RBI eases norms on loans and advances to directors and its related entities

Payal Agarwal, Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company ( payal@vinodkothari.com )

RBI has recently, vide its notification dated 23rd July, 2021 (hereinafter called the “Amendment Notification”), revised the regulatory restrictions on loans and advances given by banks to directors of other banks and the related entities. The Amendment Notification has brought changes under the Master Circular – Loans and Advances – Statutory and Other Restrictions (hereinafter called “Master Circular”). The Amendment Notification provides for increased limits in the loans and advances permissible to be given by banks to certain parties, thereby allowing the banks to take more prudent decisions in lending.

Statutory restrictions

Section 20 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the “BR Act”) puts complete prohibition on banks from entering into any commitment for granting of loan to or on behalf of any of its directors and specified other parties in which the director is interested. The Master Circular is in furtherance of the same and specifies restrictions and prohibitions as below –


*since the same does not fall within the meaning of loans and advances for this Master Circular

Loans and advances without prior approval of Board

The Master Circular further specifies some persons/ entities that can be given loans and advances upto a specified limit without the approval of Board, subject to disclosures in the Board’s Report of the bank.  The Amendment Notification has enhanced the limits for some classes of persons specified.

Serial No. Category of person Existing limits specified under Master Circular Enhanced limits under Amendment Notification
1 Directors of other banks Upto Rs. 25 lacs Upto Rs.  5 crores for personal loans

(Please note that the enhancement is only in respect of personal loans and not otherwise)

2 Firm in which directors of other banks interested as partner/ guarantor Upto Rs. 25 lacs No change
3 Companies in which directors of other banks hold substantial interest/ is a director/ guarantor Upto Rs. 25 lacs No change
4 Relative(other than spouse) and minor/ dependent children of Chairman/ MD or other directors Upto Rs. 25 lacs Upto Rs. 5 crores
5 Relative(other than spouse) and minor/ dependent children of Chairman/ MD or other directors of other banks Upto Rs. 25 lacs Upto Rs. 5 crores
6 Firm in which such relatives (as specified in 4 or 5 above) are partners/ guarantors Upto Rs. 25 lacs Upto Rs. 5 crores
7 Companies in which relatives (as specified in 4 or 5 above) are interested as director or guarantor or holds substantial interest if he/she is a major shareholder Upto Rs. 25 lacs Upto Rs. 5 crores

Need for such changes

The Master Circular was released on 1st July, 2015, which is more than 5 years from now. Considering the inflation over time, the limits have become kind of vague and ambiguous and required to be revisited. Moreover, the population all over the world is facing hard times due to the Covid-19 outbreak. At this point of time, such relaxation can be looked upon as the need of the hour.

Impact of the phrase ‘Substantial interest’ vs ‘Major shareholder’

The Master Circular uses the term “substantial interest” to generally regulate in the context of lending to companies in which a director is substantially interested.

The relevant places where the term has been used are as below –

Completely prohibited Allowed with conditions
Section 20(1) of the BR Act – for companies in which directors are substantially interested Para of Master Circular – for companies in which directors of other banks are substantially interested – upto  a limit of Rs. 25 lacs without prior approval of Board


Para of Master Circular – for companies in which directors are substantially interested Para of Master Circular – for the companies in which the relatives of directors of any bank are substantially interestedupto Rs. 25 lacs without prior approval of Board After amendment, the para stands modified as – for the companies in which the relatives of directors of any bank are major shareholdersupto Rs. 5 crores without prior approval of Board

While the Amendment Notification itself provides for the meaning of “major shareholder”, the meaning of “substantial interest” for the purposes of the Master Circular has to be taken from Section 5(ne) of the BR Act which reads as follows –

  • in relation to a company, means the holding of a beneficial interest by an individual or his spouse or minor child, whether singly or taken together, in the shares thereof, the amount paid up on which exceeds five lakhs of rupees or ten percent of the paid-up capital of the company, whichever is less;
  • in relation to a firm, means the beneficial interest held therein by an individual or his spouse or minor child, whether singly or taken together, which represents more than ten per cent of the total capital subscribed by all the partners of the said firm;

The above definition provides for a maximum limit of shareholding as Rs. 5 lacs, exceeding which a company falls into the list of a company in which director is substantially interested. The net effect is that a lot of companies fall into the radar of this provision and therefore, ineligible to take loans or advances from banks.

However, the Amendment Notification provides an explanation to the meaning of “major shareholder” as –

“The term “major shareholder” shall mean a person holding 10% or more of the paid-up share capital or five crore rupees in paid-up shares, whichever is less.”

This eases the strict limits because of which several companies may fall outside the periphery of the aforesaid restriction. Having observed the meaning of both the terms it is clear that while ‘substantial interest’ lays down strict limits and therefore, covers several companies under the prohibition list, the term ‘major shareholder’ eases the limit and makes several companies eligible to receive loans and advances from the bank subject to requisite approvals thereby setting a more realistic criteria.

The BR Act was enacted about half a century ago when the amount of Rs. 5 lacs would have been substantial, but not at the present length of time. Keeping this in mind, while RBI has substituted the requirement of “substantial interest” to “major shareholder” in one of the clauses, the other clauses and the principal Act are still required to comply with the “substantial interest” criteria, thereby, keeping a lot of companies into the ambit of restricted/ prohibited class of companies in the matter of loans and advances from banks.

Other petty amendments

Deeming interest of relative –

The Amendment Notification has the effect of inserting a new proviso to the extant Master Circular which specifies as below –

“Provided that a relative of a director shall also be deemed to be interested in a company, being the subsidiary or holding company, if he/she is a major shareholder or is in control of the respective holding or subsidiary company.”

This has the effect of including both holding and subsidiary company as well within the meaning of company by providing that a major shareholder of holding company is deemed to be interested in subsidiary company and vice versa.

Explanations to new terms –

The Amendment Notification allows the banks to lend upto Rs. 5 crores to directors of other banks provided the same is taken as personal loans. The meaning of “personal loans” has to be taken from the RBI circular on harmonisation of banking statistics which provides the meaning of personal loans as below –

Personal loans refers to loans given to individuals and consist of (a) consumer credit, (b) education loan, (c) loans given for creation/ enhancement of immovable assets (e.g., housing, etc.), and (d) loans given for investment in financial assets (shares, debentures, etc.).

Other terms used in the Amendment Notification such as “major shareholder” and “control” has also been defined. The meaning of “major shareholder” has already been discussed in the earlier part of this article. The meaning of “control” has been aligned with that under the Companies Act, 2013.

Concluding remarks

Overall, the Amendment Circular is a welcoming move by the financial market regulator. However, as pointed out in this article, several monetary limits under the BR Act have become completely incohesive and therefore, needs revision in the light of the current situation.


A Regulatory Affair: Fair Value Discovery in Preferential Share Issues

Payal Agarwal, Vinod Kothari and Company ( payal@vinodkothari.com )

The recent cases of intervention by the stock market regulator and stock exchanges in preferential allotment of listed companies have brought to fore an important but fundamental point. That is,  with a price band fixed under the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 (‘ICDR Regulations’), and considering the liquidity in listed (and frequently traded) shares, whether there is a need for an independent valuation report, has become a question of great interest. Since the issue is currently under litigation will want to say that it will be interesting to see the evolution of jurisprudence on this important issue. While the issue is of relevance to minority shareholders, but it also touches a key issue in valuation as to whether there is a fair value beyond the quoted value of a company whose shares are not infrequently traded.

Further, there might be scenario, where a preferential allotment triggers an open offer under SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2011 (“SAST Regulations”).  The SAST Regulations provides formula for determining offer price, which establish a clear nexus between the price of shares offered under preferential allotment and price of shares under open offer as per SAST Regulations. Given that the pricing of open offer is influenced by the pricing under preferential allotment, should the price under the ICDR Regulations be accepted or fair valuation of shares should be sought in order to ensure fair compensation to shareholders?

At this stage of discussion, it becomes important to look into the relevant provisions and the meaning of “fair value” and understand how fair it is to have a preferential allotment without ascertainment of such fair value by an independent valuer.


Regulatory provisions with respect to preferential allotment

Preferential allotment in listed companies are governed by the following provisions –

  • Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2013 [“Companies Act”], read with Rule 14 of Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014
  • Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act. read with Rule 13 of Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014
  • Chapter V of ICDR (Regulation 164)

Preferential offers under section 62(1)(c) can be made to any person, if so authorised by a special resolution passed in general meeting if the price of such shares is determined by way of a valuation report of a registered valuer. However, if one goes through allied Rule 13 of SCD Rules, it becomes clear that the companies whose shares are listed on a stock exchange are not required to obtain a valuation report from a registered valuer. The said rules clearly bring out a distinction between preferential offers made by a listed company versus those made by unlisted companies. Sub-rule (2) specifically states that for companies whose shares are listed on a recognised stock exchange, the requirements under the relevant SEBI regulations (ICDR Regulations) will apply, while the unlisted companies will be governed by the provisions of the Companies Act; and sub-rule (3) states that the price under the preferential allotment shall not be less than the price determined on the basis of valuation report of registered valuer. Hence, it becomes clear that in case of a listed company, as per section 62 and rule 13, there is no requirement of a valuation report, per se. Instead, the legislature has left it to be regulated by SEBI regulations. Therefore, one will have to look for what ICDR says.

Reg. 164 of ICDR lays the floor limit of the price, which is to be calculated as the higher of average of weekly high and low of volume weighted average price of related equity shares quoted on a recognised stock exchange for –

  1. 26 weeks preceding the relevant date
  2. 2 weeks preceding the relevant date

The Regulation does not call for an independent valuation report. This must be read in contradistinction to regulation 165, which deals with pricing of infrequently traded shares. Reg. 165 rather specifically requires an independent valuation.

Requirement of independent valuation under regulatory provisions


The above clearly demonstrates that the regulations have consciously exempted listed entities from seeking an independent valuation where listed shares are frequently traded. The regulations, in fact, draw a timeframe to extract weighted averages of the market prices to ensure that the fluctuations in prices, if any, are ironed out and the resultant price is the even price at which the market has transacted during that period. This, admittedly and reasonably too, is based on the assumption that ‘market’ is the best reflection of a fair price which a willing seller and a willing investor are ready to deal in. This view can also be substantiated with similar stipulations in other laws and valuation standards.

Meaning of fair valuation under various applicable laws

Meaning of fair value under applicable accounting standards –


Ind AS 113 deals with the fair valuation of equity shares.  This Ind AS defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, and thus considers fair value to be “a market based measurement and not an entity specific measurement.”

Clause 18 of the Ind AS 113 provides, “If there is a principal market for the asset or liability, the fair value measurement shall represent the price in that market.”

