com

Some of the RBI’s recent stringent actions, with stop-business directions, raise an alarm amongst financial sector entities. Are these concerns limited to a particular type of lending, or can they lead to any general observations on the quality of lending? One shouldn’t be tunnel-visioned and believe that these regulatory objections are limited to specific types of collateral – gold lending, IPO funding or loans against share trading. In fact, underlying these concerns is a general philosophy – lenders must do a close introspection of their lending practices.

Read more

The Promise of Predictability: Regulation and Taxation of Future Flow Securitization

Dayita Kanodia | Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com

The most reliable way to predict the future is to create it

Abraham Lincoln

Surely, Lincoln did not have either  securitisation  or predictability in mind when he wrote this motivational piece; however, there is an interesting and creative use of securitisation methodology, to raise funding based on cashflows which have some degree of predictability.  In many businesses, once an initial framework has been created, cashflows trickle over time without much performance over time. These situations become ideal to use securitisation, by pledging this stream of cashflows to raise funding upfront. Surely, traditional methods of on-balance-sheet funding fail here, as there is very little assets on the balance sheet.

Read more

Securing the Beat: Tuning into Music Royalty Securitization

Dayita Kanodia | finserv@vinodkothari.com

“Music can change the world”

Ludwig van Beethoven

This quote by Beethoven remains relevant today, not only within the music industry but also in the realm of finance. In the continually evolving landscape of finance, innovative strategies emerge to monetize various assets. One such groundbreaking concept gaining traction in recent years is music royalty securitization. This financial mechanism offers investors a unique opportunity to access the lucrative world of music royalties while providing artists and rights holders with upfront capital.

The roots of this innovative financing technique can be traced back to the 1990s when musician David Bowie made history by becoming the first artist to securitize his future earnings through what became known as ‘Bowie Bonds’. This move not only garnered attention but also paved the way for other artists to follow suit. Bowie Bonds marked a significant shift in how music royalties are bought, sold, and traded.

As per the S&P Global Ratings[1], the issuance of securities backed by music royalties totaled nearly $3 billion over the two-year span 2021-22. The graph below shows a recent surge in issuance of securities backed by music royalties.

Data showing the growth of Music Royalty Securitization

This article discusses music royalty securitization, its mechanics, benefits, challenges along with implications for the music industry.

Understanding Music Royalties:

Before exploring music royalty securitization, it’s essential to understand the concept of music royalties. In the music industry, artists and rights holders earn royalties whenever their music is played, streamed, downloaded, or licensed for use. These royalties are generated through various channels, including digital platforms, radio, TV broadcasts, live performances, and synchronization licenses for commercials, movies, and TV shows. However, it’s important to note that artists only earn royalties when their music is utilized, whether through sales, streaming, broadcasting, or live performances.

As a result, the cash flows from these royalties being uncertain are received over time and continue to be received for an extended period. Consequently, artists experience a delay in receiving substantial amounts from these royalties, sometimes waiting for several years before seeing significant income.

The Birth of Music Royalty Securitization:

Securitization involves pooling and repackaging financial assets into securities, which are then sold to investors. The idea is to transform illiquid assets, such as mortgage loans or in our case, music royalties, into tradable securities. Music royalty securitization follows a similar principle, where the future income generated from music royalties is bundled together and sold to investors in the form of bonds or other financial instruments.

Future Flows Securitization:

Music royalty securitization is a constituent of future flows securitization and therefore before discussing the constituent, it is important to discuss the broader concept of future flows securitization.

Future flows securitization involves the securitization of future cash flows derived from specific revenue-generating assets or income streams. These assets can encompass a wide range of future revenue sources, including export receivables, toll revenues, franchise fees, and other contractual payments, even future sales. By bundling these future cash flows into tradable securities, issuers can raise capital upfront, effectively monetizing their future income. Future flows securitization differs from the traditional asset backed securitization by their very nature as while the latter relates to assets that exist, the former relates to assets that are expected to exist. There is a source, a business or infrastructure which already exists and which will have to be worked upon to generate the income. Thus, in future flows securitization the income has not been originated at the time of securitization. The same can be summed up as: In future flow securitization, the asset being transferred by the originator is not an existing claim against existing obligors, but a future claim against future obligors.

