The Swap that does it all: RBI introduces total return swaps on corporate bonds

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Dayita Kanodia & Siddharth Pandey | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Budget 2026 proposed to introduce Total Return Swaps (TRS) for corporate bonds, purportedly as a measure for synthetic trading in corporate bonds. However, given the very slow pick up of credit default swaps, the much easier and globally prevalent version of credit derivatives, will the more esoteric TRS really make a difference? We explain what TRS is, how it differs from a CDS, give a sense of the global data on TRS as a part of OTC credit derivatives, and discuss how much the new measure will impact India’s bond market.

On February 6, RBI, in furtherance of the announcement in the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 6, 2026, issued the draft revised Master Direction – RBI (Credit Derivatives) Directions, 2022. (‘Draft CD Directions’). The Draft CD Directions permit TRS to be issued to eligible persons.

Background

India’s credit derivatives market has historically remained shallow, with hardly any transanctions involving credit default swaps. This has resulted in limited hedging options focused only on default risk and an absence of tools for transferring market and price risk.

This contrasts sharply with global trends. As of mid-2025, the notional outstanding volume of OTC derivatives exceeded USD 840 trillion, with credit derivatives, despite being smaller in absolute size than interest rate or FX derivatives, recording the fastest year-on-year growth at approximately 23%.

It may be noted that as of 1996, which is when credit derivatives had almost started emerging and gaining strength, TRS transactions were significant and took up almost 32% of the market share. However, the percentage of TRS dropped. Over time, CDSs overtook the position because CDSs are more definitive and limit the risks of the protection seller. In 2025, as per 118th edition of the OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities based on call report information provided by all insured U.S. commercial banks and others, the TRSs had become a smaller segment representing 4.9 per cent of the credit derivative market.

Meaning of TRS

In simple terms, a TRS swap transfers the entire volatility of returns of a reference asset from one party to another. TRS is a kind of derivative contract wherein the protection buyer agrees to transfer, periodically and throughout the term of the contract, the actual returns from a reference asset to the protection seller (“floating returns”), and the latter, in return, agrees to transfer returns calculated at a certain spread over a base rate (“fixed returns”) Total returns include the coupons, appreciation, and depreciation in the price of the reference bond. On the other hand, the protection seller will pay a certain base rate, say, risk free rate, plus a certain spread. The protection seller in the case of a TROR swap is also referred to as the total return receiver, and the protection buyer is similarly called the total return payer. The figure below illustrates the essential mechanics of a total return swap.

Impact of TRS
TRS swaps originate from synthetic equity structures, where economic returns of an asset are transferred without any actual investment in the underlying. The structure separates economic exposure from legal ownership. In a TROR swap, the economic impact is such that the total return receiver assumes the position of a synthetic lender to or investor  in the bonds  of the reference obligor, while the total return payer becomes a synthetic lender to the counterparty. Consider the illustration below:

  • Party PB invests in the unsecured bonds of entity X carrying a fixed coupon of 9.5 per cent. 
  • PB then enters into a TROR swap with PS, under which PB agrees to transfer the actual returns from the bonds of X and, in return, receive MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
  • Under the terms of the swap, PB periodically transfers the coupon income, plus any market price appreciation minus any market price r depreciation in the bonds, while PS periodically pays MIBOR plus 100 basis points. 
  • Although PB technically holds the bonds of X, in substance PB has neither exposure to X nor to the returns generated by X. Instead, PB is economically exposed to PS at MIBOR plus 100 basis points, which is equivalent to having invested in PS at that rate.
  • Conversely, PS, despite not holding the bonds of X, is economically exposed to the actual returns from X’s bonds (net of MIBOR plus 100 basis points). The effect of the TROR swap is therefore to synthetically create a fully refinanced investment in the bonds of X, giving a return equal to the actual returns in the bonds, and having a funding cost equal to MIBOR plus 100 basis points.

Thus, the true impact of a TROR swap is the synthetic replacement of exposures. Consequently, the advantages of a TRS can be:

  • Off-balance sheet exposure: TRS creates synthetic assets without recording loans or bonds on balance sheets improving leverage ratios and capital efficiency.
  • Regulatory Arbitrage: TRS has been used to bypass investment or lending restrictions, such as exposure norms, concentration limits, etc.
  • Provides very high leverage: In the above illustration, the synthetic investment made by the O in the bond is highly leveraged, assuming no margin has been put by the PS.
  • Alternative to a Repo: Assume PB holds a bond and is looking at having it funded. It sells the bond to Q and simultaneously enters into a TRS transaction, paying MIBOR + spread and receiving the actual returns of the bond. Hence, PB continues to have an economic stake in the bond whereas for accounting purposes, the bond may be removed from the balance sheet of PB.

TRS structures have been used globally across a wide range of asset classes, including equities, bonds, loans, real estate and property interests, credit-linked notes, and portfolios or indices of such assets. Hence, a TRS is a credit derivative only when the reference asset is a credit asset, otherwise it is a generic total return derivative. The Draft CD Direction framework deliberately confines TRS usage to specified debt instruments in order to prevent synthetic funding and balance-sheet arbitrage.

CDS Vs TRS

AspectsCDSTRS
Basic DefinitionA credit derivative contract where a protection seller commits to pay the buyer in the event of a credit event.A credit derivative contract where a payer transfers the entire economic performance of an asset to a receiver (protection seller).
Risk TransferredTransfers only the credit risk associated with a specific obligation. 
The protection seller is only concerned with the risk of default or increase in credit spreads of the asset. That is, the reference transaction only shifts the risk of credit spreads		Transfers the total volatility of returns, including credit risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. 
The receiver gains exposure to all gains and losses (coupons, appreciation, and depreciation).
Cash Flow MechanicsThe buyer makes periodic premium payments to the seller until maturity or a credit eventInvolves a periodic exchange of cash flow, the payer gives returns and appreciation; the receiver gives a benchmark rate + spread and depreciation.

No fixed premium; the premium  is inherent in the difference between actual returns and the agreed-upon spread
Synthetic ImpactUsed primarily for credit insurance or hedging against specific default.Used to synthetically replace the entire exposure of the parties, causing the receiver to assume the position of a synthetic lender to the reference obligation.

Types of TRS

Total Return Swaps can be categorized into several types based on their underlying assets and funding structures:

  • Index-Based TRS: Instead of a specific bond, the returns are linked to a diversified index (e.g., a broad-based index of 100 high-yield corporate bonds). The RBI specifically allows these if the index is composed of eligible debt instruments and published by an authorized administrator.
  • Equity Swaps: A type of TRS where the reference asset is one or more equity securities. Here, the total return payer pays the return from the equity or the portfolio, and in turn, receives a base rate spread.
  • Property Derivatives: The TRS methodology has been applied to swapping the returns of property investments also, allowing investors to synthetically invest in properties or property indices. 
  • Structured TRS:  Here, the reference assets would be a pool of loans or bonds. The transaction will make uses of the credit-linked notes.

See further details on TRS in the book on Credit Derivatives and Structured Credit Trading by Mr Vinod Kothari

Regulatory framework for TRS

The Draft CD Directions permit the use of TRS while adding multiple safeguards to ensure that TRS functions strictly as a credit risk transfer instrument and not as a means of synthetic funding, balance-sheet arbitrage, or regulatory circumvention. The regulatory framework governs four key aspects:

  • Eligible participants,
  • Permissible reference assets,
  • Permitted purposes for which these instruments may be used, and
  • Prudential safeguards.

Eligible participants for TRS

Para 4.1.2(iii) of the revised Directions stipulates that at least one counterparty to every credit derivative transaction must be a market-maker. For this purpose, market-makers are defined to include 

  • Scheduled Commercial Banks, 
  • Large NBFCs (including HFCs and SPDs) with a minimum net owned fund of ₹500 crore, and
  • Specified financial institutions such as NABARD, SIDBI, and EXIM Bank.

This requirement ensures that TRS transactions are intermediated by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.

In alignment with this overarching requirement, the Draft CD Directions prescribe the following specific eligibility conditions for TRS:

  • TRS may be offered only by market-makers, ensuring that such transactions are undertaken by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
  • Residents (other than individuals) may enter into TRS without any restriction on the purpose, allowing both hedging and non-hedging purposes.
  • Persons resident outside India may enter into TRS only for the purpose of hedging, and such TRS may be offered to them exclusively by market-makers.

Reference entities and reference assets for TRS

In addition to prescribing eligible participants, the Draft CD Directions impose strict controls on the nature of reference entities and assets that may be used for TRS transactions. These controls are intended to ensure transparency, prevent regulatory arbitrage, and avoid the creation of complex or opaque synthetic exposures.

Reference entity: 

A reference entity refers to the issuer whose credit risk and economic performance form the basis of the TRS contract. For TRS, the reference entity shall be a indian resident entity that is eligible to issue Reference assets under the Draft CD Directions.

By limiting reference entities to domestic issuers of eligible debt instruments, the framework ensures that TRS activity remains in the Indian corporate debt market, which was also the regulatory intent.

Reference assets: 

A reference asset refers to the underlying corporate bond or debt instrument issued by the reference entity or an index of underlying debt instruments specified in a total return swap contract. The Draft CD Directions specify the following as eligible reference assets for TRS:

  • Money market debt instruments;
  • Rated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures;
  • Unrated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures issued by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) set up by infrastructure companies; and
  • Bonds with call and/or put options.

At the same time, the Directions expressly prohibit TRS on certain instruments, including asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, credit-enhanced or guaranteed bonds, convertible bonds, and other hybrid or structured obligations. This exclusion reflects regulatory caution against layering derivatives on complex or credit-enhanced products that could obscure risk transfer.

Index-based reference assets

The Draft CD Directions also permit a TRS to reference an index, provided that:

  • The index comprises only eligible debt instruments as specified above; and
  • The index is published by a financial benchmark administrator duly authorised by the RBI under the Reserve Bank of India (Financial Benchmark Administrators) Directions, 2023

Although such index based reference asset has been introduced for CDS and TRS, no such index for debt securities exists currently. Accordingly, such an index must be developed. 

Preventing Regulatory circumvention:

Para 4.5.1(ii) of the Draft CD Directions expressly provides that market participants shall not undertake credit derivative transactions, including Total Return Swaps, involving reference entities, reference obligations, or reference assets where such transactions would result in exposures that the participant is not permitted to assume in the cash market, or where they would otherwise violate applicable regulatory restrictions. This provision prevents the use of TRS to bypass exposure limits, concentration norms, sectoral caps, or investment restrictions applicable to the participants.

Additional safeguards for TRS used for hedging

Where a TRS is entered into for the purpose of hedging, the market-maker is required to ensure that the user satisfies the following conditions:

  • The user has an existing exposure to the relevant reference asset
  • The notional amount of the TRS does not exceed the face value of the reference asset held by the user, and
  • The tenor of the TRS does not extend beyond:
    • The maturity of the reference asset held by the user, or
    • The standard TRS maturity date is immediately following the maturity of the reference asset.

These safeguards reinforce the principle that hedging-oriented TRS must remain strictly co-terminous and proportionate to the underlying exposure, thereby avoiding over-hedging or speculations. Further, the Draft CD Direction specify that the settlement rules and standard documentation will be specified by shall be specified by the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), in consultation with market participants. However, the market participants are allowed to, alternatively, use a standard master agreement for credit derivative contracts.

Will it impact the bond markets in India?

Will this new instrument have an impact on bond markets in India? The first instance of guidelines on credit derivatives was issued in 2011; this failed to have any impact at all. Then, after the report of the Working Group, new Credit Derivatives Directions were issued in 2022. These also, at least based on anecdotal market information, have not had any significant traction at all.

CDS is much more standardised than TRS; as we have noted above, TRS is only 4.9% of the global credit derivatives market. Will the Indian market, which has not yet picked up credit spread trading in the form of CDS, delve into a far more esoteric TRS trade? Was it based on any reasoned or surveyed market feedback that this regulatory change was inspired? These questions, a priori, are difficult to answer. However, like a new flavour of ice cream, you never know until you try it.

Other Resources:

  1. Draft Credit Derivatives directions: Will they start a market stuck for 8 years?
  2. Page on Credit Derivatives
  3. Book on Credit Derivatives and Structured Credit Trading

NFRA’s Call for a Two-Way Communication: A New Requirement or a Gentle Reminder?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by
Tagging auditors and TCWG to make amends 

– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

NFRA moved the needle, and it is to be seen if the ocean starts boiling.! A 7th Jan 2026 circular from NFRA, addressed to listed entities and their auditors, seemed like an attention-drawer to standards of auditing which are already there, and yet, the auditing fraternity is holding meetings with boards and senior management of listed entities, to comply with what was always a compliance requirement. Does the 7th Jan circular bring up any new boxes to be ticked, any new procedures to be laid or responsibilities to be reiterated? As we detail out in this article, there may be need for action on several fronts on the part of listed entities – identification of nodal persons, listing developments that need to be communicated, constituting team for responding to the findings of the auditors in course of their audit other than those that sit in the audit report, formation of sub-groups of TCWG, etc. 

Read more →

Buyback taxation rationalised with limited relief to promoter shareholders

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– Finance Bill 2026 omits deemed dividend treatment on buyback consideration 

– Payal Agarwal, Partner | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Our quick bytes on Union Budget 2026 can be accessed here – https://vinodkothari.com/2026/02/quick-bytes-on-union-budget-2026/

The recent Finance Bill 2026 brings relief to investors in the form of changes in taxation for buyback consideration. With the omission of sub-clause (f) from Section 2(40) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 [dealing with deemed dividend], the position as it existed prior to 1st October, 2024, has been restored, except for additional tax rates in case of promoter shareholders. 

  • Applicability of the amended provisions 
    • For any buyback of shares on or after 1st April, 2026 
  • Existing provisions on taxability of buyback 
    • Included u/s 2(40)(f) of IT Act 
    • The entire amount paid by the company taxable as “dividend” 
    • Tax payable by shareholders 
    • Entire buyback consideration taxable as dividend 
    • TDS provisions as applicable to dividends apply 
    • Taxable at slab rates as applicable to respective shareholders, with a flat surcharge @ 15%
    • Entire cost of acquisition in respect of shares bought back to be booked as “capital loss” [section 69 of IT Act]
    • Such capital loss may be set off against capital gains subsequently
      • As per section 111 of IT Act, the set-off is available for a period of 8 AYs immediately after the AY in which loss arises 
  • Amended provisions on taxability of buyback 
    • Buyback consideration not to be treated as deemed dividend [omission of clause (f) to Sec 2(40)]
    • Difference between consideration received and cost of acquisition taxable as capital gains [S. 69(1)]
      • In the hands of the recipient shareholder
    • In case of promoter shareholders, tax payable at higher rates depending on whether promoter is a domestic company or not
      • Effective rate of 22% in case of domestic company and 30% in case of persons other than domestic company 
  • Meaning of promoter 
    • In case of a listed company,
      • As per Reg 2(1)(k) of SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 2018
        • Refers to the definition of promoter under SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 
    • In any other case
      • As per Section 2(69) of the Companies Act, 2013, or 
      • A person who holds, directly or indirectly, more than 10% of the shareholding in the company
  • Example to understand taxability under old regime v/s new regime 
Particulars Price per shareNo. of shares Amount (Rs.)
Total cost of acquisition Rs. 50 1005,000
Shares tendered and accepted for buybackRs. 80403,200
Tax under old regime (effective 1st Oct, 2024)Rs. 80403,200 as dividend @ applicable tax slabs
Tax under new regime (effective 1st Apr, 2026)Rs. (80-50) = Rs. 30401,200 as capital gains @ short-term/ long-term capital gain rates 
  • Intent of the amendments 
    • The extant tax regime on treating buyback consideration as deemed dividend resulted in taxing a “receipt” as income, without factoring the cost incurred in such receipts. See our article on the same here. The amended tax regime restores back the past position, by treating the difference between the buyback consideration and cost of acquisition as capital gains. 
    • Additional tax rates have been proposed for promoters, in view of the distinct position
    • and influence of promoters in corporate decision-making, particularly in relation to buy-back transactions.

See our other resources on buyback – https://vinodkothari.com/2024/08/resource-centre-on-buyback/

Quick Bytes on Union Budget 2026

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , , , /by
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [430.99 KB]

Our Resources

  1. Buyback taxation rationalised with limited relief to promoter shareholders
  2. State of Climate Finance: Domestic Resources Insufficient to Bridge Funding Gaps 
  3. Microfinance and NBFC-MFIs in Economic Survey 2026
  4. Economic Survey 2026: Key Insights on Infrastructure Financing

A Guide for AIF Managers on Investor Eligibility and Regulatory Restrictions

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Simrat Singh, Senior Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

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

  1. ₹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)];
  2. ₹1 crore for other investors [Reg 10(c)];
  3. ₹25 lakh for employees or directors of the AIF, manager, or sponsor [Reg 10(c)];
  4. No minimum for units issued to employees solely for profit-sharing (and not capital contribution) [Para 4.6 of AIF Master Circular];
  5. 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).

  1. Foreign investors: A foreign investor must:
    1. 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
    2. 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:

  1. May be listed on the UN Security Council Sanctions List; or
  2. may be a resident of a country identified by the FATF as having serious AML/CFT deficiencies or insufficient progress in addressing such deficiencies.

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.

  1. Joint Investments: Joint investments, for the purpose of investment of not less than the minimum investment amount in the AIF, are permitted only between:
    1. an investor and spouse;
    2. an investor and parent; or
    3. 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)

  1. 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].
  2. 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).

Insurance Companies

  1. Permissible AIF Categories [Para 1.5 of Investments – Master Circular, 2022 read with IRDAI Circular No. IRDAI/F&I/CIR/INV/074/04/2021 dated 05.04.2021]: 
    1. Category I AIFs: Infrastructure Funds, SME Funds, Venture Capital Funds, and Social Venture Funds (‘Specified Cat I AIFs’);
    2. 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’).
    3. 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

  1. Prohibited Structures: Insurers shall not invest in AIFs that:
    1. offer variable rights attached to units.
    2. invest funds outside India either directly or indirectly [s. 27E of Insurance Act, 1938];
    3. are sponsored by persons forming part of the insurer’s promoter group;
    4. are managed a manager who is controlled, directly or indirectly, by the insurer or its promoters;
  2. Investment Limits: 
    1. For life insurers, combined exposure to AIFs and venture capital funds is capped at 3% of the relevant insurance fund2.
    2. 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:

  1. Bank level: Not more than 10% of the AIF corpus.
  2. Group level: Up to 20% without RBI approval, and up to 30% with prior RBI approval, subject to capital adequacy and profitability conditions.
  3. 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.