Meaning of fair value under the Income Tax Rules

Rule 11UA (1)(c) of the Income Tax Rules provides for the fair value of shares listed in a stock exchange.

It renders the transaction value of such shares to be the fair value in case the transaction has been done through stock exchange. Otherwise, the fair market value of such shares are taken to be –

“(a)the lowest price of such shares and securities quoted on any recognized stock exchange on the valuation date, and

(b)the lowest price of such shares and securities on any recognized stock exchange on a date immediately preceding the valuation date when such shares and securities were traded on such stock exchange, in cases where on the valuation date there is no trading in such shares and securities on any recognized stock exchange”

Meaning of fair value under the Valuation Standards

Rule 18 of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017 requires the registered valuer to follow such valuation standards as prescribed by the Central Government. For valuation with effect from 01st July, 2018, all registered valuers are mandatorily required to apply the ICAI Valuation Standards in their valuation assignments for the purposes of the Companies Act, 2013.

The definition of ‘fair value’ under ICAI Valuation Standard (101) is the same as that in IndAS 113, that is, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the valuation date. IVS 101 further states that fair value assumes that the price is negotiated in a free market. The ICAI Valuation Standards recognises three approaches for valuation, being – market approach,  income approach, and cost approach.

Where the assets to be valued are traded in active market, the market approach is followed for valuation purposes.

Paragraphs 18-20 gives guidance over the valuation as follows –

“18. A valuer shall consider the traded price observed over a reasonable period while valuing assets which are traded in the active market.

  1. A valuer shall also consider the market where the trading volume of asset is the highest when such asset is traded in more than one active market.
  2. A valuer shall use average price of the asset over a reasonable period. The valuer should consider using weighted average or volume weighted average to reduce the impact of volatility or any one time event in the asset.”

The stipulations as above clearly reflect that for quoted shares, fair valuation is based on quoted prices only. Given that IVS too refers to ‘traded prices’, a registered valuer would rely on such traded prices to arrive at a fair value. It may be reiterated that ICDR uses a ‘range’ of time so as to spread out the fluctuations in prices, which has been similarly captured in the IVS.

One may argue that the price of a company’s shares can be tampered with, by the company as per its whims and wishes. However, for a listed company, whose every information is readily available on public domain, does such an argument hold good? In view of the strict regulatory surveillance constantly placed by SEBI and stock exchanges on listed companies, this does not seem to be a possible scenario.

Valuation in respect of infrequently traded shares

The aforesaid logic and arguments may not hold good in case of shares that are infrequently traded or are unlisted. As indicated above, the applicable rules/regulations and standards prescribe a different methodology to arrive at fair values of such shares. For instance, regulation 165 of ICDR requires the minimum price in case of infrequently traded shares to be determined on the basis of valuation as per applicable parameters. Also, the SAST Regulations requires the offer price in case of infrequently traded shares to be determined by way of valuation taking into account various valuation parameters such as comparable trading multiples, book value and such others.

To reiterate, such distinction made out between frequently traded and infrequently traded shares clearly buttresses the views here.


The chances of a listed company acquiring a fair deal without falling into the formalities of fair valuation does not seem to be a scarce event. Listed companies are well governed under the provisions of ICDR Regulations as regards pricing of shares under preferential allotment. To ensure shareholder protection, ICDR already prescribes a minimum threshold based on average quoted prices. The prices depend on the market price of related equity shares quoted and traded on stock exchanges. Further, fair value of equity shares depend on market value of such shares and there does not seem to be chances of much disparity among the price under ICDR versus that as determined by way of fair valuation.


Global securitization enroute to pre-Covid heights

– Abhirup Ghosh (abhirup@vinodkothari.com)

The pandemic disrupted life economies across the globe, and so did it to securitization transactions. However, increase in vaccinations across the globe has had a positive impact on the most of the structured finance markets world-wide, but potential new variants continue to be a threat.

This write-up reviews the performance of securitization across the major jurisdictions.

Read more

Covered Bonds in India: creating a desi version of a European dish

Abhirup Ghosh | abhirup@vinodkothari.com

It is not uncommon to have Indianised version of global dishes when introduced in India, and we are very good in creating fusion food. We have a paneer pizza, and we have a Chinese bhel. As covered bonds, the European financial instrument with over 250 years of history were introduced in India, its look and taste may be quite different from how it is in European market, but that is how we introduce things in India.

It is also interesting to note that regulatory attempts to introduce covered bonds in India did not quite succeed – the National Housing Bank constituted Working Group on Securitisation and Covered Bonds in the Indian Housing Finance Sector, suggested some structures that could work in the Indian market[1]  and thereafter, the SEBI COBOSAC also had a separate agenda item on covered bonds. Several multilateral bodies have also put their reports on covered bonds[2].

However, the market did not wait for regulators’ intervention, and in the peak of the liquidity crisis of the NBFCs, covered bonds got uncovered – first slowly, and now, there seems to be a blizzard of covered bond issuances. Of course, there is no legislative bankruptcy remoteness for these covered bonds.

There are two types of covered bonds, first, the legislative covered bonds, and second, the contractual covered bonds. While the former enjoys a legislative support that makes the instrument bankruptcy remote, the latter achieves bankruptcy remoteness through contractual features.

To give a brief understanding of the instrument, a standard covered bond issuance would reflect the following:

  1. On balance sheet – In case of covered bonds, both the cover pool and the liability towards the investor remains on the balance sheet of the issuer. The investor has a recourse on the issuer. However, the cover pool remains ring fenced, and is protected even if the issuer faces bankruptcy.
  2. Dual recourse – The investor shall have two recourses – first, on the issuer, and second, on the cover pool.
  3. Dynamic or static pool – The cover pool may be dynamic or static, depending on the structure.
  4. Prepayment risk – Since, the primary exposure is on the issuer, any prepayment risk is absorbed by the issuer.
  5. Rating arbitrage – Covered bonds ratings are usually higher than the rating of the issuer. Internationally, covered bonds enjoy upto a maximum of 6-notch better rating than the rating of the issuer.

Therefore, covered bond is a half-way house, and lies mid-way between a secured corporate bond and the securitized paper. The table below gives comparison of the three instruments:

  Covered bonds Securitization Corporate Bonds
Purpose Essentially, to raise liquidity Liquidity, off balance sheet, risk management,

Monetization of excess profits, etc.

To raise liquidity
Risk transfer The borrower continues to absorb default risk as well as prepayment risk of the pool The originator does not absorb default risk above the credit support agreed; prepayment risk is usually transferred entirely to investors. The borrower continues to absorb default risk as well as prepayment risk of the pool
Legal structure A direct and unconditional obligation of the issuer, backed by creation of security interest. Assets may or may not be parked with a distinct entity; bankruptcy remoteness is achieved either due to specific law or by common law principles True sale of assets to a distinct entity; bankruptcy remoteness is achieved by isolation of assets A direct and unconditional obligation of the issuer, backed by creation of security interest. No bankruptcy remoteness is achieved.
Type of pool of assets Mostly dynamic. Borrower is allowed to manage the pool as long as the required “covers” are ensured. From a common pool of cover assets, there may be multiple issuances. Mostly static. Except in case of master trusts, the investors make investment in an identifiable pool of assets. Generally, from a single pool of assets, there is only issuance. Dynamic.
Maturity matching From out of a dynamic pool, securities may be issued over a period of time Typically, securities are matched with the cashflows from the pool. When the static pool is paid off, the securities are redeemed. From out of a dynamic pool, securities may be issued over a period of time.
Payment of interest and principal to investors Interest and principal are paid from the general cashflows of the issuer Interest and principal are paid from the asset pool Interest and principal are paid from the general cashflows of the issuer.
Prepayment risk In view of the managed nature of the pool, prepayment of loans does not affect investors Prepayment of underlying loans is passed on to investors; hence investors take prepayment risk Prepayment risk of the pool does not affect the investors, as the same is absorbed by the issuer.
Nature of credit enhancement The cover, that is, excess of the cover assets over the outstanding funding. Different forms of credit enhancement are used, such as excess spread, subordination, over-collateralization, etc. No credit enhancement. Usually, the cover is 100% of the pool principal and interest payable.
Classes of securities Usually, a single class of bonds are issued Most transactions come up with different classes of securities, with different risk and returns Single class of bonds are issued.
Independence of the ratings from the rating of the issuer Theoretically, the securities are those of the issuer, but in view of bankruptcy-proofing and the value of “cover assets”, usually AAA ratings are given AAA ratings are given usually to senior-most classes, based on adequacy of credit enhancement from the lower classes. There is no question of independent rating.
Off balance sheet treatment Not off the balance sheet Usually off the balance sheet Not applicable.
Capital relief Under standardized approaches, will be treated as on-balance sheet retail portfolio, appropriately risk weighted. Calls for regulatory capital Calls for regulatory capital only upto the retained risks of the seller Not applicable


This article would briefly talk about the issuance of Covered bonds world-wide and in India, and what are the distinctive features of the issuances in India.

Global volume of Covered Bonds

Since most volumes for covered bonds came from Europe, there has been a decline due to supply side issues. This is evident from the latest data on Euro-Denominated Covered bonds Volume. The performance in FY 2020 and FY 2021 has been subdued mainly due to COVID-19. Though, the volumes suffered significantly in the Q3 and Q4 of FY 20, but returned to moderate levels by the beginning of FY 2021.

The figure below shows Euro-Denominated Covered bond Issuances until Q2 2021.

Source: Dealogic[3]

Countries like Denmark, Germany, Sweden continues to be dominant markets for covered bond issuances. The countries in the Asia-Pacific region like Japan, Singapore, and Australia continues to report moderate level of activities. In North America, Canada represents all the whole of the issuance, with no issuances in the USA.

The tables below would show the trend of issuances in different jurisdictions in 2019 (latest available data):

Source: ECBC Factbook 2020[4]

Covered Bonds in India

In India, the struggle to introduce covered bonds started way back in 2012, when the National Housing Bank formed a working group[5] to promote RMBS and covered bonds in the Indian housing finance market. Though the outcome of the working group resulted in some securitisation activity, however, nothing was seen on covered bonds.[6]

Some leading financial institutions attempted to issue covered bonds in the Indian market, but they failed. Lastly, FY 2019 witnessed the first instance of covered bonds, which was backed by vehicle loans.

In India, issuance of covered bonds witnessed a sharp growth in FY 2021, as the numbers increased to INR 22 Bn, as against INR 4 Bn in FY 2020. Even though the volume of issuances grew, the number of issuers failed to touch the two-digit mark. The issuances in FY 2021 came from 9 issuers, whereas, the issuances in FY 2020 were from only 2 issuers. Interestingly, all were non-banking financial companies, which is a stark contrast to the situation outside India.