Mechanics of Music Royalty Securitization:

Music royalty securitization involves packaging the future income streams generated by music royalties into tradable financial instruments. The process begins with the identification of income-generating assets, which are then bundled into a special purpose vehicle (SPV). The SPV issues securities backed by these assets, which are sold to investors. The revenue generated from the underlying music royalties serves as collateral for the securities, providing investors with a stream of income over a specified period.

The process of music royalty securitization typically involves several key steps:

Asset Identification: Rights holders, such as artists, record labels, or music publishers, identify their future royalty streams eligible for securitization.

Valuation: A valuation is conducted to estimate the present value of the anticipated royalty income streams. Factors such as historical performance, market trends, and artist popularity are taken into account.

Selling the future flows: The future flows from royalties are then sold off to the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to make them bankruptcy remote. The sale entitles the trust to all the revenues that are generated by the assets throughout the term of the transaction, thus protecting against credit risk and sovereign risk as discussed later in this article.

Structuring the Securities: These future cash flows are then structured into securities. This may involve creating different tranches with varying levels of risk and return.

Issuance: The securities are then issued and sold to investors through public offerings or private placements. The proceeds from the sale provide upfront capital to the rights holders.

Revenue Collection and Distribution: The entity responsible for managing the securitized royalties collects the revenue from various sources which is then distributed to the investors according to the terms of the securities.

Importance of Over-collateralization:

Over-collateralization is an important element in music royalty securitization. In music royalty securitization and in all future flows transactions in general, the extent of over-collateralization as compared to asset backed transactions is much higher. The same is to protect the investors against performance risk, that is the risk of not generating sufficient royalty incomes. Over-collateralization becomes even more important since subordination structures generally do not work for future flow securitizations. This is because the rating here will generally be capped at the entity rating of the originator.

Why go for securitization ?

Now the question may arise as to why an artist or a right holder of a royalty has to go for securitization of his music royalties in order to secure funding. Why cant he simply opt for a traditional source of funding ? The answer to this question is two folds: 

Firstly, the originator in the present case generally has no collateral to leverage and hardly there will be a lender willing to advance a loan based on assets that are yet to exist. 

Secondly even if they are able to obtain funding it will be at a very high cost due to high risk the lender perceives with the lending. 

Music royalty securitization, could be his chance to borrow at a lower cost. The cost of borrowing is related to the risks associated with the transaction, that is, the risk the lender takes on the borrower. Now, this risk includes performance risk, that is the risk that the work of the originator does not generate enough cash flows. While this risk holds good in case of securitization as well, it however takes away two major risks – credit risk and sovereign risk. 

Credit risk, as divested from the performance risk would basically mean that the originator has sufficient cash flows but does not pay it to the lender. This risk can be removed in case of a securitization by giving the SPV a legal right over the cash flow. 

Sovereign risk on the other hand emanates only in case of cross-border lending. This risk arises when an external lender gives a loan to a borrower whose sovereign later on in the event of an exchange crises either imposes a moratorium on payments to external lenders or may redirect foreign exchange earnings. This problem is again solved by giving the SPV a legal right over the cash flows from the royalties arising in countries other than the originator’s, therefore trapping cash flow before it comes under the control of the sovereign. 

The lack of these two types of risks might reduce the cost of borrowing for the originator; thus making music royalty securitization a lucrative option.   

Accounting Treatment:

As discussed, there is no existing asset in a music royalty transaction. In terms Ind AS 39, an entity may derecognize an asset only when either the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset have expired or if it transfers the financial asset. However, here asset means an existing asset and a future right to receive does not qualify as an asset in terms of the definition under Ind AS 32.

Accordingly, the funding obtained through the securitization of music royalties should be shown as a liability in books as the same cannot qualify as an off-balance sheet funding.               

Regulatory Framework in India:

It is crucial to discuss the applicable regulatory framework on securitization currently prevalent in India and whether music royalty securitization would fall under any of these:

  1. Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Securitization of Standard Assets) Directions, 2021(‘SSA Master Directions)
  2. SEBI (Issue and Listing of Securitised Debt Instruments and Security Receipts) Regulations, 2008 (SDI Framework)    
  3. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002  

While the SSA Master Directions primarily pertain to financial sector entities, and will not directly apply to this domain; however, there exists a possibility that the securitization of music royalties could fall under the purview of SEBI’s SDI Framework.