  1. beneficial owner as determined in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 9 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 ↩︎
  2. 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. ↩︎
  3. 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. ↩︎

See our other resources on AIFs:

  1. CIV-ilizing Co-Investments: SEBI’s new framework for Co-investments under AIF Regulations
  2. Understanding the Governance & Compliance Framework for AIFs
  3. FAQs on specific due diligence of investors & investments of AIFs;
  4. RBI bars lenders’ investments in AIFs investing in their borrowers;
  5. Capital subject to ‘caps’: RBI relaxes norms for investment by REs in AIFs, subject to threshold limits;
  6. Can CICs invest in AIFs? A Regulatory Paradox;
  7. Trust, but verify: AIFs cannot be used as regulatory arbitrage;
  8. 2020 – Year of change for AIFs;
  9. AIF ail SEBI: Cannot be used for regulatory breach;

SEBI removes redundancy to ease compliance

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

SEBI removes redundancy to ease complianceDownload

See our other resources:

  1. SEBI Clears the Way : HVDLEs Set to Move from “High Value” to “Higher Value” 
  2. SEBI fixes the cut-off date for re-lodgement of physical transfers

Securities Market Code: Consolidation, principled regulation-making, and decriminalisation

/1 Comment/in , , /by

– Payal Agarwal, Partner | Vinod Kothari & Company | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

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

Introduction of new terms

  • 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
  • Securities market service provider – Intermediary + Market Infrastructure Intermediary (stock exchange, depository & clearing corporation) + SRO.
    • 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]

Strengthening India’s Corporate Bond Market: A Look at NITI Aayog’s Recommendations

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Simrat Singh | finserv@vinodkothari.com

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.

See our other resources on bonds

  1. Bond Credit Enhancement Framework: Competitive, rational, reasonable
  2. Demystifying Structured Debt Securities: Beyond Plain Vanilla Bonds
  3. Bond market needs a friend, not parent
  4. SEBI Securitisation Regulations: Track Record, Risk retention and Investment size among several new requirements
  5. Mandatory listing for further bond issues
  6. NHB’s PCE Scheme for HFCs
  7. Corporate Bonds and Debentures
  1. 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. ↩︎
  2. May refer to our book Listing Regulations on Securitised Debt Instruments and Security Receipts ↩︎
  3. DVP is a settlement mechanism in which the transfer of securities and funds occurs simultaneously, eliminating counterparty and settlement risk
    ↩︎
  4.  May refer to our resource ‘Bond issuers set to become Market Maker to enhance liquidity’ ↩︎
  5. May refer to our resource ‘Mandatory bond issuance by Large Corporates: FAQs on revised framework’ ↩︎
  6. May refer to our resources ‘Sustainability or ESG Bonds’ and ‘From Rooftops to Ratings: India’s Green Securitisation Debut’ ↩︎
  7. May refer to our resource ESG Debt Securities: Framework for Issuance and Listing in India ↩︎
  8. May refer to our resource “Downstreamed through intermediaries: Deemed public issue concerns for privately placed debt” ↩︎

Banking group NBFCs:  Need to map businesses to avoid overlaps with the parent banks

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

– Vinod Kothari | finserv@vinodkothari.com

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:

  1. Loans against properties
  2. Housing finance
  3. Loans against shares
  4. Trade finance
  5. Personal loans
  6. Digital lending
  7. Small business loans
  8. Gold loans
  9. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Technology strength: Some of the products are based on fintech or similar technology strength, which may be sitting with respective entities.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Other resources:

Banks’ exposure to AIFs: Group-wide limits introduced

/0 Comments/in , /by

– Simrat Singh | Finserv@vinodkothari.com

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.

  1. See Section 619 of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010 ↩︎
  2.  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. ↩︎
  3. Equity instruments means equity shares, compulsorily convertible preference shares (CCPS) and compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs) ↩︎

See our other relevant resources:

  1. Bank group NBFCs fall in Upper Layer without RBI identification
  2. Group-level regulation: RBI brings major regulatory restrictions on banks and group entities
  3. RBI norms on intra-group exposures amended
  4. New NBFC Regulations: A ready reckoner guide