The figure below shows the growth trajectory of covered bonds in India:

Source: ICRA, VKC Analysis

The growth in the FY 2021 was catapulted by the improved acceptance in Indian market in the second half of the year, given the uncertainty on the collections due to the pandemic, and the additional recourse on the issuer that the instrument offers, when compared to a traditional securitisation transaction.

Almost 75% of the issuances were done by issuers have ‘A’ rating, the following could be the reasons for such:

  1. Enhanced credit rating – In the scale of credit ratings, ‘A’ stands just above the investment grade rating of ‘BBB’. Therefore, it signifies adequate degree of safety. With an earmarked cover pool, with certain degree of credit enhancements and, covered bonds issued by these entities fetched a much better credit rating, going up to AA or even AAA.
  2. AUM – FY 2021 was a year of low level of originations due to the pandemic. As a result, most of the financial sector entities stayed away from sell downs, which is evident from the low of level of activity in the securitisation market, as they did not want their AUM to drop significantly. In covered bonds, the cover pool stays on the books, hence, allowing the issuer to maintain the AUM.
  3. Better coupon rate – Improved credit ratings mean better rates. It was noticed that the covered bonds were issued 50 bps – 125 bps cheaper than normal secured bonds.

The Indian covered bonds market is however, significantly different from other jurisdictions. Traditionally, covered bonds are meant to be long term papers, however, in India, these are short to medium term papers. Traditionally covered bonds are backed by residential mortgage loans, however, in India the receivables mostly non-mortgages, gold loans and vehicle loans being the most popular asset classes.

In terms of investors too, the Indian market has shown differences. Globally, long term investors like pension funds and insurance companies are the most popular investor classes, however, in India, so far only Family Wealth Offices and High Net-worth Individuals have invested in covered bonds so far.

Another distinct feature of the Indian market is that a significant share of issuances carry market linked features, that is, the coupon rate varies with the market conditions and the issuers’ ability to meet the security cover requirements.

But the most important to note here is that unlike any other jurisdiction, covered bonds don’t have a legislative support in India. In Europe, the hotspot for covered bonds, most of the countries have legislations declaring covered bonds as a bankruptcy-remote instruments. In India, however, the bankruptcy-remoteness is achieved through product engineering by doing a legal sale of the cover pool to a separate trust, yet retaining the economic control in the hands of the issuer until happening of some pre-decided trigger events, and not with the help of any legislative support. In some cases, the legal sale is done upfront too.

Considering the importance and market acceptability of the instrument, rating agencies in India have laid down detailed rating methodologies for covered bonds[7].


Covered Bonds issued in India will not match most of the features of a traditional covered bond issued in Europe, however, the fact that finally the investors community in India has started recognizing it as an investment opportunity is very encouraging.

The real economics of covered bonds will come to the fore only when the market grows with different classes of investors, like the mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies etc. in the demand side, which seems a bit far-fetched for now.



[1] A working group was constituted by the National Housing Bank to promote RMBS and Covered Bonds, the report of the working group can be viewed here: https://www.nhb.org.in/Whats_new/NHB%20Covered%20Bond%20Report.pdf

[2] In 2014-15, the Asian Development Bank appointed Vinod Kothari Consultants to conduct a Study on Covered Bonds and Alternate Financing Instruments for the Indian Housing Finance Segment

[3] https://www.icmagroup.org/resources/market-data/Market-Data-Dealogic/#14

[4] https://hypo.org/app/uploads/sites/3/2020/10/ECBC-Fact-Book-2020.pdf

[5] A working group was constituted by the National Housing Bank to promote RMBS and Covered Bonds, the report of the working group can be viewed here: https://www.nhb.org.in/Whats_new/NHB%20Covered%20Bond%20Report.pdf

[6] Vinod Kothari Consultants has been a strong advocate for a legal recognition of Covered Bonds in India. They were involved in the initiatives taken by the NHB to recognize Covered Bonds as a bankruptcy remote instrument in India.

[7] The rating methodology adopted by ICRA Ratings can be viewed here: https://www.icra.in/Rating/ShowMethodologyReport/?id=709

The rating methodology adopted by CRISIL can be viewed here: https://www.crisil.com/mnt/winshare/Ratings/SectorMethodology/MethodologyDocs/criteria/crisils%20criteria%20for%20rating%20covered%20bonds.pdf

Our Video on Covered Bonds can be viewed here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyoPcuzbys4>

Some resources on Covered Bonds can be accessed here –

Introduction to Covered Bonds by Vinod Kothari: http://vinodkothari.com/2015/01/introduction-to-covered-bonds-by-vinod-kothari/

The Name is Bond. Covered Bond. By Vinod Kothari: http://www.vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/covered-bonds-article-by-vinod-kothari.pdf

NHB’s Working Paper on Covered Bonds: https://www.nhb.org.in/Whats_new/NHB%20Covered%20Bond%20Report.pdf



Complete Guide to Sale and Leaseback Transactions

A guide to concepts, taxation, and accounting aspects of sale and leaseback transactions.


– Qasim Saif (finserv@vinodkothari.com)



Sale and Leaseback transaction. 2

Advantages to the Lessee. 2

Unlocking value, the hidden value of asset 2

Tax Benefits. 2

Legal issues in SLB: 3

Taxation of SLB transactions. 3

Direct Tax Aspect 3

Goods & Service Tax. 5

The Sale. 5

The Lease. 5

Place of supply. 6

Disposal of Capital Asset 6

Example of GST Calculations on Sale and Leasebacks. 6

Sale of Asset 7

Leasing of asset 7

Accounting of Sale and leasebacks. 7

Criteria for Sale. 8

Transfer of asset does not qualify as sale. 10

Transfer of asset qualifies as sale. 10

Sale at Fair Value. 10

Sale at a discount or premium.. 10

Example of Sale and Leaseback Accounting under Ind AS 109. 11

Calculations. 11

Rental Schedule. 11

Accounting Entries at Inception. 12


Sale and Leaseback transaction

A Sale and Leaseback (SLB) is a special case of application of leasing technique. Lease is a preferred mode of using the asset without having to own it. In case of leases, the lessee does not own the asset but acquires the right to use the asset for a specified period of time and pays for the usage.

SLB is a simple financial transaction which allows selling an asset and then taking it back on lease. The transaction thus allows a seller to be able to use the asset and not own it, at the same time releasing the capital blocked by the asset.

SLB allows the lessee to detach itself with legal ownership yet continuing to use the asset as well. In effect there is no movement of asset however on paper there is a change in the title of the asset.

Sale and Leaseback transactions are globally common in the Real estate investment trusts (REITs) and Aviation industry.

Advantages to the Lessee

Unlocking value, the hidden value of asset

As is evident from the mechanics of SLB above, SLB results in taking the asset off the books of the lessee and results in upfront cash which could be used for paying off existing liabilities. Hence this does not impact the existing lines of credit the lessee may be availing.

SLB can help entities raise finance for an amount equal to fair market value of the asset which may be significantly higher than its book value. Though there might be taxation challenges attached to it in Indian context. Nevertheless, SLB may bring about a financial advantage as well wherein a high-cost debt can be substituted with a low-cost lease liability.

Most of the assets considered for SLB have been used by the lessee for a substantial period of time and the value of the physical assets may be insignificant. Hence SLB is sometimes referred to as junk financing.

Tax Benefits

SLB may sometimes lead to tax benefits as well (we shall see this in detail in the sections below). This has been one of the major drivers of SLB transactions in India and has its own downsides as well. One of the major pitfalls to SLB is the danger of excess leveraging; the lessee may tend to overvalue the asset. Considering that SLB is a mode of asset-backed lending but the asset has may not have much value and the lessee may exercise discretion on the application of funds poses threat of misuse of the product.

Legal issues in SLB:

The legal validity of SLB was discussed by the U.S Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of Frank Lyon and Company[1]. In Frank Lyon’s case the bank took the building on SLB. Under the lease terms the bank was liable to pay rentals periodically and had the option to purchase the building at various times at a consideration based on its outstanding balance. The bank took possession of the building in the year it was completed and the lessor claimed deductions on depreciation, interest on construction loan, expenses related to sale and lease back and accrued the rent from the bank.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue denied the claims of the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was not the owner of the building and the sale and leaseback was a mere financing transaction. The Hon’ble Court held that –

Where, as here, there is a genuine multiple-party transaction with economic substance that is compelled or encouraged by business or regulatory realities, that is imbued with tax-independent considerations, and that is not shaped solely by tax-avoidance features to which meaningless labels are attached, the Government should honor the allocation of rights and duties effectuated by the parties; so long as the lessor retains significant and genuine attributes of the traditional lessor status, the form of the transaction adopted by the parties governs for tax purposes.

The fundamental principle is that the Court should be concerned with the real substance of the transaction rather than the form of the same. If there are reasons to believe that the form of the transaction and its real substance are not aligned, the Court must not be simply concerned by the form of the transaction nor by the nomenclature that the parties have given to it.

In India too, the legality of SLB transactions have been questioned in several cases; sometimes the transactions have come out clean while in some cases, SLBs were considered an accounting gimmick.

The legality of SLB transactions and analysis of various judicial pronouncements on the same, have been discussed in detail in our write up “Understanding Sale and leaseback

Taxation of SLB transactions

Tax aspects specifically direct tax acts as a major motivation behind such transactions, SLB provides a creative playground for finance professionals to structure transactions in a manner that can lead to substantial benefit to the entity, and taxation acts as a major tool at their disposal.

Direct Tax Aspect

Though tax benefits have been a motivator for SLB transaction, the same has also been the reason for near wipe-out of SLB from Indian markets.

During the 1996-98 period one of the most infamous cases was the sale and leaseback of electric meters by state electricity boards (SEBs). For SEBs it made perfect sense as it amounted to cheap borrowing by the cash starved SEBs who had practically no other source of borrowing.

For leasing companies and others looking for a tax break, it was a perfect deal as there was 100% write off in case of assets costing Rs 5000 or less. Thus, an electric meter will qualify for 100% deduction. Several SEBs had undertaken such transactions in those days. Obvious enough the sole motive was tax deduction no one would care about the value, quality, existence etc of the meters. In some cases, the asset was bought on 30th March to be used only for a day, assets revalued heavily at the time of sale to leasing companies etc. Lease of non-existing assets such as electric meters, computers, glass bottles, tools, etc, lure of depreciation allowances caused the tax authorities to come down hard on sale and leaseback transactions calling them tax evading transactions. The whole fiasco of such sham transactions resulted in leasing going off the market completely. The burns of the past continue to linger even after a decade and half since SLB transactions were completely written off.