The same has been discussed in detail in the artcile- The Promise of Predictability: Regulation and Taxation of Future Flow Securitization                                                                                                                                                           

Benefits of Music Royalty Securitization:

Music royalty securitization offers a range of benefits for both investors and rights holders:

Diversification: Investors gain exposure to a diversified portfolio of music royalties, potentially reducing risk compared to investing in individual songs or artists.

Steady Income Stream: Music royalties often provide a stable and predictable income stream, making them attractive to income-oriented investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies.

Liquidity: By securitizing music royalties, rights holders can access immediate capital without having to wait for future royalty payments, providing liquidity for new projects or business expansion.

Risk Mitigation: Securitization allows rights holders to transfer the risk of fluctuating royalty income to investors, providing a hedge against market uncertainties and industry disruptions.

Challenges and Considerations:

While music royalty securitization presents compelling opportunities, it also poses certain challenges and considerations:

Market Volatility: The music industry is subject to shifts in consumer preferences, technological disruptions, and regulatory changes, which can impact the value of music royalties.

Due Diligence: Thorough due diligence is essential to assess the quality and value of music assets, including considerations such as copyright ownership, market demand, and revenue potential.

Potential Risks:

  • Market Risk: Changes in consumer behavior, technological advancements, or regulatory developments could impact the value of music royalties.
  • Legal Risk: Disputes over ownership rights, copyright infringement, or licensing agreements could lead to litigation and financial losses.
  • Concentration Risk: Investing in a single music catalog or genre exposes investors to concentration risk if the popularity of that catalog or genre declines.
  • Cash Flow Variability: While music royalties can provide steady income, fluctuations in streaming revenues or changes in licensing agreements may affect cash flow stability.
  • Reputation Risk: The success of music royalty securitization depends on the ongoing popularity and commercial success of the underlying music assets. Negative publicity, controversies, or declining relevance can adversely affect investor confidence and returns.

Implications for the Music Industry:

While music royalty securitization presents exciting opportunities, it also raises certain considerations for the music industry:

Artist Empowerment: Securitization can empower artists by providing them with alternative financing options and greater control over their financial destiny.

Industry Evolution: The emergence of music royalty securitization could reshape the traditional music business model, fostering innovation and collaboration between artists, labels, and investors.

Way Forward

Music royalty securitization offers a compelling investment opportunity for investors seeking exposure to the lucrative music industry. By securitizing future royalty streams, music rights owners can unlock liquidity while providing investors with access to a diversified portfolio of music assets.

As the music industry continues to evolve, music royalty securitization is likely to play an increasingly prominent role in the financial landscape, providing new avenues for capital deployment and revenue generation. It has the potential to transform the rhythm of creativity into the melody of investment opportunity.

See also our article on:

  1. Securitization of future flows
  2. Bowie Bonds: A leap into future by a 20th century singer

[1] https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/240220-abs-frontiers-music-royalty-securitizations-are-getting-the-band-back-together-13003585

[2] https://incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx

[3] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/bs_viewmasdirections.aspx?id=12165

[4] https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListingAll=yes&search=Securitised%20Debt%20Instruments

[5] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2006/1/A2002-54.pdf

Credit Underwriting Models: Need for Validation

– Team Finserv, finserv@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [284.12 KB]


Other related resources:

  1. Crowdfunding platforms – risks and concerns in the Indian context
  2. Commercial Real Estate exposures: Lending risks and Regulatory focus
  3. NBFC- Enterprise Risk Assessment
  4. Compliance Risk Assessment
  5. Understanding ICAAP for NBFCs
  6. KYC/AML risk categorisation of customers

Transparency in lending: RBI Mandates KFS for Retail and MSME Loans

– Chirag Agarwal, finserv@vinodkothari.com

The RBI has vide its Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 08, 2024, announced its decision to mandate Regulated Entities (REs) to provide Key Fact Statement (KFS) for retail and Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME) loans. 

What is KFS? What are its contents?

  • A crisp, clear and key information about loan terms. KFS typically includes details such as the all-in-cost of the loan, interest rates, fees, repayment terms, and any associated risks. 
  • Because KFS is standardised, it enables borrowers to make comparison with terms offered by other lenders. 
  • Plus, it is at-a-glance view, enabling the borrower to avoid the legalese.
Read more

Online Workshop on Regulatory Concerns on Fair Lending Practices and KYC

Register here: https://forms.gle/cQ3RYWAwhqd3hqTs7
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [370.96 KB]

Our resources on KYC can be accessed here.

Our resources on SBR: