An AIF raises capital by issuance of units, which are privately placed. Most AIFs follow a commitment–drawdown model, under which investors agree upfront to commit a specified amount of capital (‘committed capital’). The AIF manager then calls this committed capital, either in full or in tranches, as investment opportunities arise (‘drawdown’). This model helps the AIF to minimise the negative carry that would result from raising investments which are yet to be invested.
This fund-raising process is shaped not only by SEBI’s AIF framework but also by the oversight of the respective sectoral regulators of the relevant investors. AIFs are meant strictly for sophisticated investors, and as such, various categories of AIF investors, such as insurance companies, pension funds, banks and NBFCs, etc. are subject to their respective regulations. When they invest in an AIF, they must comply with SEBI’s rules as well as the investment norms prescribed by their own regulators, each seeking to regulate how the capital of the investor is deployed. In fact, SEBI regulations are agnostic as to who the investor is, hence, most of the SEBI regulations relate to the AIF or the manager, with limited provisions dealing with investors. For example, whether and to what extent an insurance company or a pension fund can invest in an AIF is driven by the guidelines issued by the sectoral regulators such as IRDAI or PFRDA.
In this article, we try to bring together, in one place, the key regulatory norms imposed by various regulators; while these are primarily meant for the investor, however, it will be useful for the AIF managers to keep in mind these restraints while expecting or inviting investments from different categories of investors.
Categories of investors and regulatory restrictions on each category
Minimum investment norms: Common across all categories
₹25 crore for investors in Large Value Funds (reduced from ₹ 70 Crore per investor vide SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025) [Reg. 2(1)(pa)];
₹1 crore for other investors [Reg 10(c)];
₹25 lakh for employees or directors of the AIF, manager, or sponsor [Reg 10(c)];
No minimum for units issued to employees solely for profit-sharing (and not capital contribution) [Para 4.6 of AIF Master Circular];
For open-ended AIFs, the initial investment must meet the minimum threshold, and partial redemptions must not reduce the holding below this minimum [Para 4.7 of AIF Master Circular].
Individuals
An AIF may raise funds from individual investors, whether resident, non-resident (NRI), or foreign, through private placement, subject to the following conditions (Refer Reg. 10(a) of AIF Regulations r/w Chapter 4 of AIF Master Circular).
Foreign investors: A foreign investor must:
be a resident of a country whose securities market regulator is a signatory to the IOSCO Multilateral MoU (Appendix A) or has a Bilateral MoU with SEBI; or
be a government or government-related investor from a country approved by the Government of India, even if the above condition is not met.
Additionally, neither the investor nor its beneficial owner1:
If a foreign investor ceases to meet these conditions after admission, the AIF manager must stop making further drawdowns from that investor until compliance is restored.
Joint Investments: Joint investments, for the purpose of investment of not less than the minimum investment amount in the AIF, are permitted only between:
an investor and spouse;
an investor and parent; or
an investor and child.
A maximum of two persons may invest jointly. Any other combination of joint investors must individually meet the minimum investment threshold. (Refer Reg. 10(c) of AIF Regulations r/w Chapter 4 of AIF Master Circular)
Terms of Investment: The terms agreed with investors cannot override or go beyond the disclosures in the PPM [Para 4.3 of AIF Master Circular].
The total number of investors is limited to 1000 investors per scheme; also note that an AIF cannot make a public offer. AIF units are commonly offered through distributors; but even the distributors cannot make an open offer (Please refer to our resource on Dos and Don’ts for AIF Distributors and AIF Managers).
Category I AIFs: Infrastructure Funds, SME Funds, Venture Capital Funds, and Social Venture Funds (‘Specified Cat I AIFs’);
Category II AIFs: Only where at least 51% of the corpus is proposed to be invested in infrastructure entities, SMEs, venture capital undertakings, or social venture entities (‘Specified Cat II AIFs’).
Investment in a Fund of Fund (‘FoF’) is allowed only if such FoF does not directly or indirectly invest funds outside India (Refer Section 27E of Insurance Act, 1938). This is to be ensured by inserting a clause in the Fund offer Documents executed by FoF to restrain such FoF investing into AIFs which invest in overseas companies/funds. Further, investment is not allowed in an AIF which in-turn has an exposure to a FoF in which the insurer already invested. Lastly, no investment in an AIF is allowed which undertakes leverage/borrowing other than to meet operational requirements.
Compliance of conditions laid down in (iii) are to be certified by the concurrent auditor of the insurer and filed along with quarterly periodical returns. Notably, insurance companies are prohibited from investing in Cat III AIFs
Prohibited Structures: Insurers shall not invest in AIFs that:
offer variable rights attached to units.
invest funds outside India either directly or indirectly [s. 27E of Insurance Act, 1938];
are sponsored by persons forming part of the insurer’s promoter group;
are managed a manager who is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the insurer or its promoters;
Investment Limits:
For life insurers, combined exposure to AIFs and venture capital funds is capped at 3% of the relevant insurance fund2.
For general insurers, the cap is 5% of total investment assets3.
Exposure to any single AIF cannot exceed the lower of 10% of the AIF’s corpus or 20% of the insurer’s total AIF exposure. For Infrastructure Funds, the 10% limit is enhanced to 20%.
Banks and other Regulated Entities (REs)
Banks and other REs may invest in Category I and Category II AIFs, subject to layered limits:
Bank level: Not more than 10% of the AIF corpus.
Group level: Up to 20% without RBI approval, and up to 30% with prior RBI approval, subject to capital adequacy and profitability conditions.
System level: Aggregate investments by all regulated entities cannot exceed 20% of the AIF corpus.
Banks must ensure that AIF investments do not circumvent banking regulations by creating prohibited indirect exposures. Banks are not permitted to invest in Category III AIFs, except for the minimum sponsor contribution where a bank subsidiary sponsors such a fund. For a more detailed discussion on Banks’ investment in AIFs, refer to our resource here.
NBFCs
An NBFC shall not individually contribute more than 10 percent of the corpus of an AIF Scheme. [See Para 8 of RBI ( NBFC – Undertaking of Financial Services) Directions, 2025]. The system-level investment limit of 20% for all REs shall also apply. Notably, unlike banks, NBFCs can invest in Cat III AIFs.
Pension, Provident and Gratuity Funds
Pursuant to a 15 March 2021 notification, non-government Provident Funds, Superannuation Funds, and Gratuity Funds may invest up to 5% of their investible surplus in Specified Cat I AIFs and Specified Cat II AIFs, classified as “Asset Backed, Trust Structured and Miscellaneous Investments”.
Key conditions include:
Minimum AIF corpus of ₹100 crore;
Maximum exposure of 10% to a single AIF (not applicable to government-sponsored AIFs);
Investments restricted to India-based entities only;
The AIF sponsor and manager must not be part of the fund’s promoter group.
For Government Sector Schemes such as UPS/NPS/NPA Lite/Atal Pension Yojna and Corporate CG schemes, the conditions are the same as above for non-government pension funds.
Mutual Funds
Mutual funds are governed by the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The Seventh Schedule to these regulations sets out the permissible investment universe. Units of AIFs are not included, and accordingly, mutual funds cannot invest in AIF units.
beneficial owner as determined in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 9 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 ↩︎
The relevant insurance fund would refer to the specific fund of a life insurer from which an investment is made, rather than the insurer’s overall balance sheet. This is because Life insurers maintain separate, ring-fenced funds for different lines of business, such as the life fund, pension fund, annuity fund or ULIP fund and investments must be made out of, and limits calculated with reference to, the particular fund whose money is being deployed. ↩︎
Investment assets would refer to the total pool of assets held by a general insurer that are available for investment, across all lines of non-life insurance business. Unlike life insurers, general insurers do not maintain separate, ring-fenced policyholder funds for each product. Instead, premiums collected from various non-life insurance policies are invested as a consolidated portfolio, and regulatory investment limits such as exposure to AIFs are calculated with reference to the insurer’s aggregate investment assets shown on its balance sheet. ↩︎
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2025-12-24 16:23:482025-12-24 18:17:23A Guide for AIF Managers on Investor Eligibility and Regulatory Restrictions
Year 2025 will go down in the history of independent India as the year of the most brisk legislative activity – mostly by way of consolidation of some of the major laws. Income Tax Act, labour laws, securities markets, IBC, RBI Regulations etc – everywhere, we find the lawmakers have been quite busy themselves, of course making the subjects and companies even busier. The Securities Market Code (SMC) has been introduced in the Lok Sabha, pursuant to the announcement in the Union Budget 21-22. Divided into a total of 18 chapters, the SMC seeks to consolidate and repeal the following:
SEBI Act, 1992,
Depositories Act, 1996, and
Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
The Code reflects a structural consolidation exercise, however, also with an underpinning attempt to make rule making more practical and principled, providing for investor protection by reintroducing ombudsman, providing legal sanctity to inter-regulatory coordination, covering complex securities transactions, etc. Further, the gazette notifications issued in relation to the aforesaid Acts are also proposed to be made a part of the Code.