The most significant consideration in lease transactions is the depreciation claim. For tax purposes, depreciation is calculated on the block of the assets and not on the written down value of each asset separately.

Section 2(11) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) defines block of assets to mean

“”block of assets” means a group of assets falling within a class of assets comprising—

(a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture;

(b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, in respect of which the same percentage of depreciation is prescribed.”

The sale proceeds of the assets sold are deducted from the written down value of the block. In case of SLB transaction, assets are sold at higher than written down value, and the gain made on such a sale results in reduction in depreciable value of the block of assets. The reduction in depreciation will be allowed over a number of years. Similar would be the case in case the asset was sold at less than written down value, sale consideration would be reduced from the block of the assets.

Once the asset is sold and taken off the books of the lessee, the lessee is able to account for an immediate accounting profit without having to pay tax on it instantly. As under the block concept of depreciation, when the lessee sells the capital assets, the sale proceeds including the profits on sale are allowed to be deducted from the block of assets and hence there is no immediate tax on the accounting profits.

Also, typically the asset is recorded on historical costs which may be lower than the intrinsic value of the asset. SLB sometimes allows the entities to unlock the appreciation in value. However, it is not always necessary that the asset would have appreciated value. In some cases, the asset may have become junk completely.

To avoid the same revenue has introduced following provisions in the IT act, in order to restrict undue benefits being passed by use of sham SLB transactions:

Section 43 (1) provides for treatment of sale and lease back transactions for tax purposes, the relevant extracts are reproduced below –

“Explanation 3.—Where, before the date of acquisition by the assessee, the assets were at any time used by any other person for the purposes of his business or profession and the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the main purpose of the transfer of such assets, directly or indirectly to the assessee, was the reduction of a liability to income-tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost), the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner, determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.”

“Explanation 4A.—Where before the date of acquisition by the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the first mentioned person), the assets were at any time used by any other person (hereinafter referred to as the second mentioned person) for the purposes of his business or profession and depreciation allowance has been claimed in respect of such assets in the case of the second mentioned person and such person acquires on lease, hire or otherwise assets from the first mentioned person, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Explanation 3, the actual cost of the transferred assets, in the case of first mentioned person, shall be the same as the written down value of the said assets at the time of transfer thereof by the second mentioned person.

Explanation 3 and 4A of Section 43 (1) restricts the consideration at which the lessor purchases the assets to written down value of the asset as appearing in the books of the lessee before it was sold and taken back on lease. The explanation explicitly states that the sale value for such sale and lease back transactions will be ignored and depreciation will be allowed on the first seller’s depreciated value. Take, for instance, A purchased machinery for Rs. 10 crores from B, though the WDV in the books of B is Rs. 2 crores. A can claim depreciation on Rs. 2 crores and not on Rs. 10 crores.

The said provisions removes any motivation for the lessor to carryout transactions at inflated values. Hence preventing junk financing to enter into SLB transactions.

Goods & Service Tax

Pre-GST indirect taxation regime acted as a major road block in the development of leasing industry as a whole, the legal differentiation as well as non-availability of credit among central and state taxes made leasing transactions costly.

Introduction of GST is playing a key role in development of leasing industry, from a stage where it had nearly become extinct. We have further discussed GST implications on leasing.

The Sale

The first leg of the transaction would involve sale of Assets by lessee to lessor.

In terms of section 7(1)(a) “all forms of supply of goods or services or both such as sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration by a person in the course or furtherance of business;”

The taxability under GST arises on the event of supply accordingly the sale of capital assets for a consideration would fall under the ambit of supply and accordingly GST shall be levied.

The Lease

The second part of transaction would lease back that is when the asset is leased back from buyer -lessor to seller lessee. The leaseback would be subject to GST like any other lease transaction.

The term lease has not been defined anywhere in GST Act or Rules. To classify a lease transaction as either supply of goods or supply of service, we have to refer Schedule II of the CGST Act, 2017 where in clear guidelines for classification of a transaction as either “supply of goods” or “supply of services” has been enumerated, based on certain parameters: –

  • Any transfer of the title in goods is a supply of goods;
  • Any transfer of right in goods or of undivided share in goods without the transfer of title thereof, is a supply of services;
  • Any transfer of title in goods under an agreement which stipulates that property in goods shall pass at a future date upon payment of full consideration as agreed, is a supply of goods.
  • Any lease, tenancy, easement, licence to occupy land is a supply of services;
  • Any lease or letting out of the building including a commercial, industrial or residential complex for business or commerce, either wholly or partly, is a supply of services.

Place of supply

Undoubtedly, the SLBs do not involve movement of goods, the seller lessee continuous to be in possession of leased asset even after the sale. Hence, In the case of such sale, there is no physical movement of the asset from the premises of the lessee to the premises of the lessor. The ownership gets transferred in the premise of the lessee.

In terms of Section 10(1)(c) of the IGST Act, the place of supply of goods where the supply does not involve movement of the said goods whether by the supplier or the recipient shall be the location of such goods at the time of delivery to the recipient. Accordingly, the place of supply in this case will be same as the location of the supplier. Accordingly, the sale of the asset will be considered as an intra-state supply as per Section 8 of the IGST Act and will be subjected to CGST + SGST.

Disposal of Capital Asset

Applications of GST on disposal of capital assets is one of the major deterring factors of in SLBs. Section 18(6) of the CGST Act,2017 state that:

In case of supply of capital goods or plant and machinery, on which input tax credit has been taken, the registered person shall pay an amount equal to the input tax credit taken on the said capital goods or plant and machinery reduced by such percentage points as may be prescribed or the tax on the transaction value of such capital goods or plant and machinery determined under section 15, whichever is higher:”

Entry no. (6) Of Rule 44 of CGST Rules, 2017: Manner of Reversal of ITC under Special Circumstances which reads as under: –

“The amount of input tax credit for the purposes of sub-section (6) of section 18 relating to capital goods shall be determined in the same manner as specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) and the amount shall be determined separately for input tax credit of central tax, State tax, Union territory tax and integrated tax:”         

“……………..Clause (b) of sub rule 1 of same rules states that :

(b) for capital goods held in stock, the input tax credit involved in the remaining useful life in months shall be computed on pro-rata basis, taking the useful life as five years………….”

Generally, the lessor procures the capital Assets at WDV due to Income tax Act implication. In that case WDV as per Income tax act would be the transaction value.

Example of GST Calculations on Sale and Leasebacks

Let’s consider a numerical example: an Entity A enters into SLB arrangement with an Entity B. A sells its machinery to B for Rs. 5,00,000/- as on 31st May 2021. The entity had purchased the asset for Rs. 6,00,000/- as on 31st March 2019.

B then leases back the asset to A for a yearly rental of Rs, 1,00,000/- for 3 years term with a purchase option at the end of 4th year at Rs. 2,50,000. (Assumed to be exercised)

(GST @ 18%)

Sale of Asset
Disposal of assets

On disposal asset, GST will be charged on the selling price of the asset. However, the amount to be deposited to the government with respect to this sale transaction shall be higher of the following:

  1. GST on the sale consideration;
  2. ITC reversed on transfer of capital asset or plant and machinery based on the prescribed formula

Portion of ITC availed on the asset, attributable to the period during which the transferor used the asset:

6,00,000 * 18% * (5% * 8) = 43200

Remaining ITC = (6,00,000 * 18%) – 43200 = 64800

GST on the selling price = 500000 * 18% = 90000

Therefore, GST to be paid to the government is 90000, that is higher of the two amounts discussed above.

Leasing of asset

As mentioned above GST shall be chargeable to lease rental, at the rate similar to that charged on acquisition of leased asset. Accordingly, Entity B shall charge GST on rentals for an amount of Rs. 18,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- * 18%).

Further GST shall also be charged on sale of asset at the end of lease tenure for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-(2,50,000*18%).

Accounting of Sale and leasebacks

IAS 17 covered the accounting for a sale and leaseback transaction in considerable detail but only from the perspective of the seller-lessee.

As Ind AS 116/IFRS 16 has withdrawn the concepts of operating leases and finance leases from lessee accounting, the accounting requirement that the seller-lessee must apply to a sale and leaseback is more straight forward.

The graphic below shows how SLB transactions should be accounted for:

Criteria for Sale

IFRS 16/Ind AS 116 state that

“ An entity shall apply the requirements for determining when a performance obligation is satisfied in Ind AS 115 to determine whether the transfer of an asset is accounted for as a sale of that asset.”

Accordingly, when a seller-lessee has undertaken a sale and lease back transaction with a buyer-lessor, both the seller-lessee and the buyer-lessor must first determine whether the transfer qualifies as a sale. This determination is based on the requirements for satisfying a performance obligation in IFRS 15/Ind AS 115 – “Revenue from Contracts with Customers”.

The accounting treatment will vary depending on whether or not the transfer qualifies as a sale.

The para 38 of Ind AS 115/IFRS 15- Performance obligations satisfied at a point in time, provides ample guidance on determining whether the performance obligation is satisfied.

The para states that:

“If a performance obligation is not satisfied over time in accordance with paragraphs 35– 37, an entity satisfies the performance obligation at a point in time. To determine the point in time at which a customer obtains control of a promised asset and the entity satisfies a performance obligation, the entity shall consider the requirements for control in paragraphs 31–34. In addition, an entity shall consider indicators of the transfer of control, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The entity has a present right to payment for the asset—if a customer is presently obliged to pay for an asset, then that may indicate that the customer has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset in exchange.

(b) The customer has legal title to the asset—legal title may indicate which party to a contract has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, an asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those benefits. Therefore, the transfer of legal title of an asset may indicate that the customer has obtained control of the asset. If an entity retains legal title solely as protection against the customer’s failure to pay, those rights of the entity would not preclude the customer from obtaining control of an asset.

(c) The entity has transferred physical possession of the asset—the customer’s physical possession of an asset may indicate that the customer has the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset or to restrict the access of other entities to those benefits. However, physical possession may not coincide with control of an asset. For example, in some repurchase agreements and in some consignment arrangements, a customer or consignee may have physical possession of an asset that the entity controls. Conversely, in some bill-and-hold arrangements, the entity may have physical possession of an asset that the customer controls. Paragraphs B64–B76, B77–B78 and B79–B82 provide guidance on accounting for repurchase agreements, consignment arrangements and bill-and-hold arrangements, respectively.

(d) The customer has the significant risks and rewards of ownership of the asset—the transfer of the significant risks and rewards of ownership of an asset to the customer may indicate that the customer has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset. However, when evaluating the risks and rewards of ownership of a promised asset, an entity shall exclude any risks that give rise to a separate performance obligation in addition to the performance obligation to transfer the asset. For example, an entity may have transferred control of an asset to a customer but not yet satisfied an additional performance obligation to provide maintenance services related to the transferred asset.

(e) The customer has accepted the asset—the customer’s acceptance of an asset may indicate that it has obtained the ability to direct the use of, and obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from, the asset. To evaluate the effect of a contractual customer acceptance clause on when control of an asset is transferred, an entity shall consider the guidance in paragraphs B83–B86.”

It shall be noted that no single criteria can be taken as a determining factor for concluding that sale has taken place. Each criterion should be individually assessed every case. Needless to say, substance of the transaction should be adjudge based on principles set.

The criteria set out in the para 38 specified above can be summarised as follows:

  • There is a present right to payment has been established.
  • The legal tittle of the asset is transferred. It shall be noted that this shall not conclusively determine sale, rather a to be considered in consonance with another criterion.
  • Physical possession of the asset has been transferred. Now this is a matter of discussion, as under SLB, the possession never leaves the seller. However, in our view even in case of symbolic transfer of possession the criterion can be said to be satisfied subject to the condition that buyer-lessor has an ability to direct the use of asset. Hence, an entity should ensure that the buyer-lessor is not bound by sale agreement or otherwise to leaseback the asset.
  • Significant risk and reward attached to ownership are transferred to the buyer
  • The buyer has accepted the asset

Transfer of asset does not qualify as sale

If the transfer does not qualify as a sale the parties account for it as a financing transaction. This means that:

  • The seller-lessee continues to recognise the asset on its balance sheet as there is no sale. The seller-lessee accounts for proceeds from the sale and leaseback as a financial liability in accordance with Ind AS 109/IFRS 9. This arrangement is similar to a loan secured over the underlying asset – in other words a financing transaction
  • The buyer-lessor has not purchased the underlying asset and therefore does not recognise the transferred asset on its balance sheet. Instead, the buyer-lessor accounts for the amounts paid to the seller-lessee as a financial asset in accordance with Ind AS 109/IFRS 9. From the perspective of the buyer-lessor also, this arrangement is a financing transaction.

Transfer of asset qualifies as sale

Where the transfer qualifies as sale, there can be further two situations:

  1. Sale at Fair value
  2. Sale at discount or premium.
Sale at Fair Value

If the transfer qualifies as a sale and is on fair value basis the seller-lessee effectively splits the previous carrying amount of the underlying asset into:

  • a right-of-use asset arising from the leaseback, and
  • the rights in the underlying asset retained by the buyer-lessor at the end of the leaseback.

The seller-lessee recognises a portion of the total gain or loss on the sale. The amount recognised is calculated by splitting the total gain or loss into:

  • an unrecognised amount relating to the rights retained by the seller-lessee, and
  • a recognised amount relating to the buyer-lessor’s rights in the underlying asset at the end of the leaseback.

The leaseback itself is then accounted for under the lessee accounting model.

The buyer-lessor accounts for the purchase in accordance with the applicable standards (eg IAS 16 ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ if the asset is property, plant or equipment or IAS 40 ‘Investment Property’ if the property is investment property). The lease is then accounted for as either a finance lease or an operating lease using IFRS 16’s lessor accounting requirements.

Sale at a discount or premium

The accounting methodology shall remain the same, However, Adjustments would be required to provide for the discounted or premium price.

These adjustments would be as follows:

  1. a prepayment would be recorded in order to provide for adjustment in regard to sale at a discount
  2. Any amount paid in excess of fair value would be recorded as an additional financing facility and accounted for under Ind AS 109.

Example of Sale and Leaseback Accounting under Ind AS 109

A sample spreadsheet calculations for the below example can be accessed here



Particular Amount Remarks
Sale considerations ₹ 10,00,000.00
Carrying Amount ₹ 5,00,000.00
Term 15 year
Rentals/year ₹ 80,000.00 year
Fair Value of Building ₹ 9,00,000.00
Incremental borrowing rate 10%
PV of rentals ₹ 6,08,486.36
Additional Financing ₹ 1,00,000.00 Sale Consideration
– Fair Value
Payments towards Lease Rentals ₹ 5,08,486.36 PV of Rentals
– Additional Financing
Ratio of PV of rentals and
Payment towards lease Rentals
Yearly payments towards Add. Financing ₹ 13,147.38 Rental X Ratio
Yearly payments towards Lease Rental ₹ 66,852.62 Rental – Payment toward Add. Fin.
ROU of Asset ₹ 2,82,492.42 Carrying Amount X
[Payments towards Lease Rentals/Fair Value of Building]
Total Gain on sale ₹ 4,00,000.00 Fair Value – Carrying Amount
Gain recognised Upfront ₹ 1,74,006.06 Total Gain X [(Fair Value of Building-Payments towards Lease Rentals)
/Fair Value of Building]


Rental Schedule


₹ 5,08,486.36 ₹ 1,00,000.00
Year Lease Rentals Additional Financing
1  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
2  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
3  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
4  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
5  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
6  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
7  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
8  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
9  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
10  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
11  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
12  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
13  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
14  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38
15  ₹ 66,852.62  ₹ 13,147.38


Accounting Entries at Inception


Building  ₹            9,00,000.00
Financial Asset  ₹            1,00,000.00
       Bank  ₹         10,00,000.00
*Lease accounted as per Finance or operating lease accounting
Bank  ₹          10,00,000.00
ROU  ₹            2,82,492.42
          Building  ₹            5,00,000.00
          Financial Liability  ₹            6,08,486.36
         Gains on Asset Transfer  ₹            1,74,006.06


[1] 435 U.S. 561 (1978)

Dividend restrictions on NBFCs

– Financial Services Division (finserv@vinodkothari.com)


The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide a notification dated 24th June, 2021[1] imposed restrictions on distribution of dividends by non-banking financial companies (‘Notification’). The restrictions cover both systemically important NBFCs as well non-systemically important ones. The guidelines have been issued in line with the draft guidelines for the declaration of dividends by NBFC issued in December 2020.

Restrictions on dividend payout essentially force financial sector entities to plough back a minimal part of their profits, and therefore, result in creation of a profit conservation. Such restrictions are common in case of financial institutions world-over, and are also imbibed as a part of Basel III capital adequacy requirements. Similar restrictions exist in case of banking entities[2]. In case of NBFCs, such restrictions were proposed by the RBI vide Draft Circular on Declaration of Dividend by NBFCs dated December 9, 2020[3].

Dividend Payout Ratio (DP Ratio) is an important policy measure for companies for shareholder wealth maximisation. A conservative dividend distribution policy ensures churning of profits thereby ensuring organic growth of the net worth, and assisted by leverage, a return on shareholders’ funds higher than what the shareholders can fetch on distributed money. On the other hand, aggressive dividend distribution policy entails that profits be returned to the shareholders as there are less business investment opportunities, thus wealth of shareholders be returned. The foregoing arguments does not encompass stictict dividend payout criteria, but a broad policy objective which organisations seek to achieve.

However, in the case of financial institutions like Banks and NBFCs  the motivation of regulators to limit the dividend payout is from the perspective of prudential regulation. The limit on dividend distribution allows regulators to ensure that adequate capital conservation buffers are maintained at all times by the financial institutions.

Most NBFCs follow very conservative dividend policies, and based on publicly available data, the DP Ratios of some of the NBFCs for FY 2019-20 are as follows:

  1. Manappuram- 18.86%
  2. Cholamandalam- 12.78%
  3. Bajaj Finserv- 11.93%
  4. Muthoot Finance- 19.91%
  5. Tata Capital Financial Services- 32.96%
  6. DCM Shriram- 17.19%


Who all are covered?

The opening statement of the Notification provides that the Notification is applicable on all NBFCs regulated by RBI. Further, reference is made to the term ‘Applicable NBFCs’  as defined under the respective RBI Master Directions on NBFC-ND-SI and NBFC-ND-NSI. The concept of Applicable NBFC is relevant to determine the applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid RBI Master Directions. Accordingly, it can be understood that, along with the ‘Applicable NBFCs’, the following categories of NBFCs shall be covered under the ambit of the Notification-

  1. Housing Finance Companies (HFCs),
  2. Core Investment Companies (CICs),
  3. Government NBFCs,
  4. Mortgage Guarantee Companies,
  5. Standalone Primary Dealers (SPDs),
  6. NBFC-Peer to Peer Lending Platform (NBFC-P2P)
  7. NBFC- Account Aggregator (NBFC-AA).
  8. NBFC-D (deposit taking NBFCs)
  9. NBFCs-ND (non-deposit taking NBFCs) (both SI and NSI)
  10. NBFC-Factor (both SI and NSI)
  11. NBFC-MFI (both SI and NSI)
  12. NBFC-IFC (both SI and NSI)
  13. IDF-NBFC

However, it is to be noted that For NBFCs that do not accept public funds and do not have any customer interface no limit has been imposed with regards to the dividend payout ratio.

Effective from which financial year?

Effective for declaration of dividend from the profits of the financial year ending March 31, 2022 and onwards.

Which all dividends are covered?

Proposed dividend shall include both dividend on equity shares and compulsorily convertible preference shares. However, other than CCPS, dividends declared on preference shares are not included under the Notification.

Note that the issue of bonus shares is, in essence, capitalisation of profits, and therefore, is not affected by the present requirement.

Computation of dividend payout ratio:

Besides the upfront conditionalities such as capital adequacy ratio, leverage ratio, etc., the stance of the present Notification is limitation on dividend payout ratio. Hence, the meaning of the DP ratio becomes important.

The Notification defines the same as :

‘the ratio between the amount of the dividend payable in a year and the net profit as per the audited financial statements for the financial year for which the dividend is proposed.’

As we discussed elsewhere, the word “dividend” shall be restricted to only equity and CCPS dividend. Hence, dividend on redeemable preference shares shall be excluded.

Also note that the word “profit for the year” refers to profits after tax. There is no question of adding the brought forward profits of earlier years, whether parked in reserves or retained as surplus in the profit and loss account.

In case of companies adopting IndAS, there are always questions on what constitutes distributable profits – whether the gains or losses on fair valuation, taken to P/L are a part of the distributable profits or not. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act, viz., proviso to sec. 123 (1) shall have to be borne in mind.

Eligibility Requirement and Quantum Restrictions

Category Eligibility Requirement Quantum*
NBFCs (including SDPs) meeting prudential requirements ●  Complies with applicable regulatory capital adequacy requirements/leverage restrictions/Adjusted net-worth for each of the last three financial years including the financial year for which the dividend is proposed

○ For SPDs, minimum CRAR of 20% to be maintained for the financial year for which dividend is proposed.

