RBI has vide its Press Releases – Reserve Bank of India proposed to review methodology for identification of NBFCs in Upper Layer. The key changes are as follows:
Annual Classification: RBI shall conduct an annual identification process for classification of NBFCs in the Upper Layer.
It may be noted that NBFCs belonging to the banking group are also required to comply with the compliance requirements applicable to Upper Layer NBFCs (except the listing requirement). Our article on compliances to be followed by such NBFCs in the banking group can be seen here.
Criteria for classification: The current two-step approach (top ten by asset size and parametric scoring) will be replaced by a simple, absolute asset size criterion. The proposed asset size threshold for an NBFC to be classified as UL is ₹1,00,000 crore and above, as per the latest audited balance sheet (this limit is subject to review every 5 years).
A crucial question that arises here is whether the consolidation criteria (multiple NBFCs in the group) be applicable in this case as well to determine the asset size? Though as per prudence, it should apply, to avoid surpassing the regulatory intent, however, the same is specifically not applicable as per the SBR Directions (refer para 21) .
Inclusion of Government-owned NBFCs: Eligible Government-owned NBFCs will now also be considered for inclusion in Upper Layer, based on the revised asset size criteria. Previously, these were placed only in the Base or Middle Layer.
It may be noted that the category of NBFC is not a pre-condition, hence, the list of UL NBFCs would include not just NBFC-ICCs but also HFCs, CICs, deposit taking NBFCs, and not even Govt. NBFCs
Provision for Credit Risk Transfer: All NBFC-UL will be allowed to use State Government guarantees as a credit risk transfer instrument without any specific limit, provided they meet the prescribed conditions.
Implications of NBFC-UL Classification
Once the proposed criteria are implemented and the new list of Upper Layer NBFCs is notified by the RBI, entities classified as NBFC-UL will face certain immediate implications, in addition to specific corporate governance norms. The central point of discussion is how these requirements might impact the growth plans of large NBFCs.
CET 1 requirement: NBFC-UL are required to maintain Common Equity Tier 1 capital of at least 9% of Risk Weighted Assets.
While CET 1 is currently manageable for most existing UL entities, aggressive growth plans could potentially make this a constraining factor for larger NBFCs newly classified as UL.
Leverage Restriction: In addition to CRAR, NBFC-UL shall also be subject to leverage requirements to ensure that their growth is supported by adequate capital, among other factors. Also, NBFC-UL shall be required to hold differential provisioning towards different classes of standard assets.
Leverage ratio would have been an issue if the entity was engaged in derivatives transactions. However, most of the NBFCs in India are not very active in this space.
Exposure Framework: NBFC-ULs are required to adhere to the Large Exposures Framework. Furthermore, their Board must determine internal exposure limits for important sectors, including exposure to the NBFC sector, in addition to limits on internal exposures to Sensitive Sector Entities (SSEs).
The applicability of the large exposure framework may be a real concern. Large exposure framework looks at economic interdependence as the basis of classification into group risk. There is an absolute limit that the single party exposure cannot be more than 20% of Tier 1 capital (including quarterly audited profits) and 25% in case of a group of counterparties.
Listing Requirement: NBFC-ULs must be mandatorily listed within three years of being identified and notified as such. Unlisted NBFC-ULs shall be required to make the necessary arrangements for listing within this three-year period.
CICs not accessing public funds: Under the CIC Directions, those CICs that don’t have access to public funds, irrespective of the asset size, are eligible to be classified as an unregistered CIC. Accordingly, such CICs should not be classified in the upper layer even if they breach the asset size criteria.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-04-11 20:47:142026-04-14 19:27:03RBI proposes changes to NBFC-UL identification
– RBI’s 1st April circular bars Banks from INR-derivatives, with “related parties”, giving an Ind AS meaning to the term
In a move to maintain the integrity of INR in the evolving market conditions and avoid a potential misuse of intra-group structures to bypass regulatory constraints, the RBI has issued revised instructions on Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings.
Bar on non-deliverable INR derivatives:
Considering the prevailing situation in the currency market, RBI has prohibited banks from entering into derivatives involving INR on non-deliverable basis.
The bar extends to rebooking of any derivative contract, whether deliverable or non deliverable, entered before 1st April, maturing after this date.
Fx-Derivatives contracts involving INR: not permitted with related parties
The instructions prohibit any form of foreign exchange derivative contract involving INR with their related parties. Note that, the bar is not limited to “non-deliverable” contracts, rather, extends to all forex derivative contracts involving INR. This complete bar is likely to impact the financial markets where it is quite common to undertake such derivative transactions with related parties, more particularly, in banking groups constituting one or more financial sector entities (including NBFCs, insurance entities etc.).
What is even more interesting is that the meaning of “related party” for this purpose is drawn from Ind AS. Banks in India are currently not following Ind AS, and therefore, they maintain a list of related parties as per IGAAP, viz., AS 18. However, the Circular explicitly refers to Ind AS 24 or equivalent international standards. This, therefore, requires immediate action on the part of banks to draw a list of related parties, not on the basis of the accounting standards applicable to them (AS-18), but, on the basis of the widely recognised IAS-24 (Ind AS 24 in the Indian context).
The instructions refer to Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or International Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or any other equivalent accounting standards. The reference thus, is not of “applicable accounting standards”, but of “equivalent accounting standards”, meaning thereby, that banks would be required to draw their list of related parties based on Ind AS 24 or its equivalent based on the country whose accounting standards are being followed by the bank in question. For instance, a foreign bank incorporated in the US will draw its definition of related party from US GAAP (ASC 850) being the equivalent of IAS 24.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-04-03 17:05:422026-04-03 17:05:43INR Non-deliverable Derivatives barred; Added Bar for Related Parties
The National Credit Guarantee Trust Company (NCGTC), under the Department of Financial Services, has floated a scheme which will guarantee lending upto ₹20000 crores by banks and financial institutions (Member Lending Institutions or MLIs), for taking incremental loan exposure to MFIs. The Scheme intends to nudge bank lending to MFIs, as the former has shunned away in view of the perceived risk of the sector in the recent past. The NCGTC takes 70% – 80% risk of default of the bank loans to the MFIs, provided the lending is done accordingly with the conditions of the Scheme.
Among the conditions, the MFI must lend at least at 1% lower than the average lending rate over the last 6 months, and the MLI must lend at no more than 2% over the benchmark rate (MCLR or EBLR as applicable).
In our view, the Scheme has following outcome expectations:
Given the credit risk transfer to the extent of 70% – 80% (depending on the 3 sizes of MFIs), the credit risk aversion as also the credit risk premium, should significantly come down.
In view of the credit risk transfer, the risk weight for capital adequacy also comes to zero for the guaranteed portion, resulting into significant capital relief for the MLI
Since the Scheme can be utilised only for incremental lending, and that too, at a cheaper rate, there may be downward pressure on lending rates, resulting in a demand-side push. The latter is quite important, as reduced lending volumes in the MFI sector are quite often the cause of higher defaults as well.
Overall, the environment of sectoral aversion would change.
Essential Features of the Scheme
Who are MLIs?
Schedule Commercials Banks
AIFIs
What type of loans are covered under the Scheme?
Funding provided by the MLIs to MFIs for on-lending to microfinance borrowers
What is the interest cap under the Scheme?
Loans sanctioned by MLIs to NBFC-MFIs/MFIs is capped at EBLR or 1 Year MCLR + 2% per annum
Loans by NBFC- MFIs/MFIs to microfinance borrowers is capped at 1% below the average rate of their lending in past 6 months.
What is the cap on tenure of loans under the Scheme?
Maximum tenure of the loan provided by MLI to MFIs shall be 3 years (1-year moratorium plus 2 years for loan repayment).
Conditions for MLIs to get benefits under the Scheme:
At least 5% of the total loan amount under the Scheme shall be sanctioned to small-sized MFIs, & 10% to medium-sized MFIs.
The maximum amount of loan which can be sanctioned by MLIs to MFIs shall be capped at 20% of the Assets Under Management (AUM) of respective MFI subject to maximum of ₹100 crore to small size, ₹200 crore to medium size and ₹300 crore to large size MFIs
MFIs shall be classified as small, medium and large based on their AUM as follows:
Small MFIs – Less than 500 crores
Medium MFIs – Rs.500 crores to less than Rs. 2000 crores
Large MFIs -Rs. 2000 crores or more
Maximum coverage under the guarantee:
70% to Large MFIs, 75% to Medium MFIs & 80% to Small MFIs of the amount in default for a maximum period of 3 years
Guarantee Fee:
MLIs shall pay to NCGTC Guarantee Fee at 0.5% of the sanction amount (first year) and outstanding amount (thereafter).
Claim Process:
MLI shall submit a claim on an annual basis (once every year) in respect of the amount in default.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-03-20 19:10:332026-03-20 19:10:34CGTMSE Risk Shield for MFI Lending
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-02-23 17:56:552026-02-23 17:59:15Representation on the draft Amendment Directions for exemption from registration to eligible NBFCs
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-02-23 17:54:552026-02-23 17:54:56Representation on the Draft Directions for ‘Advertising, Marketing and Sales of Financial Products and Services by Regulated Entities’
The RBI’s proposed relief to exempt pure investment companies from exemption from regulation is not a cakewalk but a hurdle race. It is not an exemption that comes in auto mode; you need to earn the right to be exempt. Some of the important pre-conditions that the RBI has proposed are:
No automatic exemption: It is not that you qualify, and come out of registration. In fact, those proposing to come out have to make an application, based on the financials for the last 3 years. In these financial statements, there must be no direct or “indirect” access to “public funds” (including loans from loans from directors/shareholders), nor should there be any lending within the group or outside. This position shall be supported by auditors’ certificate. It is with these conditions that the RBI may, on being satisfied about the business model, grant exemption.
Customer includes my own group: The meaning of ‘customer interface’ has been clarified to say it includes customer-oriented activity like lending or providing a guarantee, including to ‘entities in the Group’, its shareholders, its directors, or providing any other “product or service” to a customer. “Any other product or service” typically refers to customer-centric financial distribution services like mutual funds, bonds, etc.
Money from director/shareholder will be “public” funds: For the purpose of determining public funds, any amount received from the directors and/or shareholders of the NBFC shall also be treated as public funds.
Timelimit for making application by existing NBFCs: Type I NBFC registered with RBI as on April 1, 2026, and fulfilling the prescribed criteria for exemption, may make an application to RBI, for deregistration within a period of six months, by September 30, 2026. There is no clarity on what will happen after this date. Also, it is not clear whether existing NBFCs may change their liabilities profiles to meet the exemption conditions, and apply for exemption in future.
Discretion of RBI: RBI shall consider the requests for deregistration if it is satisfied that NBFC is functioning with a conscious business model to operate without availing public funds and without having customer interface. Hence, the fate of deregistration is in the hands of the regulator.
Exclusion from aggregation: The asset size of unregistered type I NBFCs shall not be consolidated with other entities in the group for determining the classification of such group NBFCs as base/middle layer entities. See details below.
Overseas investment requires registration: Unregistered Type I NBFC, in case it intends to undertake overseas investment in the financial services sector, it shall require registration
Continued Supervision from RBI: Exemption is only from registration requirement; however, they would continue to be subject to the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934 (primarily, transfer to reserve funds). Further, the RBI has reserved the right to issue necessary instructions specifically to ‘Unregistered Type I NBFCs’ in case any concerns/ risks are observed.
Conditions for new entities: New entities intending to claim the exemption must satisfy these conditions- No access to public funds, no customer interface, less than ₹1000 Cr asset size, passing of annual Board resolution to not access PF and CI, disclosure in financial statements. Further, in case of violation of conditions on public funds and/or customer interface, the statutory auditor shall submit an exception report to the RBI.
Conditions for deregistration application
Analysis of options available to Type 1 NBFCs
Type of NBFC
Options Available
NBFCs holding Type I Registration as on April 1, 2026
Option 1: Apply for deregistration
Option 2: Continue to remain as Type I NBFC
Entities that fulfil the conditions for Unregistered Type I NBFC, after April 1, 2026
Option 1: Satisfy the conditions under 66A and remain unregistered [see box on Conditions Subsequent]
Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC
NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having an asset size below ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I
Option 1: Apply for deregistration
Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC to avail regulatory exemptionOption 3: Maintain status quo
NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having asset size above ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I
Option 1: Apply for registration as NBFC Type I
Option 2: Apply for registration as NBFC Type II, in case of changes in business model
What happens to NBFCs not availing public funds and having customer interface but not registered as Type 1?
Several NBFCs that have been registered with the RBI before the concept of Type 1 was introduced in 2016 may not have the CoR as a Type 1 NBFC in spite of the fact that as on date they don’t have access to public funds nor any customer interface. Such an NBFC with an asset size less than ₹1000 crores will still have an option to apply for deregistration, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed. However, such NBFCs in case they decide to maintain the status quo will not be eligible for the regulatory exemption available to Type 1 NBFCs.
What about new entities that meet PBC criteria?
If an entity carries investment activity with owned funds, within a limit of ₹1000 crores, does it need RBI registration? The answer seems to be – no. Such a company obviously does not have to go through the rigour of seeking registration first, and then qualifying for an exemption.
The company in question still has to satisfy the exemption conditions; and the auditor will need to give an exception report. The meaning of exception report is that if there is a breach of any of the conditions of exemption, or there is any breach of any other provisions of the law, the auditor shall be required to make an exception report.
Notably, CARO Order also requires auditors to comment on adherence to RBI regulations, which, in future, will include these conditions too.
Whether assets of multiple group entities will be aggregated?
Is the requirement of asset size being within ₹1000 crores based on stand-alone financial statements, or will the assets of companies within the group be aggregated, as is done for the purpose of determination of the middle layer status of companies?
It seems that the aggregation requirement is not there for the Type 1 exemption.
The basis for this is FAQ 13, which states as follows:
Q13. As per regulations of the Reserve Bank, total assets of all the NBFCs in a Group are consolidated to determine the classification of NBFCs in the Middle 11 Layer. What shall be the treatment given to ‘Type I NBFCs’ and ‘Unregistered Type I companies’ in this regard?
Ans: For aggregation purposes, the asset size of ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall be considered but asset size of ‘Unregistered Type I NBFCs’ shall not be considered. It is emphasized that ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall always be classified in Base Layer regardless of such aggregation.
What if I have accepted intra-group loans/granted intra-group loans, but resolve not to do so in future
Are the exemption conditions, that there is no access to public funds and no customer interface, merely a statement of intent, or must also be borne out by the conduct in any of the past 3 financial years? Looking at the definition in para 6 (14A), which reads “Not accepting public funds and not intending to accept public funds”, and likewise, “Not having customer interface and not intending to have customer interface”, it appears that the exemption conditions are both a statement of fact as well as intent. If one is negated by the fact, a mere statement of intent may not help.
However, assume there are isolated instances of intra-group loans taken or intra-group loans given. The transactions are not indicating a “business model”, at least the ones on the asset side. Are we saying that the breach of the conditions of “no public funds” and “no customer interface”, at any time during the last 3 years, will disentitle the exemption?
We do NOT think so. There are two reasons to say this:
First, no one can cleanse the past. There is no reason to deny the exemption if the Company has cleaned up the asset side and liability side by 31st March, 2026, and resolves not to make neither of the “two sins” ever in future. Taking any other view will be unreasonable and not keep up to the intent of the regulator.
Secondly, the language itself is clear: Para 38A (2) (iii) talks about the status of public funds and customer interface in the last 3 years. Para 38A (2) (iv) and (v) refer to auditors’ certificate and the board resolution, both referring to the position as on date, and not the past. Therefore, if the past has been undone by 31st March, 2026, we see a strong reason to qualify the exemption, except if the level of activity is indicative of “conscious business model”
Three financial years: which years?
In our view, since the deregistration application has to be made within September 30, 2026, the audited financials for FY 25-26 must have been prepared. Hence, the last three financial years that would be considered are FY 23-24, 24-25 and 25-26.
VKC comments:
It is usually hard to get a relief from a regulator, as relief is seen as a prize that you earn. If the idea was based on the premise that what does not matter for the financial system, and is still being regulated, is a burden both for the regulator and for the regulated, there would have been a more welcoming approach to exemption. Specifically:
The extension of the definition of “public funds” to include borrowings from shareholders and directors is quite unreasonable. For private companies, deposits from shareholders and directors are exempt by law; in the case of public companies too, loans from directors are exempt. Even if we don’t lean on the law, what is taken from directors and shareholders cannot partake the character of “public”. There cannot be an element of public interest in intra-group transactions, and as a financial regulator, RBI could not have been concerned with intra-group financial accommodations.
The definition of “customer” service to include loans to group entities is equally unexplainable. The tested definition of “customer” in case of banks/financial entities is someone who customarily avails the services of such an entity. The only intent of the regulator could have been the conduct of business concerns, primarily customer service. A group entity borrowing from another group entity is not expecting customer service standards.
Both the definitions have been related to the historical balance sheets, with no apparent continuing exemption route. This, hopefully, will be made a continuing exemption, so that entities may carry financial and business restructuring to qualify for exemption.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Team Finservhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngTeam Finserv2026-02-10 19:28:192026-02-11 11:47:51Uneasy Ease: RBI Proposes Exemption in Approval Mode for Type I NBFCs
Budget 2026 proposed to introduce Total Return Swaps (TRS) for corporate bonds, purportedly as a measure for synthetic trading in corporate bonds. However, given the very slow pick up of credit default swaps, the much easier and globally prevalent version of credit derivatives, will the more esoteric TRS really make a difference? We explain what TRS is, how it differs from a CDS, give a sense of the global data on TRS as a part of OTC credit derivatives, and discuss how much the new measure will impact India’s bond market.
India’s credit derivatives market has historically remained shallow, with hardly any transanctions involving credit default swaps. This has resulted in limited hedging options focused only on default risk and an absence of tools for transferring market and price risk.
This contrasts sharply with global trends. As of mid-2025, the notional outstanding volume of OTC derivatives exceeded USD 840 trillion, with credit derivatives, despite being smaller in absolute size than interest rate or FX derivatives, recording the fastest year-on-year growth at approximately 23%.
It may be noted that as of 1996, which is when credit derivatives had almost started emerging and gaining strength, TRS transactions were significant and took up almost 32% of the market share. However, the percentage of TRS dropped. Over time, CDSs overtook the position because CDSs are more definitive and limit the risks of the protection seller. In 2025, as per 118th edition of the OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities based on call report information provided by all insured U.S. commercial banks and others, the TRSs had become a smaller segment representing 4.9 per cent of the credit derivative market.
Meaning of TRS
In simple terms, a TRS swap transfers the entire volatility of returns of a reference asset from one party to another. TRS is a kind of derivative contract wherein the protection buyer agrees to transfer, periodically and throughout the term of the contract, the actual returns from a reference asset to the protection seller (“floating returns”), and the latter, in return, agrees to transfer returns calculated at a certain spread over a base rate (“fixed returns”) Total returns include the coupons, appreciation, and depreciation in the price of the reference bond. On the other hand, the protection seller will pay a certain base rate, say, risk free rate, plus a certain spread. The protection seller in the case of a TROR swap is also referred to as the total return receiver, and the protection buyer is similarly called the total return payer. The figure below illustrates the essential mechanics of a total return swap.
Impact of TRS TRS swaps originate from synthetic equity structures, where economic returns of an asset are transferred without any actual investment in the underlying. The structure separates economic exposure from legal ownership. In a TROR swap, the economic impact is such that the total return receiver assumes the position of a synthetic lender to or investor in the bonds of the reference obligor, while the total return payer becomes a synthetic lender to the counterparty. Consider the illustration below:
Party PB invests in the unsecured bonds of entity X carrying a fixed coupon of 9.5 per cent.
PB then enters into a TROR swap with PS, under which PB agrees to transfer the actual returns from the bonds of X and, in return, receive MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
Under the terms of the swap, PB periodically transfers the coupon income, plus any market price appreciation minus any market price r depreciation in the bonds, while PS periodically pays MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
Although PB technically holds the bonds of X, in substance PB has neither exposure to X nor to the returns generated by X. Instead, PB is economically exposed to PS at MIBOR plus 100 basis points, which is equivalent to having invested in PS at that rate.
Conversely, PS, despite not holding the bonds of X, is economically exposed to the actual returns from X’s bonds (net of MIBOR plus 100 basis points). The effect of the TROR swap is therefore to synthetically create a fully refinanced investment in the bonds of X, giving a return equal to the actual returns in the bonds, and having a funding cost equal to MIBOR plus 100 basis points.
Thus, the true impact of a TROR swap is the synthetic replacement of exposures. Consequently, the advantages of a TRS can be:
Off-balance sheet exposure: TRS creates synthetic assets without recording loans or bonds on balance sheets improving leverage ratios and capital efficiency.
Regulatory Arbitrage: TRS has been used to bypass investment or lending restrictions, such as exposure norms, concentration limits, etc.
Provides very high leverage: In the above illustration, the synthetic investment made by the O in the bond is highly leveraged, assuming no margin has been put by the PS.
Alternative to a Repo: Assume PB holds a bond and is looking at having it funded. It sells the bond to Q and simultaneously enters into a TRS transaction, paying MIBOR + spread and receiving the actual returns of the bond. Hence, PB continues to have an economic stake in the bond whereas for accounting purposes, the bond may be removed from the balance sheet of PB.
TRS structures have been used globally across a wide range of asset classes, including equities, bonds, loans, real estate and property interests, credit-linked notes, and portfolios or indices of such assets. Hence, a TRS is a credit derivative only when the reference asset is a credit asset, otherwise it is a generic total return derivative. The Draft CD Direction framework deliberately confines TRS usage to specified debt instruments in order to prevent synthetic funding and balance-sheet arbitrage.
CDS Vs TRS
Aspects
CDS
TRS
Basic Definition
A credit derivative contract where a protection seller commits to pay the buyer in the event of a credit event.
A credit derivative contract where a payer transfers the entire economic performance of an asset to a receiver (protection seller).
Risk Transferred
Transfers only the credit risk associated with a specific obligation. The protection seller is only concerned with the risk of default or increase in credit spreads of the asset. That is, the reference transaction only shifts the risk of credit spreads
Transfers the total volatility of returns, including credit risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. The receiver gains exposure to all gains and losses (coupons, appreciation, and depreciation).
Cash Flow Mechanics
The buyer makes periodic premium payments to the seller until maturity or a credit event
Involves a periodic exchange of cash flow, the payer gives returns and appreciation; the receiver gives a benchmark rate + spread and depreciation.
No fixed premium; the premium is inherent in the difference between actual returns and the agreed-upon spread
Synthetic Impact
Used primarily for credit insurance or hedging against specific default.
Used to synthetically replace the entire exposure of the parties, causing the receiver to assume the position of a synthetic lender to the reference obligation.
Types of TRS
Total Return Swaps can be categorized into several types based on their underlying assets and funding structures:
Index-Based TRS: Instead of a specific bond, the returns are linked to a diversified index (e.g., a broad-based index of 100 high-yield corporate bonds). The RBI specifically allows these if the index is composed of eligible debt instruments and published by an authorized administrator.