Major proposals
Providing timelines & limitation period for investigations and validity of interim orders, with scope of extension in some cases
Classification between fraudulent/ unfair practices and market abuse, towards better clarity with powers to order cease and desist, authorisation for seizure of books etc. in case of market abuse
Strengthening powers and functions of SEBI by enabling power to issue subsidiary instructions, undertaking periodic research and regulatory impact assessment studies etc.
Issue of new regulations in relation to SEBI Ombudsperson, restitution to persons suffering losses on account of contravention etc.
Introduction of new terms such as – market participants (issuers and investors), Securities Market Service Providers (Intermediary + MII + SRO) etc.
Clarity in the scope of securities and recognition to “other regulated instruments”
Clarifications in relation to scope of investment vehicles, title over securities held with depository etc.
Time-bound investigations and interim orders
Limitation period for investigation: eight years from the date of default or contravention
Extension permitted in case of matters referred by Investigating Officer or matters having systemic impact on the securities market [Clause 16]
Investigation to be completed within 180 days
In case of delay, status to be provided along with the reasons for delay in writing, and extension to be sought from a Whole-time Member [Clause 13]
Interim orders to be valid for upto 180 days
Extension may be granted for upto 2 years pending adjudication/ completion of inspection/ investigation [Clause 27]
Adjudication of penalties
Maximum penalty to be linked with whether or not the default results in unlawful gain or losses to the investors or other persons, and whether such gain or loss is quantifiable
Decriminalisation of offences, provisions in relation to fines limited to offences such as market abuse, failure of compliance with orders of SEBI etc.
Additional factors to be considered for adjudication of penalty incorporated based on judicial precedents
Clarity in the scope of securities
Securities to include notes or papers issued for the purpose of raising of capital, which are listed or proposed to be listed, other regulated instruments etc.
Classification between fraudulent/ unfair practices and market abuse
To classify grave acts adversely affecting the integrity of securities market as “market abuse”
Powers of SEBI to order cease and desist, authorisation for seizure of books etc. in case of market abuse
Re-introduction of SEBI Ombudsperson
In case of non-redressal of grievances through GRM within specified period (180 days from receipt of grievance), may file a complaint with Ombudsperson within 30 days
Manner to be specified through regulations [Clause 73]
Market participant – a person or its agent participating in the securities markets as an issuer or an investor; SEBI may issue instructions, call for information, etc from market participants
Obligations of SMSP given under Clause 35 – includes fair disclosure of information, investment of money collected by it in the manner as specified, furnishing information etc.
To be specified by the regulations
Subsidiary instructions
Power to issue to be with Chairperson along with WTM or by two WTMs of Board
To clarify ambiguity or laying down procedural requirements
Contravention to be considered as contravention of the primary regulations
Clarifications proposed
Records of depository to act as conclusive proof of title over security [Clause 58(2)]
Issuance and holding of securities in dematerialised form only [Clause 55(2) & (3)]
Option with the holder for holding in physical form has been omitted
Right to be consulted or to give directions not a safeguard from being considered as investment scheme [Clause 32]
India’s aspiration to become a US $30 Trillion economy by 2047 rests on its ability to mobilise long-term, stable and affordable capital. Debt capital can be an attractive source for this. While banks have historically been the backbone of credit intermediation in India, a bank-dominated financial system may be inadequate to meet the financing needs of a developing country like India which includes long-gestation exposures to infrastructure, climate transition, manufacturing and other emerging sectors. Recognising this constraint, NITI Aayog’s report on Deepening the Corporate Bond Market in India (‘Report’) lays out reforms to develop corporate bonds as another major tool for mobilising long-term low-cost capital.
In this note we highlight some of the reforms being advocated in the Report.
Key Thrust Areas of Reforms:
Regulatory Efficiency
A central theme of the Report is the need to reduce regulatory friction arising from fragmented and overlapping oversight by SEBI, RBI and the MCA for corporate bonds. Inconsistent treatment of similar bonds, procedural complexity, overlapping disclosures and different approval timelines are identified as major constraints, particularly for public issuances and lower-rated issuers. A specific concern highlighted is issuer-based regulation: bonds issued by banks and NBFCs are regulated by the RBI, while similar bonds issued by non-financial corporates fall under SEBI and MCA oversight. This results in different disclosure standards and compliance processes for similar bonds
To combat this, first, the Report calls for stronger inter-regulatory coordination and recommends measures such as mutual recognition of disclosures, a joint regulatory help desk/single point of contact as well as joint circulars detailing the jurisdictions of each regulator – essentially a centralised coordination mechanism involving SEBI, RBI, MCA and the Ministry of Finance.
Second, the Report emphasises the need to rationalise disclosure norms for public bond issuances, which are significantly more onerous than those applicable to private placements. This asymmetry has led to an overwhelming reliance on private placements, which account for nearly 98% of corporate bond issuances in India (p. 25). Drawing on global practices, the Report recommends a differentiated disclosure regime for well-compliant issuers (p. 66). Specific reforms include extending the validity of offer documents from one year to two or three years, removing ISIN-wise issuance constraints, simplifying PAS-2 and Information Memorandum filings through digital automation on the MCA portal, and introducing a “Well-Known Seasoned Issuer” framework to enable fast-track access to public bond markets for reputed issuers.
Third, the Report stresses the need for regulatory clarity for hybrid instruments, including covered bonds1, securitised debt and infrastructure-linked securities. Many instruments used globally to fund long-term assets do not fit neatly within India’s regulator-specific silos. Jurisdictional ambiguity (which regulator oversees which instrument?) and the absence of standardised regulatory treatment have impeded market development. The Report recommends clearly defined frameworks to facilitate market clarity. In this context, it also highlights tax distortions; for instance, SDIs2 currently attract significantly higher TDS than corporate bonds. The Report states that SDIs are taxed at a higher rate than corporate bonds which prevents securitisation of bonds. However, effective 1.04.2025, SDI TDS rates are aligned with bond rate; both at 10% (See section 194LBC of Tax Act).
Market Infrastructure and Liquidity
Bonds are heterogeneous instruments, varying by type of issuer, tenor, covenants and structure. Unlike equities, electronic order matching alone cannot ensure immediacy of execution or continuous liquidity in the secondary market, particularly in lower-rated or infrequently traded bonds. Despite progress through electronic platforms such as RFQ for secondary trading and EBP for primary issuance, trading volumes remain shallow and concentrated in highly rated bonds.
The Report recommends expanding electronic trading, enhancing post-trade reporting (to improve price discovery) and increasing the proportion of trades settled on a Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) basis3. Absence of a robust market-making ecosystem is seen as a major constraint on secondary-market liquidity (pp. 22, 36, 106). Limited risk appetite and balance-sheet constraints deter intermediaries from providing continuous two-way quotes, especially in lower-rated and longer-tenor bonds.
To address this, the Report recommends enabling market-making through regulatory incentives and improved access to repo markets. In particular, the creation of a standing repo facility by RBI for high rated corporate bonds would allow market makers4 to monetise inventories efficiently and support continuous liquidity provision. While corporate bonds are included in the RBI’s list of repo-eligible instruments, their treatment differs materially from Government securities (G-Secs). Repos in G-Secs are exempt from CRR and SLR computation which means Banks can access funds through G-Sec repos without providing SLR and CRR on those funds. In contrast, cash raised through repos backed by corporate bonds is treated as a liability for CRR and SLR purposes, hence banks have to provide CRR and SLR on the resulting liquidity. Also, unlike G-Secs, which are centrally cleared and settled through CCIL, corporate bond repos lack a single, standardised clearing and settlement mechanism; they are cleared through F-TRAC and stock exchanges. The result is that the volume of corporate bond repo is negligible (exact data on corporate bond repo could not be sourced).
The Report also flags structural weaknesses in the credit rating ecosystem, including rating inflation, conflicts of interest under the issuer-pays model, and excessive regulatory reliance on ratings (p. 71). Strengthening governance standards is the key recommendation for credit ratings. To improve credit rating access for smaller issuers, the Report suggests exploring alternative credit assessment models, including technology-driven frameworks using GST-returns and other turnover based data and digital transaction histories.
Further, the Report recommends strengthening the existing framework requiring large corporates to raise a portion of incremental borrowings through debt securities (LCB Framework)5. Proposed enhancements include increasing the minimum market borrowing requirement and progressively extending the framework to smaller corporates with lower thresholds.
Drawing on the IMF’s FSAP 2025, the Report also recommends allowing high-quality corporate bonds to be used as collateral in RBI’s repo operations. International experience from the ECB, Bank of Japan, and Reserve Bank of Australia suggests that such measures can enhance secondary-market liquidity and broaden the investor base, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Equally important is the creation of a government-backed, centralised corporate bond data repository. Fragmented data across regulators and exchanges currently hampers price discovery and covenant monitoring. A unified, real-time repository is recommended to improve transparency for issuers, investors, and regulators.
Innovation in Instruments and Market design
The Report makes it clear that regulatory reforms alone are insufficient; product and market innovation are essential to expand depth and distribute risk. India’s bond market remains narrow not only due to investor risk aversion but also due to the limited availability of instruments aligned with diverse risk–return preferences and long-gestation financing needs. Green bonds, sustainability-linked bonds6, and transition bonds are identified as important instruments for financing climate action and infrastructure. However, the absence of a standardised green taxonomy and concerns around greenwashing have constrained growth. The Report, therefore, recommends establishing clear definitions, disclosure standards and verification frameworks to ensure credibility and scale ESG-oriented bond markets.
The Report proposes institutionalising a dedicated class of Corporate Bond Dealers (CBDs), modelled on the U.S. primary dealer system. Eligible banks, NBFCs and other financial institutions would be required to provide continuous two-way quotes, supported by incentives such as capital relief on bond inventories and access to RBI refinance and repo facilities. Enhanced market surveillance, real-time trade reporting, price dissemination and inventory disclosures are also recommended.
Investor and Issuer Participation
Broadening the investor base is identified as another critical reform pillar. Long-term institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds and provident funds are natural holders of long-duration bonds, yet regulatory investment norms constrain exposure only to higher-rated securities. The Report recommends a calibrated relaxation of these norms.
For retail investors, the Report proposes lowering minimum investment thresholds (from existing ₹ 10,000), increasing retail quotas in public bond issuances, particularly for tax-free and ESG-linked bonds7, and simplifying TDS provisions to address tax inefficiencies in secondary market trades. OBPPs have been acknowledged to contribute to secondary market liquidity, however, the volumes are low. Further, there is no mention of concerns w.r.t downselling through OBPPs which was recently highlighted by SEBI8
On the issuer side, India’s corporate bond market remains heavily concentrated among AAA and AA-rated entities. To address this imbalance, the Report advocates scaling up credit enhancement mechanisms such as PCEs and support from development finance institutions. It also highlights the need to promote longer-tenor issuances, especially for infrastructure and climate-linked projects, where asset lives significantly exceed typical corporate bond maturities. In this context, it is noteworthy that NITI Aayog has cited our resource, “Partial Credit Enhancement: A Catalyst for Boosting Infrastructure Bond Issuances?”, in the Report while discussing the role of partial credit enhancement mechanisms in deepening the corporate bond market (pp. 75 and 99). Further, regulatory subsidies for first-time or low-volume issuers and pooled issuance platforms to facilitate market access for smaller issuers is also recommended (pp. 65, 75).
The Report recognizes that CDS are underdeveloped. Currently, CDS can be purchased only by investors who already own the underlying bond, which prevents trading in the CDS market. Further, only single-name CDS are permitted, which means a separate CDS contract is required for each issuer, unlike global markets such as the U.S., where index CDS allows one CDS to cover a basket of bonds. Lastly, there is a limit on FPI investors providing CDS which is 5% of the outstanding corporate bond market. These restrictions have resulted in limited CDS protection. The Report also recommends bigger NBFCs to act as CDS market makers
Conclusion
NITI Aayog’s recommendations envisage a corporate bond market that evolves from a supplementary funding channel into a core pillar of India’s financial system. If implemented in a coordinated manner, these reforms could expand the market to ₹100–120 trillion by 2030, improve financial stability, and channel long-term capital into productive investment. The real challenge, however, lies in execution, particularly in achieving sustained regulatory coordination and market-making capacity. Addressing these constraints will be critical if corporate bonds are to play a meaningful role in financing India’s long-term growth and infrastructure ambitions under the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047.
Covered bonds are secured debt instruments backed by a segregated pool of high-quality assets, offering investors dual recourse to both the issuer and the underlying assets. May refer to our resource on covered bonds. ↩︎
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2025-12-20 12:11:392025-12-24 13:14:43Strengthening India’s Corporate Bond Market: A Look at NITI Aayog’s Recommendations
The new dispensation implemented from 5th December 2025 implies that lending business, obviously carried in the parent bank, needs to be allocated between the bank and the group entities so as to avoid overlaps. The bank will have to take its business allocation plan, at a group level, to its board, by 31st March 2026.
The RBI’s present move has certain global precedents. Singapore passed an anti-commingling rule applicable to banking groups way back in 2004, but has subsequently relaxed the rule by a provision referred to as section 23G of the Banking Regulations. However, the approach is not uniformly shared across jurisdictions.
We are of the view that as the decision works both at the bank as well as the NBFC/HFC level, the same has to be taken to the boards of the respective NBFCs/HFCs too.
Businesses which currently overlap include the following:
Loans against properties
Housing finance
Loans against shares
Trade finance
Personal loans
Digital lending
Small business loans
Gold loans
Loans against vehicles – passenger and commercial, or loans against construction equipment
In our view, banks will have serious concerns in meeting their priority sector lending targets, unless they decide to keep priority sector lending business in the bank’s books. Priority sector lending is quite often much less profitable, and the NBFCs in the group are able to create such loans at much higher rates of return due to their delivery strengths or customer franchise. As to how the banks will be able to originate such loans departmentally, will remain a big question.
There are other implications of the above restrictions too:
If a bank is engaged, for example, in MSME lending, but auto loans are done at the group entity, the bank cannot be a co-lender with its group entity, nor can it acquire auto loans originated by its group entity.
Extending the same argument, if the banking group is carrying auto loan activity in its group NBFC, it cannot buy auto loans either by way of a direct assignment or co-lending, originated by other banks or other independent NBFCs. The reason for this is obvious – if the bank has decided to carry auto lending activity in its group entity, it should stay away from that exposure, even if originated by other entities.
The decision to keep particular loan products with group entities – can it be stretched to the extent that bank will not have indirect exposure in such products, for example, by way of giving a loan to its group entity for on-lending for a product which the bank does not undertake departmentally? One of the reasons that may have prompted the Mohanty Group report in 2020 to segregate products between the bank and its group entities was contagion risk. If contagion is at the core of the present restriction, then that risk is still there even if the bank lends to a group entity for on-lending for a product. However, in our view, the present restriction is primarily aimed at avoiding regulatory arbitrages, and cannot be expected to require a completely independent financing of the loan products that a subsidiary finances, and not the bank.
Therefore, in our view, a bank may not only on-lend to its group entities (of course, on the basis of an arm’s length lending approach), but it may also buy the asset-backed securities arising from such loan portfolios as sit with its group entities.
Factors to decide loan product allocation
In case of several non-lending products such as securities trading, demat services, etc., the approach may be easier. However, lending services constitute the bulk of any bank’s financial business, and group NBFCs and HFCs are also evidently engaged in lending. Hence, there may be a delicate decisioning by each of the boards on who does what. Note that this choice is not spasmodic – it is a strategic decision that will bind the entities for several years.
The factors based on which banks will have to decide on their business allocation may include:
Delivery mechanisms – Mostly, branch and team strengths are sitting in group entities. Therefore, the loan products that entail last mile customer outreach, geographical access, etc are naturally housed in entities which possess those abilities.
Technology strength: Some of the products are based on fintech or similar technology strength, which may be sitting with respective entities.
Recovery mechanisms – Group entities are typically more nimble than banks. Hence, while banks may keep loans on their books, but they may engage group entities for recovery purposes.
Priority sector requirements-: This will be a very important factor in deciding business allocation. Banks are mandated to invest 40% of their ANBC in qualifying priority sector loans – not NBFCs. Hence, for such loans as qualify as priority sector, the option may be to house the portfolios with the bank, or to invest in pass through certificates.
Securitised notes: whether investment in group entities?
Talking about pass through certificates, there is a complicated question as to whether the investment limits imposed by the 5th Dec. 2025 amendment on aggregate investments in group entities will include investment in pass through certificates arising out of pools originated by group entities. In our view, the answer is in the negative, as the investment is not originator, but in the asset pools. However, if the bank makes investment in the equity tranche or credit enhancing unrated tranches, the view may be different.
Conclusion
Banks are heading shortly in the last quarter of a year which is laden with strong headwinds. In this scenario, facing business allocation decisions, rather than business expansion or risk management, may be more challenging than it may seem to the regulators.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2025-12-06 16:29:452025-12-06 16:46:40Banking group NBFCs: Need to map businesses to avoid overlaps with the parent banks
The RBI has long been stitching up the seams where AIF structures threatened to pull at the fabric of Banking regulation. The latest amendment to the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Undertaking of Financial Services) Directions, 2025 is another careful thread in that ongoing work. The provisions apply not only to banks directly but also to exposures routed through their group entities (meaning subsidiary, JV or associate of the bank). Banks (and their group entities) may still participate in AIFs but only within closely drawn boundaries. The message is unambiguous: the AIF route cannot be used to skirt evergreen exposures or manufacture regulatory arbitrage.
Limits on investment in AIF schemes
For Category I and Category II AIFs, limits apply at both the individual bank level and at the group level.
At the bank level, no bank may contribute more than 10% of the corpus of any AIF scheme;
At the bank group level, investments are permitted within a corridor:
Less than 20% of the corpus of Cat I or Cat II AIFs may be invested without prior approval, provided the parent bank continues to meet minimum capital requirements and has reported net profit in each of the preceding two financial years. This means even the AMC along with the bank cannot hold more than 20%;
Between 20% and 30% of the corpus may be invested with prior RBI approval.
A systemic cap overlays this: contributions from all regulated entities – banks, NBFCs, co-operative banks and AIFIs etc. – cannot collectively exceed 20% of any AIF corpus. Similarly investment in the unit capital of REITs and InvITs is capped at 10%, within the overall ceiling of 20% of net worth for equity, convertible instruments and AIF exposures.
A question may arise on whether such limits, as applicable to investments in AIFs, would also be applicable to making investments in FMEs operating in IFSC? Practically, Indian banks are unlikely to invest in FMEs, because such investments would cause the FME to lose its tax benefits. For an FME to qualify as a “specified fund”, all its units must be held by non-residents, except those held by the sponsor. When this condition is met, the income of the fund is exempt under Section 10(4D) and the income received by non-resident investors is exempt under Section 10(23FBC) of the Income Tax Act.
No circumvention of regulations through investments in AIFs
Banks shall ensure that their exposure in an investee company through their investments in AIF schemes does not result in circumvention of any regulations applicable to banks. (see para 38D). This would mean that where a bank is restricted from having any exposure in an investee company (this may include restrictions on account of the end-use of funds, or restrictions in terms of limits to exposures etc), such exposures cannot be made indirectly through making investments in AIF schemes, which, in turn, leads to the bank’s exposures to such investee companies.
Prohibition on Category III AIFs
The clearest prohibition concerns Category III AIFs. Banks are not permitted to invest in their corpus at all. If a subsidiary is a sponsor, it may hold only the minimum contribution required under SEBI’s regulations (which currently is lower of 5% of the corpus or ₹10 Crore as per proviso to Regulation 10(d) of the SEBI AIF Regulations, 2012). Highly traded, leveraged or long-short strategies are thus kept outside the perimeter of bank funding in a deliberate effort to insulate bank balance sheets from hedge-fund-type risk.
Globally, regulators have taken a different, more permissive route. In the United States, banks are not barred from investing in hedge-fund-type vehicles. Instead, the Volcker Rule restricts ownership to de-minimis levels, generally up to 3% of a fund and 3% of Tier 1 capital in aggregate.1
Under Basel’s CRE 60 framework, investments in funds are permitted, however, discipline lies in capital treatment:
If the bank can look-through to underlying exposures, risk weights are based on the underlying assets2;
Where transparency is not available, risk weights can rise to punitive levels, up to 1,250% – making opaque fund exposures extremely capital-intensive.
Recently, IMF in its October 2025 Financial Stability Report has highlighted that banks’ exposures to non-banks, including private-credit and private-equity funds, have grown materially, raising concerns about concentration and potential spill-over risks.
India therefore stands apart. Where other jurisdictions rely on expensive capital and other constraints to manage hedge-fund-type exposures, the RBI has chosen to keep such structures outside the banking perimeter altogether.
Provisioning and Capital Treatment
Capital consequences have also been tightened. Where a bank holds more than 5% of the corpus of an AIF that subsequently invests – other than in equity instruments3 – into a debtor company of the bank, a 100% provision must be created for the bank’s proportionate exposure (See our write-up on the same here). This directly addresses the risk that AIFs could become conduits for evergreening or indirect refinancing of stressed loans.
Overall Perspective
The Amendment Directions extend the guardrails on AIF participation to the bank group, as against the previous approach of regulating only the bank’s exposures. Guardrails are numerical and backed by provisioning and capital consequences. Any breach in the limits require reporting to RBI, with clear reasons and plan for corrective actions. For existing investments, banks are required to provide an action plan by 31st March, 2026 – ensuring the compliances within a maximum of 2 years, viz., 31st March 2028.
RBI’s stance is more conservative than many international regimes, but the regulatory intent is unmistakable: prudential norms are not to be diluted simply because exposure is packaged through an AIF.
CRE 60 offers three routes for capital treatment – look-through, mandate-based and fall-back – chosen according to how much visibility the bank has into the fund’s underlying assets. ↩︎
Equity instruments means equity shares, compulsorily convertible preference shares (CCPS) and compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs) ↩︎
Private credit is becoming a new force in India’s lending ecosystem. As traditional banks and NBFCs operate under the strict regulations on capital, exposure and asset quality norms, they are often unable, or unwilling to cater to certain borrowers. In addition, for banks in particular, what kind of lending opportunities can be tapped is often a matter of having typecast lending products, policies and procedures. This leaves occasional, however, lucrative gaps in funding needs which are not serviced by regulated lenders. Into these gaps step in Private Credit AIFs (in India), Business Development Companies (BDCs) and Private Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs) (in the USA and Australia), these funds can structure deals creatively, customise financing to borrower needs and capture higher-yield opportunities that conventional lenders must pass over. What is emerging is a parallel channel of credit, one that is nimble, agile and focused.
Globally, this shift hasn’t gone unnoticed. Policymakers and institutions like the IMF have flagged the risks tied to private credit markets, especially around opacity, leverage and borrower quality (see below). Yet in India, the momentum continues to build. Tight constraints on banks, the rise of alternative asset managers and the unmet capital needs of businesses beyond the traditional credit universe are all fuelling rapid expansion.
This article examines what private credit is, why it is growing in India, the risks associated with this market and whether their growth creates regulatory arbitrage relative to banks and NBFCs.
What is Private Credit?
As per an IMF paper1, private credit is defined as “non-bank corporate credit provided through bilateral agreements or small “club deals” outside the realm of public securities or commercial banks. This definition excludes bank loans, broadly syndicated loans, and funding provided through publicly traded assets such as corporate bonds.
Simply, private credit is the lending by non-bank and non-NBFCs. The sector predominantly involves alternative asset managers2 who raise capital from institutional investors using closed-end funds and lend directly to predominantly middle-market firms3.
How is it Different From Normal Credit?
Unlike traditional credit, private credit is typically tailored to the specific needs of each borrower. Repayment terms can, for instance, be aligned with the timing of a funding round or disbursements can be structured to match capital expenditure plans. Interest rates may also be designed on a step-up basis, linked to the borrower’s turnover. Many elements that are otherwise rigid under RBI-regulated lending can be flexibly structured in private credit (see table 2 below). This flexibility is especially valuable for start-ups and small businesses, which often require customised financing solutions that traditional lenders may be unable to provide.
Parameter
Private Credit
Traditional Credit
Source of Capita
Private debt funds (Category II AIFs), investors like HNIs, family offices, institutional investors
Banks, NBFCs and mutual funds
Target Borrowers
Companies lacking access to banks; SMEs, mid-market firms, high-growth businesses
Higher-rated, established borrowers.
Deal Structure
Bespoke, customised, structured financing
Standardised loan products
Flexibility
High flexibility in terms, covenants, and structuring
Restricted by regulatory norms and rigid approval processes
Returns
Higher yields (approx. 10–25%)
Lower yields (traditional fixed-income)
Risk Level
Higher risk due to borrower profile and limited diversification
Lower risk due to stronger credit profiles and diversified portfolios
Regulation
Light SEBI AIF regulations; fewer lending restrictions
Heavily regulated by RBI and sector-specific norms
Liquidity
Closed-ended funds; limited exit options
More liquid; established repayment structures; some products have secondary markets
Diversification
Limited number of deals; concentrated portfolios
Broad, diversified loan books
Role in Market
Fills credit gaps not served by traditional lenders
Core credit providers in the financial system
Table 1: Differences between private credit and traditional credit
How Much of it is in India?
Global private credit assets under management have quadrupled over the past decade to US$2.1 trillion in 20234. Compared with the rest of the world, the private credit market in India is very small, with estimated assets under management of $25 billion to $30 billion as of March 31, 2025, representing about 0.6% of India’s GDP and 30-35% of the total investments made by AIFs in India.5
Figure 1: Private credit share (1%) as a part of overall corporate lending. Source: RBI, AMFI
Figure 2: Size of Private Credit Market. Source: RBI
Reasons for Rise in Private Credit?
Private credit is expanding rapidly because it steps in where traditional banks hesitate. It provides capital for last-mile project completion, cost overruns and promoter equity infusion; areas that fall outside the comfort zone of regulated lending. The asset class has also delivered consistently higher risk-adjusted returns, a compelling draw for global and domestic investors, especially through long phases of low interest rates.6
A key advantage lies in its flexibility. Private lenders can tailor covenants7, link returns to cash flows and restructure repayment terms during stress, offering a level of customisation that conventional bank credit cannot match. For investors, this translates into both diversification and access to high-growth segments that remain beyond the scope of mainstream credit markets.
Sector specific regulatory gaps: There is a concern that tighter bank regulation will continue to encourage the migration of credit from banks to private credit lenders8. Certain regulatory restrictions on banks directly push borrowers toward private credit:
Real estate: Banks cannot lend for land acquisition (Para 3.3.1, Master Circular – Housing Finance), leading to real estate becoming a major private-credit segment, accounting for about one-third of all private credit deals.9
Mergers & acquisitions: Banks are not expected to lend to promoters for acquiring shares of other companies (Para 2.3.1.6, Master Circular – Loans and Advances). Consequently, 35% of private credit deals involve M&A financing. However, RBI’s Draft Directions on Acquisition Finance proposes to somewhat ease this restriction.10
Apart from the above, The IBC significantly strengthened creditor rights and recovery prospects, boosting confidence among lenders and supporting the growth of private credit. At the same time, many borrowers, particularly smaller firms, those with weak earnings, high leverage or insufficient collateral, struggle to access bank loans making private credit a natural alternative11. This shift was further accelerated by an extended period of low global interest rates, which pushed investors to seek higher-yielding opportunities and increased capital flows into private credit strategies.
The most common structure for channelising private credit is an AIF – more specifically, a Category II AIF. A ‘Private Credit AIF’ is essentially an AIF whose primary investment strategy is direct debt financing (by investing in debt instruments) to borrowers outside the conventional banking/syndicated loan market. Since AIFs are not subject to the same regulatory framework as traditional lenders (for example, no deposit-taking, no CRR/SLR requirements etc.), they can offer tailor-made structures such as step‐up interest rates, bullet repayments, equity warrants, convertible features, etc.
A private credit fund requires long-term, stable capital, and frequent redemption demands can disrupt lending strategy. A closed-ended Category II AIF structure suits this model well, as it locks in investor capital for the fund’s life and prevents premature withdrawals. Private credit deals are idiosyncratic and difficult for outside parties to value or trade, lenders typically rely on long-term pools of locked-up capital for financing. One advantage AIFs have over mutual funds is that mutual funds are restricted to investing only up to 10% of their debt portfolio in unlisted plain vanilla NCDs.
Compared to private equity or venture capital, where performance depends heavily on market conditions and timing exits, private credit offers returns that are largely predetermined by contract. The trade-off, however, is that like most AIFs, these investments typically come with multi-year lock-ins and fewer exit opportunities, underscoring their inherently illiquid nature. Typically, investors which can commit long term capital are well-suited to invest in such AIFs – such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds etc.
Rise of Business Development Companies
A Business Development Company (BDC) is a U.S. investment vehicle designed to channel capital to small and mid-sized businesses that lack easy access to traditional bank financing or public capital markets. BDCs were created by the U.S. in 1980, through amendments to the Investment Company Act of 1940(see sections 2(48), 54 and 55), with a clear policy objective: to allow retail investors to participate in private credit and growth capital, an area previously accessible only to institutional investors.
As per a Federal Reserve Paper: BDCs are a way for retail investors to invest money in small and medium-sized private companies and, to a lesser extent, other investments, including public companies. BDCs are structured in different ways. Public BDCs refer to those with shares traded on national securities exchanges, and those whose shares are not traded on national securities exchanges but placed through SEC-registered or private placement offerings are non-publicly traded BDCs. BDCs typically finance middle-market firms—companies with EBITDA between $5 to $100 million, which historically have had limited access to funding from commercial banks and public debt markets. They also provide finance to development-stage companies in sectors such as technology, life science, healthcare information and services and sustainability industries, and private-equity owned or sponsored companies. Structure and regulatory framework: Legally, a BDC is an unregistered closed-end investment company (fund). To qualify as BDC, a company must invest at least 70% of its assets in ‘eligible portfolio companies’ i.e. firms with market values below $250 million and provide ‘significant managerial assistance’ to its portfolio companies [see section 2(48) of the Investment Company Act, 1940]. These companies are often private, thinly traded public firms, or businesses undergoing financial stress. To avoid corporate-level taxation, they must distribute at least 90% of their taxable income to shareholders each year (like REITs and InvITs in India). BDCs are also permitted to use leverage (up to 2x the amount of assets).
BDCs raise capital through IPOs, follow-on equity issuance, corporate bonds or hybrid securities. While many BDCs are publicly traded on stock exchanges (50 in number), offering daily liquidity to investors, some exist as non-traded BDCs with limited liquidity (47 in number) and yet some as private BDCs (50 in number).12
Investment mix: Although BDCs are permitted to invest in both equity and debt, their portfolios are majorly debt-focused. In practice, 60–85% of a typical BDC portfolio is invested in debt instruments, such as senior secured loans, second-lien loans, or mezzanine debt. Equity investments usually comprise 15–30% of assets.13 Because of this allocation, interest income from loans is the primary driver of BDC earnings. This income tends to be steady and predictable, which aligns well with the BDC structure. For example, Ares Capital, one of the largest BDCs, allocates roughly 78–83% of its portfolio to debt (primarily first-lien loans) and about 17% to equity.
How BDCs generate returns: BDCs generate returns through multiple channels:
Interest income from loans to portfolio companies (the dominant source)
Dividends from preferred or common equity holdings
Capital gains from selling equity stakes or converting and exiting convertible securities
Many BDC loans are floating-rate, which provides partial protection in rising interest rate environments. However, most BDC investments are below investment-grade or unrated and equity positions are often in privately held or financially stressed companies, introducing credit and valuation risk.
Comparison with venture capital, private equity AIFs and Mutual Funds: BDCs are often compared with venture capital and private equity funds because all three invest in private, illiquid companies and may provide strategic or managerial support. The key distinction lies in investor access and structure. Venture capital and private equity funds are privately placed vehicles, restricted to institutions and wealthy investors, with long lock-ups and limited transparency. BDCs, by contrast, are designed to be accessible to retail investors and trade on public exchanges.
This distinction becomes especially relevant when comparing BDCs with AIFs in India, particularly private credit AIFs. Economically, BDCs resemble private credit AIFs; both lend to mid-market companies and rely heavily on interest income. The crucial difference lies in retail participation. In India, AIFs exclude retail participation by making the minimum investment amount of Rs. 1 Crore and prohibiting public issuances. In the U.S., BDCs were created to enable retail participation therefore there are no minimum investment norms and public issuances are allowed for BDCs. In this sense, BDCs can be thought of as private credit AIF-like strategies wrapped in a publicly traded structure, placing them between mutual funds (fully liquid public-market vehicles) and AIFs (illiquid private-market vehicles) on the investment spectrum.
From an Indian regulatory perspective, mutual funds offer the closest structural comparison to BDCs, albeit with important distinctions. Indian mutual funds are not permitted to employ leverage as part of their investment strategy and may borrow only to meet temporary liquidity requirements, capped at 20% of net assets (see Regulation 44 of the SEBI Mutual Fund Regulations). In addition, mutual funds face strict asset-side constraints, including a limit of 10% of the debt portfolio in unlisted plain-vanilla non-convertible debentures (see paragraph 12.1.1 of the SEBI Master Circular on Mutual Funds). These restrictions constrain exposure to illiquid private credit, making a BDC-like structure regulatorily infeasible in India under the mutual fund framework.
Global context: No other major market has created a true equivalent of the BDC. While regions such as Europe, Canada, and Australia have listed private credit funds, specialty finance vehicles, or credit income trusts, these structures typically limit or discourage retail participation. Risk considerations: While BDCs may have stable and regular income, they carry elevated risks. Their portfolios consist largely of non-investment-grade debt and equity in small or distressed companies, often with limited public information. Credit losses, economic downturns or excessive leverage can materially impact returns.
Regulatory Concerns with Growth of Private Credit?
IMF in its 2024 Global Financial Stability Report highlighted risks w.r.t rise in private credit since its growth comes with several structural weaknesses that make the market vulnerable, especially in a downturn. Its rapid expansion is happening largely outside traditional regulatory oversight and because the market has not been stress-tested, the true scale of risk remains unclear. Borrowers tend to be smaller and more leveraged and with most loans being floating-rate, repayment stress can escalate quickly when interest rates rise. Although private credit funds’ leverage appears low compared with other lenders, end borrowers tend to be more highly leveraged than those in public markets, increasing the risks to financial stability.14
The increased complexity and the interconnections with leveraged financial entities create more channels through which unexpected losses in private credit could spread to the broader financial system15
Instruments such as PIK interest16 only defer the problem, increasing loss severity if performance deteriorates. Liquidity is another pressure point since private credit funds are inherently illiquid. Risk is further amplified by layers of hidden leverage, at the borrower, SPV, investor and fund level making contagion hard to track. Layers of leverage are created by the AIF lending against equity to a holding entity, which infuses the equity into an operating company, and the operating company borrowing against such equity.
Because loans are private, unrated and rarely traded, valuation is opaque and losses may remain masked until too late. Growing competition also risks weakening underwriting standards and covenant discipline, particularly as larger banks participate in private deals.
Practical challenges add to this vulnerability. Collateral enforcement may not always hold up legally, say due to restrictions on transferability of collateral (say, shares of a private company). Equity-linked security is volatile as well, and during distress, equity tends to lose its value almost completely. In essence, private credit offers flexibility and returns, but its opacity, leverage, illiquidity and weaker borrower profiles create risks that could surface sharply in stress conditions. Private credit certainly warrants closer attention. Nonbank lenders, especially private credit funds, have grown rapidly in recent years, adding to financial stability risks because they are less transparent and not as firmly regulated.
Do private credit AIFs create any regulatory arbitrage?
What you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly – the age-old maxim might apply in case a RE which is otherwise barred by RBI for an object, uses the AIF route to achieve that object. Below we examine some of the distinctions in the regulatory oversight:
Function
Private Credit AIFs
RE
Credit & Investment rules
Credit underwriting standards
No regulatory prescription
No such specific rating-linked limits. However, improper underwriting will increase NPAs in the future.
Lending decision
Manager-led
Investment Committee under Reg. 20(7) may decide lending
Manager controls composition of IC;
IC may include internal/external members;
IC responsibilities may be waived if investor commitment ≥₹70 Cr w/ undertaking Primarily i.e. the main thrust should be in: – Unlisted securities; and/or – Listed debt rated ‘A’ or below
Lending decisions guided by Board-approved credit policy
Exposure norms
Max 25% of investible funds in one investee company.
Exposure is limited to 25% of Tier 1 Capital per borrower and 40% per borrower group for NBFC ML;
No such limit for NBFC BL.
Banks can lend maximum upto 15% of their Tier 1 + Tier 2 capital to a single borrower. Large exposure norms may apply in case of banks and Upper Layer NBFCs
End-use restrictions
None prescribed under AIF Regulations, results in high investment flexibility
Banks cannot lend for land acquisition or for funding a M&A deal [refer ‘sector-specific regulatory gaps’ above] NBFCs do not have any such restrictions. They do have internal limits on sensitive sector exposures which includes capital market and commercial real estate [See Para 92 of SBR]
Related party transactions
Need 75% investors consent [reg 15(1)(e)]
Board approval mandatory for loans ≥₹5 Cr to directors/relatives/interested entities;
Disclosure + abstention from decision-making;Loans to senior officers requires Board reporting [See para 93 of SBR]
Capital, Liquidity & Leverage Requirements
Capital requirements
No regulatory prescription as the entire capital of the fund is unit capital
Minimum net owned funds of ₹10 Cr, CRAR 15% for NBFC-ML and above [See para 133.1 of SBR]9% CRAR in case of banks,
Liquidity & ALM
Uninvested funds may be parked in liquid assets (MFs, T-Bills, CP/CDs, deposits etc.) [15(1)(f)]
NBFC asset size more than 100 Cr. have to do LRM [Para 26]
Leverage limits
No leverage permitted at AIF level for investment activities Only operational borrowing allowed
Leverage ratio of BL NBFC cannot be more than 7 No restriction on NBFC ML however, CRAR of 15% makes results into leverage limit of 5.6 times For Banks, in addition to CRAR, there is minimum leverage ratio is 4%
Monitoring, Restructuring and Settlements
Loan monitoring
No regulatory prescription
RBI-defined SMA classification, special monitoring, provisioning & reporting.
Compromise & settlements
No regulatory prescription
Governed by RBI’s Compromise & Settlement Framework
Governance, Oversight & Compliance
Governance & oversight
Operate in interest of investors Timely dissemination of info Effective risk management process and internal controls Have written policies for conflict of interest, AML. Prohibit any unethical means to sell/market/induce investors Annual audit of PPM termsAudit of accounts 15(1)(i) – investments shall be in demat form Valuation of investments every 6 months
A Risk Management Committee is required for all NBFCs. [See para 39 of SBR] AC [94.1], NRC [94], CRO [95] ID and internal guidelines on CG [100] required for NBFC-ML and above
Diversity of borrowers
Private credit AIFs usually have 15-20 borrowers.
Far more diversified as compared to AIFs
Pricing
Freely negotiated which allows for high structuring flexibility
Guided by internal risk model
Table 2: Differences in regulatory oversight between AIFs and Regulated Entities (REs)
The core difference between private credit AIFs and RBI-regulated lenders lies in regulatory intent. SEBI is a disclosure-driven market regulator, it relies on transparency, governance and informed investor choice. RBI is a prudential regulator tasked with protecting systemic stability, and therefore imposes capital buffers, exposure limits and stricter supervision. Private credit AIFs operate within SEBI’s lighter, disclosure-based approach, while banks and NBFCs function under RBI’s risk-averse framework. This does not always create arbitrage, but it does allow credit activity to grow outside the prudential perimeter. As private credit scales, a coordinated SEBI-RBI framework may be necessary to preserve flexibility without compromising financial stability.
It is important to recognise that Category I and Category II AIFs are prohibited from taking long-term leverage. As a result, any loss arising from their lending or investment exposures does not cascade into the wider financial system. Therefore, concerns around applying capital adequacy requirements to these AIF categories are largely unwarranted.
Conclusion
Though still a small fragment of India’s wider corporate lending landscape, private credit AIFs are steadily gaining ground reaching those nooks and crannies of credit demand that banks and NBFCs often cannot, or would not, serve. Their ability to operate beyond the traditional comfort zone of regulated lenders is what makes this segment structurally relevant and increasingly attractive to borrowers and investors alike.
At the same time, rapid expansion brings the potential for regulatory arbitrage. The RBI has already acknowledged this risk, most notably through its actions on evergreening via AIF structures, ultimately resulting in exposure caps of 10% for individual regulated entities and 20% collectively, along with mandatory full provisioning where exposure exceeds 5% in an AIF lending to the same borrower. These measures serve as guardrails to prevent private credit vehicles from functioning as an indirect tool for evergreening of loans.
A middle-market firm is a firm that is typically too small to issue public debt and requires financing amounts too large for a single bank because of its size and risk profile. The size of middle-market firms varies widely. In the United States, they are sometimes defined as businesses with between $100 million and $1 billion in annual revenue. ↩︎
Payment-in-kind (PIK) is noncash compensation, usually by treating accrued interest as an extension of the loan. ↩︎
See our other resources of Alternative Investment Funds here
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2025-12-02 11:01:512026-01-07 14:56:59Private Credit AIFs: Lenders of Last Resort?
In India, we often say: upar wala sab dekhta hai (God sees it all). However, if I could do things which God the almighty does not or cannot see, I will be most happy to do those. Doing things off-the-balance-sheet is always equally tempting; structurers of Frankenstein financial instruments have already tried to bring ingenuity to explore gaps in accounting standards to create such funding structures where the asset or the relevant liability does not show on the books. Recently, a $ 27 billion bond issuance by an SPV called Beignet Investor, LLC may have the ultimate effect of keeping the massive investment done at the instance of Meta group kept off-the-balance-sheet.
Structural Features
Essentially, the deal involves issuance of bonds to the investors, the servicing of which is through the cash flows generated from the lease payments. Further, a residual value guarantee has been provided by the group entity which has again led to a rating upliftment for the bonds issued.
The essential structure of the transaction involves a combination of project finance, lease payments and a residual value guarantee to shelter investors from project-related risks, and use of an operating lease structure, apparently designed to keep the funding off the balance sheet of Meta group. It is a special purpose joint venture which keeps the funding liability on its balance sheet.
Let us understand the transaction structure:
Meta intends to do a huge capex to build a massive 2.064-GW data center campus in Richland Parish, LA. The cost of this investment is estimated at $27 billion in total development costs for the buildings and long-lived power, cooling, and connectivity infrastructure at the campus. The massive facility will take until 2029 to finish.
The expense will be incurred by a joint venture, formed for the purpose, where Meta (or its group entities) will hold a 20% stake, and the 80% stake will come from Blue Owl Capital. The two of them together form the JV called Beignet Investor, LLC (issuer of the bonds).
The JV Co owns an entity called Laidley LLC, which will be the lessor of the data center facilities.
The lessee is a 100% Meta subsidiary, called Pelican Leap LLC, which enters into 4 year leases for each of the 11 data centers. Each lease will have a one-sided renewal option with 4 years’ term each, that is to say, a total term at the discretion of the lessee adding to 20 years. The leases are so-called triple-net (which is a term very commonly used in the leasing industry, implying that the lessor does not take any obligations of maintenance, repairs, or insurance).