● Net NPA ratio shall be less than 6% in each of the last three years, including as at the close of the financial year for which dividend is proposed to be declared.

○ Calculation of NNPA

● Complies with the provisions of Section 45 IC of the RBI Act/ Section 29 C of the NHB Act, as the case may be, that is to say, has transferred 20% of its net profits to the regulatory reserve fund

● No explicit restrictions placed by the regulator on declaration of dividend

●  Type I NBFCs- No limit

●  CICs and SPDs- 60%

●  Other NBFCs- 50%

NBFCs (other than SPDs) not meeting prudential requirements ● Complies with the applicable capital adequacy requirements/ leverage restrictions in the financial year for which dividend is proposed to be paid

● Has net NPA of less than 4% as at the close of the financial year.




As regards NBFC-ND-NSI, the applicable regulatory capital requirement, as mentioned in Annex I[4] of the Notification,  seems to suggest that if there is a breach of leverage ratio at any time since 2015, the NBFC is disqualified. This however, does not seem to be the intent of the regulator. The meaning of the aforesaid restriction should be that the provision became applicable from 2015; however, it should not be leading to a conclusion that a dividend distribution will ensure that there is no breach of leverage ratio at any time in the history of the said NBFC. We are of the view that each of the ratios (CRAR or Leverage of Adjusted Net worth, as the case may be) need to be observed ideally at the time of distribution (last three FYs including the year for which dividend is declared), and even conservatively, during the year in question.

*The Notification has prescribed the same limits on quantum for a certain class of NBFCs, however, the draft guidelines had prescribed the limits based on the CRAR or adjusted net-worth of the NBFCs. (Refer Annex I of draft guidelines)

Reporting Requirements

NBFC-D, NBFC-ND-SIs, HFCs & CICs declaring dividend shall report details of dividend declared during the financial year as per the prescribed format within a fortnight after declaration of dividend to the Regional Office of the RBI/Department of Supervision of NHB, as the case may be.

There seems to be a lack of clarity w.r.t. the disclosure requirement for NBFC-MFIs and NBFC-IDFs. Though they are covered under the definition of ‘Applicable NBFCs’ under the RBI Master Directions, however, they are not generally classified as NBFC-ND-SI. Hence, whether the disclosure requirement is applicable to them or not seems to create confusion. In our view, going by prudence, this must be adhered to by such systemically important MFI and IDFs as well.

Accordingly, it can be inferred that the disclosure requirements shall not be applicable to following:

  • Mortgage Guarantee Companies,
  • Standalone Primary Dealers (SPDs),
  • NBFC-Peer to Peer Lending Platform (NBFC-P2P)
  • NBFC- Account Aggregator (NBFC-AA).

Comparison with the dividend regulations on Banks

Criteria Bank NBFCs
Eligibility Only those banks would be eligible to declare dividends who have a CRAR of at least 9% for preceding two completed financial years and the accounting year for which it proposes to declare dividend and Net NPA less than 7% NBFC-ND-NSI with leverage upto 7 times and NBFC-ND-SI with a CRAR of not less than 15% for last three years (including the FY for which dividend is declared) and Net NPA less than 6% in each of the last three years
In case not meeting eligibility In case any bank does not meet the above CRAR norm, but has a CRAR of at least 9% for the accounting year for which it proposes to declare dividend, it would be eligible to declare dividend provided its Net NPA ratio is less than 5% In case any NBFC does not meet the above eligibility criteria for each of the previous three FY, but meets the capital adequacy for the accounting year, for which it proposes to declare dividend and has a Net NPA ratio of less than 4% at the close of the FY, it shall be allowed to declare dividend, subject to a maximum of 10% on the DP ratio.
Quantum Dividend payout ratio shall not exceed 40 % and shall be as per the prescribed matrix


CIC’s and SPDs shall ensure the maximum dividend payout ratio does not exceed 60%, while the other NBFCs shall not exceed 50% of the DP ratio. For Type I NBFCs there is no limit.
Reporting All banks declaring dividends should report details of dividend declared during the accounting year as per the proforma furnished by RBI NBFC-Ds, NBFC-ND-SIs, HFCs & CICs declaring dividend should report the details of dividend within a fortnight after declaration of dividend to RBI/NHB, as may be applicable.

Immediate Actionables

NBFCs, who already have a Dividend Distribution Policy in place, may have to amend the policy in line with the Notification. As per SEBI LODR Regulations, top 1000 listed companies are mandatorily required to have a dividend distribution policy.  Further, NBFCs may also have voluntarily adopted a policy.

The dividend distribution policy includes the following parameters:

  • the circumstances under which the shareholders may or may not expect dividend;
  • the financial parameters that shall be considered while declaring dividend;
  • internal and external factors that shall be considered for declaration of dividend;
  • policy as to how the retained earnings shall be utilized; and
  • parameters that shall be adopted with regard to various classes of shares

The eligibility requirements and limits on quantum of dividend, as provided in the Notification,  may be additional criterias for such NBFCs to declare dividend. In such a case, the existing dividend distribution policy shall be required to be amended in order to include the additional parameters.

It is noteworthy here that, as per regulation 43A of the LODR, if a listed entity proposes to amend its dividend distribution policy, it shall disclose the changes along with the rationale for the same in its annual report and on its website.

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12118&Mode=0

[2] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=2240&fn=2&Mode=0 and other associated circulars

[3] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=50777

[4] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/NBFCS24062021_A1.pdf


Our related write-ups:


Leveling the playing field for all Microfinance Lenders

RBI proposes uniform regulatory framework for the Microfinance Sectorfinserv@vinodkothari.com )

The microfinance sector, in India, has proved to be fundamental for promoting financial inclusion by extending credit to low-income groups that are traditionally not catered to by lending institutions. The essential features of microfinance loans are that they are of small amounts, with short tenures, extended without collateral and the frequency of loan repayments is greater than that for traditional commercial loans. These loans are generally taken for income-generating activities, although they are also provided for consumption, housing and other purposes. There exist various market players in the microfinance industry viz. scheduled commercial banks, small finance banks, co-operative banks, various NBFCs extending microfinance loans and NBFCs-MFIs.

The microfinance industry has reached 6 crores of live borrowers base the end of the calendar year of 2020. Book size of the microfinance industry as on 31st December is 228,818 crore[1]. The sector grew by 16% from December 2019 to December 2020 (based on outstanding loan portfolio size) and has witnessed phenomenal growth over the last two decades.

Source- SIDBI Microfinance Pulse Report, April 2021

Source- SIDBI Microfinance Pulse Report, April 2021

While banks are leading by contributing 42% towards total portfolio outstanding and 39% towards active loans, NBFC-MFIs are the second highest contributors in the microfinance sector. When compared to the total portfolio size of all microfinance lenders, NBFC-MFIs only contribute to a little over 30% of the total size. However, the framework regulating microfinance has been made applicable solely to NBFC-MFIs (‘NBFC-MFI Regulations’ as provided under the respective Master Directions) while the other lenders that hold a lion’s share of the sector are not subjected to similar regulatory conditions/ restrictions. These include cap on multiple lending, ceiling on maximum lending amount, various customer protection measures etc. Absence of regulatory control has led to various problems such as multiple lending by borrowers resulting in overindebtedness, increased defaults, coercive recovery methods by lenders at the prejudice of borrowers etc.

As a solution to the same, RBI has issued a consultative paper on regulation of microfinance on June 14, 2021[2] (‘Consultation Paper’) with an intention to harmonise the regulatory frameworks for various regulated lenders (‘RE’s) in the microfinance space while also proposing a slew of changes to the existing norms for NBFC-MFIs and NBFCs.

RBI has invited comments, suggestions and feedback on the proposed regulation by July 31, 2021 from all stakeholders. The proposed norms intend to have uniform regulations applicable to microfinance loans provided by all entities regulated by the RBI and are aimed at protecting the microfinance borrowers from over-indebtedness as well as enabling competitive forces to bring down the interest rates by empowering the borrowers to make an informed decision. The key proposals of the Consultative Document have been discussed herein below in this article:

Regulations for all Microfinance Loans

MFIs encompass a host of financial institutions engaged in advancing loans to low-income groups. However, except NBFC-MFIs, none of the other entities are regulated by microfinance-specific regulations.

Resultantly, RBI has proposed to introduce a common regulatory framework for all microfinance lending institutions, irrespective of their form. The intent behind the same is to ensure that all lenders under the microfinance sector are subject to the same rules. This would not only protect borrower interest but also ensure that all lenders are operating on a level playing field thereby passing the benefit of competition to the ultimate borrower. Further, considering the total indebtedness of borrowers vis-a-vis their repayment capacity seems more fitting rather than indebtedness only from NBFC-MFIs.

Common definition of ‘Microfinance’ for all REs

RBI has proposed to revise the definition of ‘microfinance loans’ and in order to avoid over-indebtedness and multiple lending, the same is proposed to be applied uniformly to all entities regulated by the RBI (REs) and operating in the microfinance sector.


Annual Household Income Threshold

Common definition of microfinance borrowers

Under extant regulations for NBFC-MFIs, a microfinance borrower is identified by annual household income not exceeding ₹1,25,000 for rural and ₹2,00,000 for urban and semi-urban areas. In order to ensure a common definition, the said criteria for classification is proposed to be extended to all regulated entities (REs).

RBI has proposed to base the threshold on the income of the entire household rather than that of an individual, similar to the existing guidelines for NBFC-MFIs. The reason being that income in such households is usually assumed to be pooled.

For this purpose, ‘household’ shall mean a group of persons normally living together and taking food from a common kitchen. Even though the determination of the actual composition of a household shall be left to the judgment of the head of the household, more emphasis has been advised to be placed on ‘normally living together’ than on ‘ordinarily taking food from a common kitchen’. Note that a household differs from a family. Households include persons who ordinarily live together and therefore may include persons who are not related by blood, marriage or adoption but living together, while a family may comprise persons who are living apart from the household.

Methodology for assessment of household income

Assessment of household income in a predominant cash-based economy might pose certain difficulties. However, applying a uniform methodology may not be appropriate for such assessment, especially of low-income households, since the practice may differ based on the different types of borrowers and lenders. The same should be left at the discretion of the lender in the form of a policy. However, broad parameters/ factors may be provided. These can include deriving income from expenditure patterns, assessment of the borrower’s occupation and the ordinary remuneration flowing thereof, assessment of cash flows etc.