The 20-year right of use, though in tranches of 4 years at a time, will mean the rentals are payable over as many years. This is made to coincide with the term of amortisation of the bonds issued by the Issuer, as the bonds mature in 2049 (2026-2029 – the development period, followed by 20 years of amortisation).
If the lease renewal is at the option of the lessee, then, how is it that the lease payments for 20 years are guaranteed to amortise the bonds? This is where the so-called “residual value guarantee” (RVG) comes in. RVG is also quite a common feature of lease structures. In the present case, from whatever information is available on public domain, it appears that the RVG is an amount payable by Meta Platforms under a so-called Residual Value Guarantee agreement. The RVG on each renewal date (gaps of 4 years) guarantees to make a payment sufficient to take care of the debt servicing of the bonds, and is significantly lower than the estimated fair value of the data center establishment on each such date.
The diagram below by provides for the transaction structure:
Off-balance sheet: Gap in the GAAP?
Of course, as one would have expected, the rating agency Standard and Poor’s that was the sole rating agency having given rating for the bonds, its report does not say the structure is off-the-balance sheet for the lessee, a Meta group entity. However, various analysts and commentators have referred to this funding as off-the-balance sheet. For example, Bloomberg report says “The SPV structure helps tech companies avoid placing large amounts of debt on their balance sheets”.Another report says that the huge debt of $ 27 billion will be on the balance sheet of Beignet, the JV, rather than on the books of Meta. An FT report says that bond was priced much higher than Meta’s balance sheet bonds, at a coupon of 6.58%, as a compensation for the off-balance sheet treatment it affords. A write up on Fortune also refers to this funding as off-the-balance sheet.
In fact, Meta itself, on its website, gives a clear indication that the deal was struck in a way to ensure that the funding is not on the balance sheet of Meta or its affiliates. Here is what Meta says:
“Meta entered into operating lease agreements with the joint venture for use of all of the facilities of the campus once construction is complete. These lease agreements will have a four-year initial term with options to extend, providing Meta with long-term strategic flexibility.
To balance this optionality in a cost-efficient manner, Meta also provided the joint venture with a residual value guarantee for the first 16 years of operations whereby Meta would make a capped cash payment to the joint venture based on the then-current value of the campus if certain conditions are met following a non-renewal or termination of a lease.”
Here, two points are important to understand – first, the operating lease/financial lease distinction, and second, the so-called residual value guarantee – what it means, and why it is opposite in the present case.
The distinction between financial and operating leases, the key to the off-balance sheet treatment of operating leases, was the product of age-old accounting standards, dating back to the 1960s. In 2019, most countries in the world decided to chuck these accounting standards, and move to a new IFRS 16, which eliminates the distinction between financial and operating leases, at least from the lessee perspective. According to this standard, every lease will be put on the balance sheet, with a value assigned to the obligation to pay lease rentals over the non-cancellable lease term.
However, USA has not aligned completely with IFRS 16, and decided to adopt its own version called ASC 842 for lease accounting. The US accounting approach recognises the difference between operating leases and financial leases, and if the lease qualifies to be an operating lease, it permits the lessee to only bring an amount equal to the “lease liability”, that is, the discounted value of lease rentals as applicable for the lease term.
As to whether the lease qualifies to be an operating lease, or financial lease, one will apply the classic tests of present value of “lease payments” [note IFRS uses the expression “minimum lease payments”], length of lease term vis-a-vis the economic life of the asset, existence of any bargain purchase option, etc. “Lease payments” are defined to include not just the rentals payable by a lessee, but also the minimum residual value. This is coming from para 842-10-25-2(d). The reading of this para is sufficiently complicated, as it makes cross references to another para referring to a “probable payment” under “residual value guarantees”. The reference to para 842-10-55-34 may not be needed in the present case, as the residual value agreed to be paid by the lessee is included in “lease payment” for financial lease determination by virtue of the very definition of financial lease. Therefore, it remains open to interpretation whether the leases in the present case are indeed operating leases.
Considering that the residual value guarantee from the parent company in the present case may not meet the requirements for its inclusion in “lease payments”, it is unlikely that the lease payments over any of the 4 year terms will meet the present value test, to characterise the lease as a financial lease. Also, the economic life of the commercial property in form of the data centers may be significantly longer than the 20 year lease period, including the option to renew. Hence, the lease may quite likely qualify as an operating lease.
Residual value guarantee: Rationale and Implications
In lease contracts, a residual value guarantee by the lessee is understandable as a conjoined obligation with fair use and reasonable wear and tear of assets. In the present case, if the lessee is a tenant for only 4 years, and the renewal thereafter is at the option of the lessee. If the lessee chooses not to renew the lease, the lessee is exercising its uncontrolled discretion available under the lease. So, what could be the justification for the parent company being called to make a payment for the residual value of the property? After all, the property reverts to the lessor, and whatever is the value of the property then is the asset of the lessor.
In the present case, it seems that the RVG comes under a separate agreement – whether that agreement is linked with the leases is not sure. However, for the holistic understanding of any complicated transaction, one always needs to connect all the dots together to get a a complete understanding of the transaction. If the lessee or a related party is paying for future rentals, it transpires that the understanding between the parties was a non-cancelable lease, and the RVG is a compensation for the loss of future rentals to the lessor. If that is the overall picture, then the lease may well be characterised as a financial lease.
Is the lessee’s balance sheet immune from the bond payment liability?
A liability is what one is obligated to pay; a commitment to pay. The $ 27 billion liability for the bonds in the present case sits on the balance of the JV Company. However, the question is, ultimately, what is it that will ensure the repayment of these bonds? Quite clearly, the payment for the bonds is made to match with the underlying lease payments, with a target debt service coverage. In totality, it is the lease payments that discharge the bond obligation; there is nothing else with the JV company to retire or redeem the bonds. From this perspective as well, an off-balance-sheet treatment at the lessee or at the group level seems tough.
However, off-balance-sheet may not be the objective really. What matters is, does the structure insulate Meta group from the risks of the payments from the data center. From the available data, it appears that the project related risks, from delays in completion to non-renewal, are all taken by Meta. Therefore, even from the viewpoint of project-related risks, there do not seem to be sufficient reasons for any off-balance sheet treatment.
Disclaimer: The analysis in the write-up above is limited to the reading that could be done from write-ups/materials in public domain.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2025-11-18 14:35:482025-11-18 15:01:47Meta-morphed: A corporate bond that puts $27 billion off-the-balance-sheet
Since the introduction of High Value Debt Listed Entities (HVDLEs) as a category of debt-listed entities placed on a similar pedestal to equity-listed entities in terms of corporate governance norms, the regime has undergone several rounds of extensions and regulatory changes. After several extensions towards a mandatory applicability of corporate governance norms, a new Chapter V-A was introduced in LODR, vide amendments notified on 27th March 2025 (see a presentation here), amending, amongst others, the thresholds towards classification of an entity as HVDLE (increased from Rs. 500 crores to Rs. 1000 crores). The new chapter, however, was not updated for the changes brought for equity-listed entities vide the LODR 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2024 and required some refinement, particularly, in respect of provisions pertaining to related party transactions (see an article – Misplaced exemptions in the RPT framework for HVDLEs and the representation made to SEBI).
In order to address the gaps as well as providing some relaxations to HVDLEs, SEBI released a Consultation Paper on 27th October, 2025 (CP) primarily proposed an increase in the threshold for identification as HVDLEs and alignment of provisions of Chapter V-A with the corresponding provisions in Chapter IV subsequent to LODR 3rd Amendment Regs, 2024 facilitating ease of doing business, including measures related to RPTs. The proposals were approved by SEBI in its Board Meeting held on 17th December, 2025.
SEBI vide Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 (‘LODR Amendment 2026’), has notified the following amendments effective from January 22, 2026.
Threshold for identification of HVDLEs
Increased from extant Rs. 1000 crores to Rs. 5000 crores . Further, the sunset clause of 3 years as per Reg 15 (1AA) & Reg. 62C(2) will not be applicable to entities that cease to be HVDLE due to revised thresholds.
Based on the data of pure debt listed entities as on June 30, 2025, revision in threshold will reduce the number of HVDLE entities from 137 to 48 entities (apprx. 64% entities)
VKCO Comments: The increase in the threshold was necessitated on account of the huge compliance burden placed on HVDLEs coupled with the fact that such threshold is disproportionately low for NBFCs engaged in substantial fundraising through debt issuances. Further, the proviso to Reg. 15 (1AA) & Reg. 62C (2) expressly clarifies the position for entities ceasing to be an HVDLE as on January 22, 2026 with the revised threshold coming into effect, that it need not continue to comply with the CG requirements for a period of 3 years. Earlier there had been instances of entities that ceased to be HVDLEs due to outstanding value of listed debt securities as on March 31, 2025 receiving notices from SEs for non-compliance with CG norms despite such entities ceasing to meet the revised threshold.