Criteria dropped from the existing definition –

  1. Absolute cap on the permissible amount of loan to be extended, is no longer relevant due to linking of loan to income in terms of debt-income ratio and therefore has been removed;
  2. Minimum tenure requirement is also to be be removed since longer tenures for larger loans will not be appropriate (since the absolute cap for amount of loans has been removed);
  • The existing NBFC-MFI regulations require at least 50% of the total amount of loans extended by NBFC-MFIs to be given for income generation. This means part (i.e. maximum of 50 per cent) of the aggregate amount of loans may be extended for other purposes such as housing repairs, education, medical and other emergencies. However, aggregate amount of loans given to a borrower for income generation should constitute at least 50 per cent of the total loans from the NBFC-MF. It has been realised that while microfinance loans should ideally be used for income-generating activities, placing too much emphasis on the same may lead to borrowers availing informal and more expensive modes of lending for their other financial needs. Therefore, the said requirement not being conducive, has been proposed to be removed;
  1. Restriction on lending by two NBFC-MFIs to be dropped due to overall restriction in terms of debt-income ratio (discussed below).

Maximum Permissible level of indebtedness in terms of debt-income ratio

One of the major risks in microlending has been the issue of overborrowing, with nearly 35% of the borrowers having access to two or more lenders.(source PWC report)

It is proposed to link the loan amount to household income in terms of debt-income ratio.  The payment of interest and repayment of principal for all outstanding loans of the household at any point of time is proposed to be capped at 50% of the household income i.e. total indebtedness of any borrower will not increase 50% of his/her total income. This has been proposed keeping in mind various factors such as –

  • Low savings therefore taking into account that half of their income should be available to meet their other expenses necessary for survival
  • Possibility of repayment towards other forms of informal lending from friends and family
  • Likely inflation of income to avail higher loans.

However, individual REs will be permitted to adopt a conservative threshold as per their own assessments and Board approved policy. Since, the level of indebtedness for a particular borrower is proposed to be regulated, the current stipulation that limits lending by not more than two NBFC-MFIs to the same borrower will no longer be required.

Grandfathering of existing facilities

The aforesaid threshold shall become effective from the date of introduction of the proposed regulations. However, existing loans to the households which are not complying with the limit of 50% of the household income, shall be allowed to mature. Although, in such cases, no new loans will be provided to such households till the limit is complied with.

Collateral-free loans

Microfinance borrowers belong to the low income group and generally do have the available assets to be provided as collateral for availing financial facilities. The assets possessed by them are usually those that are essential for their survival and losing them in case of a default will be detrimental to their existence. Therefore, it has been proposed that to extend the collateral free nature of microfinance loans, as applicable to NBFC-MFIs, to all REs.

Prepayment Penalty

In case of NBFC-MFIs, the borrowers are allowed prepayment without charging any penalty. It has now been proposed that microfinance borrowers of all REs shall be provided with the right of prepayment without attracting penalty.

Repayment Schedule

As per the extant regulations, microfinance borrowers of NBFC-MFIs are permitted to repay weekly, fortnightly or monthly instalments as per their choice. With a view to keep the repayment pattern at the discretion of the borrowers that will suit their repayment capacity and/or preference, all REs will be required to provide repayment periodicity to such borrowers as per a Board approved policy.

Minimum NOF for NBFC-MFIs

RBI had issued a Discussion Paper on ‘Revised Regulatory Framework for NBFCs – A Scale-Based Approach’ on January 22, 2021 proposing to revise the minimum net owned fund (NOF) limit for all NBFCs including NBFC-MFIs, from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

At present, NBFC-MFIs are required to have a minimum NOF of ₹5 crore (₹2 crore for NBFC-MFIs registered in the North Eastern Region). RBI has sought the view of stakeholders whether the proposed minimum NOF of ₹20 crore for NBFCs under scale-based regulations is appropriate for NBFC-MFIs or not.

The evolution of regulatory framework for NBFCs may recall, the NOF requirement for NBFCs was Rs 25 lacs in 1990s. Then, it was increased to Rs 2 crores, Rs. 5 crores in case of NBFC-MFIs. The regulator is now proposing to increase the same to Rs 20 crores – a 10 fold increase. The underlying rationale is to have a stronger entry barrier, and to ensure that NBFCs have the initial capital for investing in technology, manpower and establishment. However, such a sharp hike in entry point requirement will keep smaller NBFCs out of the fray. Smaller NBFCs, especially NBFC-MFIs, have been doing a useful job in financial inclusion and having a stricter entrance will only prove to demotivate the sector.  You may read further on the scalar based approach framework by RBI in our article here.

Revised Definition of ‘microfinance’ for ‘not for profit’ Companies

Section 8 companies engaged in micro-finance and not accepting public deposits, are exempt from obtaining registration under section 45IA of the RBI Act, 1934 as well as from complying with sections 45-IB (Maintenance of percentage of assets) and 45-IC (Reserve Fund).

The exemption is applicable to all not-for-profit NBFC-MFIs that meet the above criteria irrespective of their size.  However, it has been proposed to bring Section 8 companies above a certain threshold in terms of balance sheet size (say, asset size of ₹100 crore and above) under the regulatory ambit of the RBI. This is because Section 8 companies are dependent on public funds including borrowings from banks and other financial institutions for their funding needs and any risk of failure in these companies will have a resultant impact on the financial sector.

Further, not-for profit MFIs operate in an almost similar manner to that of for-profit MFIs but the latter enjoys exemptions from various requirements. The mandatory requirement for registration will ensure that not-for-profit MFIs with considerably large asset size, are effectively regulated.

The revised criteria for exemption is proposed to be as under:

‘Exemption from Sections 45-IA, 45-IB and 45-IC of the RBI Act, 1934 shall be available to a micro finance company which is

  1. engaged in micro financing activities i.e. providing collateral-free loans to households with annual household income of ₹1,25,000 and ₹2,00,000 for rural and urban/semi urban areas respectively, provided the payment of interest and repayment of principal for all outstanding loans of the household at any point of time does not exceed 50 per cent of the household income;
  2. registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013;
  3. not accepting public deposits; and
  4. having asset size of less than ₹100’

Review of Specific Regulations for NBFC-MFIs

Qualifying Asset Criteria

In order to be classified as a ‘qualifying asset’, a loan is required to satisfy the following criteria:

  1. Loan which is disbursed to a borrower with household annual income not exceeding ₹1,25,000 and ₹2,00,000 for rural and urban/semi-urban households respectively;
  2. Loan amount does not exceed ₹75,000 in the first cycle and ₹1,25,000 in subsequent cycles;
  • Total indebtedness of the borrower does not exceed ₹1,25,000 (excluding loan for education and medical expenses);
  1. Minimum tenure of 24 months for loan amount exceeding ₹30,000;
  2. Collateral free loans without any prepayment penalty;
  3. Minimum 50 per cent of aggregate amount of loans for income generation activities;
  • Flexibility of repayment periodicity (weekly, fortnightly or monthly) at borrower’s choice.

The following changes have been proposed –

  1. The household income limits have been retained under the revised definition of microfinance loans and made applicable to all REs
  2. Absolute cap is no longer relevant due to linking of loan to income in terms of debt-income ratio
  • Minimum tenure requirement to be removed since longer tenures for larger loans will not be appropriate (since the absolute cap for amount of loans has been removed)
  1. Collateral free loans and absence of prepayment penalty have been retained in the revised definition.
  2. The existing NBFC-MFI regulations require at least 50% of the total amount of loans extended by NBFC-MFIs to be given for income generation. This means part (i.e. maximum of 50 per cent) of the aggregate amount of loans may be extended for other purposes such as housing repairs, education, medical and other emergencies. However, aggregate amount of loans given to a borrower for income generation should constitute at least 50 per cent of the total loans from the NBFC-MF. It has been realised that while microfinance loans should ideally be used for income-generating activities, placing too much emphasis on the same may lead to borrowers availing informal and more expensive modes of lending for their other financial needs. Therefore, the said requirement not being conducive, has been proposed to be removed.

Limit of lending by two NBFC-MFIs

Owing to an overall restriction based on debt-income ratio of 50% for all REs, the restriction of lending by only two NBFC-MFIs to a borrower will be withdrawn.

Pricing of Credit by NBFC-MFIs

Given the vulnerable nature of the borrowers of microfinance loans, the NBFC-MFI regulations imposed an interest cap to prevent exorbitant interest rates charged to such borrowers.

The interest rate cap prescribes multiple ceilings rather than a single one. Accordingly, NBFC-MFIs have been permitted to charge interest with a maximum margin cap of 10% and 12% over and above the cost of funds, depending on the size of loan portfolio (₹100 crore threshold) or 2.75 times of the average base rate of five largest commercial banks, whichever is lower.

The latter criterion provides a linkage with the prevailing interest rate in the economy and ensures that higher borrowing costs for NBFC-MFIs with riskier business models are not transmitted to the end borrowers. Further, NBFC-MFIs are not permitted to levy any other charge except for a processing fee (capped at 1% of the loan amount) and actual cost of insurance to ensure that interest rate ceilings are not bypassed by NBFC-MFIs through other hidden charges.

However, the regulatory ceiling on interest rate is applicable only to NBFC-MFIs. Nearly 70% of the microfinance sector, comprising banks and small finance banks, is deregulated in terms of pricing. It has also been observed that an unintended consequence of creating a regulatory prescribed benchmark for the rest of the entities operating in the microfinance segment. Lenders, such as banks, though having a lower cost of funds, still charge a higher interest rate. This has led to borrowers being deprived of benefits of economies of scale and competition in the microfinance market.

The provision of such interest rate ceilings was suitable in an environment where NBFC-MFIs were the primary lenders. However, currently, as discussed, NBFC-MFIs contribute to only 30%. Proposing a fixed benchmark for interest rate in the microfinance industry may not be appropriate considering the differences in the cost of funds, financial or otherwise, among different types of entities.

Based on the above rationale, it has been proposed to remove such interest rate ceiling limits and align the interest rate model for NBFC-MFIs with that of regular NBFCs.  NBFC-MFIs will now be permitted to adopt interest rates based on a Board approved policy while adhering to fair practice code to ensure disclosure and transparency. However, necessary regulation must also be put in place to avoid charging usurious interest rates. The intention is to enable the market mechanism to reduce the lending rates for the entire microfinance sector.

Fair Practice Norms

The above relaxation from interest rate ceiling, comes with its own set of fair practice norms to ensure transparency and protecting interests of borrowers.

  1. Disclosure of information on pricing

To allow borrowers to make an informed decision, REs will mandatorily be required to disclose pricing information by way of a standardised and simplified disclosure format (specified under table III of the Consultation Paper). Such information will enable borrowers to compare interest rates as well as other fees associated with a microfinance loan in a more readable and understandable manner. The pricing related fact sheet shall be provided to every prospective borrower before on-boarding.

  1. Board Policy for determining charges including interest rate

Boards of all REs will be required to frame suitable internal principles and procedures for determining interest rates and other charges to arrive at an all-inclusive usurious interest rate.

  1. Display of interest rates

All REs will be required to display the minimum, maximum and average interest rates charged by them on microfinance loans. The manner of display is still to be prescribed.

  1. Scrutiny by RBI

The above information will also be incorporated in returns submitted to RBI and shall be subjected to the supervisory scrutiny.

[1] Source- SIDBI Microfinance Pulse Report, April 2021

[2] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=51725

Various forms of Secured Lending

-Anita Baid, anita@vinodkothari.com

In this era of ever-increasing demand and continuous urge for developments, limitation of financial resources come as the biggest constraint in overall satisfaction of an individual or entity’s needs. Financial or funding options provided by various financial institutions such as banks and NBFCs come as a solution to such financial constraints. Loans from such financial institutions can be availed depending upon one’s immediate requirement and repayment capacity.

From the consumer’s perspective, funding is granted and resource constraint is sort out. However, there is always a fear of default in repayment of loans faced by the lenders. Thus, the position of the lender becomes ambiguous and unsafe in granting such loans. Here, comes the concept of secured financing. Secured financing is one in which the lender has security rights over certain collateral that the borrower makes available to support the loan. The borrower agrees that should he not repay the loan as agreed, the lender has a right to seize the collateral to satisfy the debt.

There are various instruments offered under secured financing depending upon the collateral the borrower is willing to provide. Some of the commonly used instruments have been discussed herein this article[1].

Loan Against Property (LAP)

A loan against property is a loan given or disbursed against the mortgage of a property. LAP belongs to the secured loan category where the credit evaluation of the borrower is done keeping his property as a security. The property can be commercial or residential.[2]

Immovable property being one of the most non-volatile security is mortgaged with the financial institution for obtaining required funds. Borrowers willing to purchase a residential/commercial property can obtain loan by keeping such desired property as the underlying security. The underlying security can be the property for which loan is being taken and/or a separate property as well. The loan is given as a certain percentage of the property’s market value, usually around 40% to 60%.

Here the loan is granted based on the quality of the collateral and less importance is given to the credit quality of the borrowers. Also, usually, these loans do not come with any end use restriction, that is to say, the borrowers get a free hand with respect to utilization of funds.

Loan Against Securities (LAS)

A loan against securities (LAS) is a loan given against the collateral of shares or securities. LAS enables one to borrow funds against listed securities such as shares, mutual funds, insurance and bonds to meet current financial needs. Borrowers can opt for this loan when they need instant liquidity for their personal/business needs and are sure to pay it back in few months.

There are however, specific regulations issued by RBI with respect to loan against shares of listed entities,

As per the [3]Master Directions applicable on NBFC-NSI-ND issued by RBI, NBFCs with asset size of Rs.100 crore and above who are lending against the collateral of listed shares shall, maintain a Loan to Value (LTV) ratio of 50% for loans granted against the collateral of shares. Additionally, for LAS in case where lending is being done for investment in capital markets, only Group 1 securities (specified in SMD/ Policy/ Cir – 9/ 2003 dated March 11, 2003 as amended from time to time, issued by SEBI) shall be accepted as collateral for loans of value more than Rs5 lakh, subject to review by the Bank. The lender shall also be required to report on-line to stock exchanges on a quarterly basis, information on the shares pledged in their favour, by borrowers for availing loans in the prescribed format.

Difference between LAP and LAS

The underlying security for LAP and Las is different which is prevalent from the respective names itself. Apart from this major difference there are other areas of difference between the two as well. The basic differences between the two are highlighted hereunder:


Features Loan against securities Loan against property
Nature of facility A loan against securities (LAS) is a loan given against the collateral of shares or securities. A loan against property (LAP) is a loan given or disbursed against the mortgage of a property.
Exposure In case of LAS the exposure is based on the value of securities In case of LAP it is based on the value of property.
Volatility The value of securities, in case it is listed shall fluctuate very frequently and hence the value of security is very volatile. The value of property is less volatile as compared to LAS.
Type of security The shares or securities can either be listed or unlisted. The property can either be movable or immovable.
End use Usually the end use of the facility extended is for investment in the securities. There is no end use restriction in case of LAP.
Regulations from RBI As per the Master Directions applicable on NBFC-NSI-ND issued by RBI, all Applicable NBFC with asset size of Rs.100 crore and above who are lending against the collateral of listed shares shall, maintain a Loan to Value (LTV) ratio of 50% for loans granted against the collateral of shares. No specific regulatory guideline has been prescribed regarding LTV ratio for granting loan against property by an NBFC.



LTV Ratio Further, as per the statutory provision, if the value of listed securities falls down thereby increasing the LTV ratio, additional security must be provided to maintain such LTV ratio. The Applicable NBFC must ensure that any shortfall in the maintenance of 50% LTV occurring on account of movement in the share prices is to be made good within 7 working days. In case of LAP, such reinstating is not statutory. However, the lender may revise the sanctioned limit in case the loan agreement provides for such discretionary right to the lender.


Statutory Requirement Additionally, for LAS in case where lending is being done for investment in capital markets, only Group 1 securities (specified in SMD/ Policy/ Cir – 9/ 2003 dated March 11, 2003 as amended from time to time, issued by SEBI) shall be accepted as collateral for loans of value more than Rs5 lakh, subject to review by the Bank. The lender shall also be required to report on-line to stock exchanges on a quarterly basis, information on the shares pledged in their favour, by borrowers for availing loans in the prescribed format. No such regulatory requirement.


IPO Funding

IPO or Initial Public Offer is a rewarding experience for individuals and companies as it offers substantial return to investors on the shares subscribed by them. However, it may so happen that an investor might not possess the requisite funds to subscribe to IPOs. In such a situation, inflow of funds from another source may become necessary. Here comes the concept of IPO funding which bridges the deficit between the resources at hand and the funds needed in aggregate. The lender creates a right of lien on the shares to be allotted to the investor/borrower in the IPO. This shall form the underlying security against the loan which can be liquidated in case of non-payment of principle and/or interest.[4]

Similar to LAS, IPO Financing is loan against acquiring shares and making a short-term profit that is expected at the time of initial price discovery of the shares once the shares are listed. However, unlike LAS, it is specifically for funding subscriptions to IPOs. In case of an IPO Financing, the exposure is based on the borrower and the securities/ shares, if allotted, are taken as collateral for securing the obligations under the loan. The transaction forces the applicant to sell the shares once listed, hence, the idea cannot be to finance an investment in shares.

The financial institution demands for an upfront payment of the margin amount based on the assessment of subscription levels. For example, if an investor applies for 100 shares and gets allotted only 10 shares due to oversubscription, the refund on 90 shares is divided between the borrower and lender proportionately. The shares allotted are held as lien by the lender.

Recently, the RBI had released a Discussion Paper on the Revised Regulatory Framework for NBFCs on 22nd January, 2021[5], wherein it has been proposed to fix a ceiling of Rs. 1 crore per individual in case of IPO financing by any NBFC.

Equipment Finance

Equipment financing is yet another type of secured financing wherein loan is given for purchase of commercial or office equipment. The underlying asset is the equipment for which loan is advanced and/or any other equipment. The loan is secured by way of a hypothecation over the equipment financed. For efficient and smooth functioning of various units of a commercial enterprise, existence of upgraded machinery is of utmost importance. Such acquisitions may require additional funds from external sources. Hence, equipment finance helps in improving the overall production levels.

Secured Working Capital Finance

Fulfilment of working capital requirements is perhaps the most integral responsibility of a company. Adequate working capital is needed to meet the day-to-day activities of an enterprise and enable it to function smoothly. Financing options for meeting working capital limits is also available. Loan is given for maintaining such working capital by placing a floating charge on the assets of the company. No fixed asset is kept aside as the underlying security. In case of any default, an asset of sufficient value shall be a seized and liquidated to meet the default.

Here, it is important to understand the difference between LAS or LAP and a regular secured working capital loan. For instance, in case of LAS or LAP the exposure is based on the value of securities or the property, as the case may be, and not on the borrower. Whereas, in case of a secured loan the exposure is based on the borrower and the securities or property are taken as collateral for securing the obligations under the loan. Such a secured loan shall not be classified as LAS or LAP and hence maintaining the prescribed regulatory LTV ratio will also not be applicable in this case.

At a Glance



LAP LAS IPO Funding Equipment Financing Working Capital Financing
Nature of facility Loan disbursed against the collateral of property Loan disbursed against the collateral of shares Loan extended for investing in IPO Loan advanced for purchase of equipment against the collateral of the same and/or any other equipment Loan advanced for meeting working capital requirements and accordingly a floating charge is created
Nature of security Property Shares Shares subscribed in IPO Equipment Floating charge on the assets.
Exposure Property Shares Investor Borrower Borrower
Volatility Very less Volatile Volatile Less volatile Less volatile
Regulatory Framework No specifications but additions can be made in the loan agreement as per discretion As per the Master Directions applicable on NBFC-NSI-ND issued by RBI, all Applicable NBFC with asset size of Rs.100 crore and above who are lending against the collateral of listed shares shall, maintain a Loan to Value (LTV) ratio of 50% for loans granted against the collateral of shares. No specifications but additions can be made in the loan agreement as per discretion No specifications but additions can be made in the loan agreement as per discretion No specifications but additions can be made in the loan agreement as per discretion


Secured financing comes as a relief to both borrowers and lenders. The borrower avails the required funds for meeting its financial or domestic purpose and the lender ensures security against the loan advanced by creating a mortgage or lien on the borrower’s property/shares.

Read our other relevant articles and books on the subject matter:

1. Securitisation, Asset Reconstruction & Enforcement of Security Interest-
2. Fragmented framework for perfection of security interest-
3. Vehicle financing: Multiple Security Interest Registrations &amp; its Impact by Vinod Kothari

[1] The discussion on the regulatory aspects have been restricted to the regulations applicable to NBFCs only.

[2] Read our article titled- Sitting comfy in the lap of LAP: NBFCs push loans against properties-  http://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sitting_comfy_in_the_lap_of_LAP.pdf

[3] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/notification/PDFs/MD44NSIND2E910DD1FBBB471D8CB2E6F4F424F8FF.PDF

[4] http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/the-risky-game-of-ipo-financing/article9631176.ece

[5] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/DP220121630D1F9A2A51415B98D92B8CF4A54185.PDF