Alignment of corporate governance norms for HVDLEs with that for equity-listed entities
Board composition, committees, filing of vacancy of director/ KMPs etc.
Insertion of proviso to clarify that prior approval of shareholders is required for directorship as NED beyond the age of 75 years at the time of appointment or re-appointment or any time prior to the NED attaining the age of 75 years to ensure alignment with similar amendment made for equity listed entities [Reg 62D(2)/ Reg 17(1A)]
Time taken to receive approval of regulatory, government or statutory authorities, if applicable, to be excluded from the 3 months’ timeline for shareholders’ approval for appointment of a person on the Board [Reg 62D(3)/ Reg 17(1C)]
Exemption from obtaining shareholders’ approval for nominee directors of financial sector regulators or those appointed by Court or Tribunal, since such nomination is for the purpose of oversight and upholding public interest, and by SEBI registered Debenture Trustee registered under a subscription agreement for debentures issued by HVDLEs [Reg 62D(3)/ Reg 17(1C)]
Any vacancy in the office of a director of an HVDLE resulting in non-compliance with the composition requirement for board committees i.e., AC, NRC, SRC and RMC to be filled within 3 months [Proviso to Reg 62D(5)/ Reg 17(1E)]
Any vacancy in the office of a director of an HVDLE on account of completion of tenure resulting in non-compliance with the composition requirement for board committees i.e.. AC, NRC, SRC and RMC to be filled by the date such office is vacated [Second proviso to Reg 62D(5)/ Reg 17(1E)]
Additional timeline of 3 months for filling vacancy in the office of KMP in case of entities having resolution plan approved, subject to having at least 1 full-time KMP [Reg 62P (3)/ Reg 26A (3)]
Secretarial Audit
Alignment of the provisions of Secretarial Audit and Secretarial Compliance Report with Reg 24A as applicable to equity listed entities, to strengthen the secretarial audit and to prevent conflict of interests, which mandates the following: [Reg 62M(1)/ Reg 24A]
An individual may be appointed for a term of 5 years and a firm may be appointed for a maximum of 2 terms of 5 years each subject to approval of shareholders in the annual general meeting. Thereafter a cooling-off period of 5 years will be applicable;
Requirements relating to eligibility (being a Peer Reviewed Company Secretary) and disqualifications, removal of secretarial auditors prescribed.
The Secretarial Compliance Report also to be submitted by a Peer Reviewed Company Secretary or Secretarial Auditor fulfilling the eligibility requirements indicated in Reg. 24A.
VKCO Comments: Further disqualifications for Secretarial Auditor and list of services that cannot be rendered by the Secretarial Audit was prescribed vide Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 of SEBI Circular dated December 31, 2024 and further clarified vide SEBI FAQs on Listing Regulations (FAQ no. 5) and list of services provided by ICSI.
The amendments made in Reg 24A in December, 2024 were required to be ensured by the equity listed companies with effect from April 1, 2025 for appointment, re-appointment or continuation of the Secretarial Auditor of the listed entity. Therefore, it was amply clear that the applicability is prospective and to be ensured while appointing Secretarial Auditor for FY 2025-26 onwards. Reg. 24A (IC) clarifies that any association of the individual or the firm as the Secretarial Auditor of the listed entity before March 31, 2025 is not required to be considered for the purpose of calculating the tenure.
Pursuant to LODR Amendment 2026, Reg. 62M (1) cross refers to the requirements under Reg 24A which in turn mandates compliance with effect from April 1, 2025. However, it may not be practically feasible for HVDLEs to ensure compliance towards the end of the financial year and a transition time may be required by such HVDLEs. In our view, the requirements should be applicable for Secretarial Auditor appointments with effect from April 1, 2026 which will be required to be done with shareholders’ approval at the AGM 2026 and not impact the existing tenure/ appointments already done by HVDLE.
Related Party Transactions
Alignment of RPT related provisions with Reg 23, instead of reproducing each of the amendments made in Reg 23 effective from December 13, 2024 and November 19, 2025 [Reg 62K (1)]
Turnover scale based materiality thresholds for RPTs and other amendments applicable to equity-listed entities are now applicable to HVDLEs (see an article on the approved amendments here)
NOC of debenture-holders through DT to be obtained in the manner prescribed by SEBI [Reg 62K (5)] (see our FAQs here)
Aligning the exemptions from RPT approval and clarification on ‘listed’ holding company, with amendments made in Reg. 23 (5) [Reg 62K (7)]
VKCO Comments: Pursuant to the above amendments, HVDLEs will be able to avail the benefits of recent amendments made in Reg 23 as detailed below:
Remuneration and sitting fees paid by the listed entity or its subsidiary to its director, key managerial personnel or senior management, except who is part of promoter or promoter group, shall not require audit committee approval or disclosure if it is not material.
Independent directors of the audit committee, can provide post-facto ratification to RPTs within 3 months from the date of the transaction or in the immediate next meeting of the audit committee, whichever is earlier, subject to certain conditions like transaction value does not exceed rupees one crore, is not material etc. The failure to seek ratification of the audit committee can render the transaction voidable at the option of the audit committee and if the transaction is with a related party to any director, or is authorised by any other director, the director(s) concerned shall indemnify the listed entity against any loss incurred by it. Audit committee can grant omnibus approval for RPTs to be entered by its subsidiary in addition to listed entity subject to the certain conditions.
Exemption for RPTs in the nature of payment of statutory dues, statutory fees or statutory charges entered into between an entity on one hand and the Central Government or any State Government or any combination thereof on the other hand or transactions entered into between a public sector company on one hand and the Central Government or any State Government or any combination thereof on the other hand.
Scale based threshold for determining material RPTs ranging from minimum of 10% of annual consolidated turnover to Rs. 5000 crore based on the consolidated turnover of the HVDLE.
Prior approval of the audit committee of the listed entity required for a subsidiary’s RPTs above Rs. 1 crore if it exceeds the lower of 10% of the annual standalone turnover of the subsidiary (or 10% of paid-up share capital and securities premium, if no audited financials of at least one year) or the listed entity’s material RPT threshold under Regulation 23(1) of LODR.
Omnibus shareholder approvals for RPTs granted at an AGM shall be valid up to the next AGM held within the timelines prescribed under Section 96 of the Companies Act, 2013 (currently maximum 15 months), while such approvals obtained in general meetings (other than AGMs) shall be valid for a maximum of one year
The most critical point that remains pending to be addressed is the nature of disclosures to be made before the audit committee and shareholders while approving RPTs – as to whether the existing disclosure requirements as per Chapter VIII of SEBI Master Circular dated July 11, 2025 will apply or the threshold based disclosure requirement as applicable to equity listed companies i.e. disclosure as per Annexure 13A of SEBI Circular dated October 13, 2025 for RPTs not exceeding 1% of annual consolidated turnover of the listed entity as per the last audited financial statements of the listed entity or ₹10 Crore, whichever is lower, and disclosure as per ISN on Minimum information to be provided to the Audit Committee and Shareholders for approval of Related Party Transactions for RPTs exceeding the aforesaid limit. Considering that HVDLEs will be proceeding with obtaining omnibus approval for RPTs proposed to be undertaken during FY 2025-26, in the absence of any clarification or amendment in the Master Circular, the HVDLEs will continue to follow the existing disclosure requirements.
Other amendments
Recommendations of board to be included along with the rationale in the explanatory statement to shareholders’ notice [Reg 62D(17)/ Reg 17(11)]
Exemption from shareholders’ approval requirements for sale, disposal or lease of assets between two WoS of the HVDLE [Reg 62L (6)/ Reg 24(6)]
Minor terminology changes from year to financial year, income to turnover etc.
Disclosure requirement of material RPTs in quarterly corporate governance report omitted. Format and timeline of period CG compliance report to be prescribed by SEBI [Reg 62Q(2)/ Reg 27(2)]
VKCO Comments: For equity-listed entities, reporting on compliance with corporate governance norms are a part of Integrated Filing – Governance, required to be filed within 30 days from end of each quarter. The move to provide flexibility to SEBI in prescribing timelines for corporate governance filings may be in order to extend the applicability of Integrated Filing requirements to HVDLEs as well.
Conclusion
While the present amendment strictens the compliance requirement for the HVDLEs with outstanding listed debt securities of Rs. 5000 crore or more, it also provides the ease of compliance as provided for certain matters to equity listed companies. The actionable for HVDLEs will be mainly amending the RPT policy to align with the amended requirements, evaluate the eligibility of the existing secretarial auditor in the light of amended requirements. The entities that cease to be HVDLEs can evaluate the need to retain the committees and policies, in the light of applicable laws.