Equity Swaps: A type of TRS where the reference asset is one or more equity securities. Here, the total return payer pays the return from the equity or the portfolio, and in turn, receives a base rate spread.
Property Derivatives: The TRS methodology has been applied to swapping the returns of property investments also, allowing investors to synthetically invest in properties or property indices.
Structured TRS: Here, the reference assets would be a pool of loans or bonds. The transaction will make uses of the credit-linked notes.
The Draft CD Directions permit the use of TRS while adding multiple safeguards to ensure that TRS functions strictly as a credit risk transfer instrument and not as a means of synthetic funding, balance-sheet arbitrage, or regulatory circumvention. The regulatory framework governs four key aspects:
Eligible participants,
Permissible reference assets,
Permitted purposes for which these instruments may be used, and
Prudential safeguards.
Eligible participants for TRS
Para 4.1.2(iii) of the revised Directions stipulates that at least one counterparty to every credit derivative transaction must be a market-maker. For this purpose, market-makers are defined to include
Scheduled Commercial Banks,
Large NBFCs (including HFCs and SPDs) with a minimum net owned fund of ₹500 crore, and
Specified financial institutions such as NABARD, SIDBI, and EXIM Bank.
This requirement ensures that TRS transactions are intermediated by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
In alignment with this overarching requirement, the Draft CD Directions prescribe the following specific eligibility conditions for TRS:
TRS may be offered only by market-makers, ensuring that such transactions are undertaken by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
Residents (other than individuals) may enter into TRS without any restriction on the purpose, allowing both hedging and non-hedging purposes.
Persons resident outside India may enter into TRS only for the purpose of hedging, and such TRS may be offered to them exclusively by market-makers.
Reference entities and reference assets for TRS
In addition to prescribing eligible participants, the Draft CD Directions impose strict controls on the nature of reference entities and assets that may be used for TRS transactions. These controls are intended to ensure transparency, prevent regulatory arbitrage, and avoid the creation of complex or opaque synthetic exposures.
Reference entity:
A reference entity refers to the issuer whose credit risk and economic performance form the basis of the TRS contract. For TRS, the reference entity shall be a indian resident entity that is eligible to issue Reference assets under the Draft CD Directions.
By limiting reference entities to domestic issuers of eligible debt instruments, the framework ensures that TRS activity remains in the Indian corporate debt market, which was also the regulatory intent.
Reference assets:
A reference asset refers to the underlying corporate bond or debt instrument issued by the reference entity or an index of underlying debt instruments specified in a total return swap contract. The Draft CD Directions specify the following as eligible reference assets for TRS:
Money market debt instruments;
Rated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures;
Unrated INR-denominated corporate bonds and debentures issued by Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) set up by infrastructure companies; and
Bonds with call and/or put options.
At the same time, the Directions expressly prohibit TRS on certain instruments, including asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, credit-enhanced or guaranteed bonds, convertible bonds, and other hybrid or structured obligations. This exclusion reflects regulatory caution against layering derivatives on complex or credit-enhanced products that could obscure risk transfer.
Index-based reference assets
The Draft CD Directions also permit a TRS to reference an index, provided that:
The index comprises only eligible debt instruments as specified above; and
The index is published by a financial benchmark administrator duly authorised by the RBI under the Reserve Bank of India (Financial Benchmark Administrators) Directions, 2023
Although such index based reference asset has been introduced for CDS and TRS, no such index for debt securities exists currently. Accordingly, such an index must be developed.
Preventing Regulatory circumvention:
Para 4.5.1(ii) of the Draft CD Directions expressly provides that market participants shall not undertake credit derivative transactions, including Total Return Swaps, involving reference entities, reference obligations, or reference assets where such transactions would result in exposures that the participant is not permitted to assume in the cash market, or where they would otherwise violate applicable regulatory restrictions. This provision prevents the use of TRS to bypass exposure limits, concentration norms, sectoral caps, or investment restrictions applicable to the participants.
Additional safeguards for TRS used for hedging
Where a TRS is entered into for the purpose of hedging, the market-maker is required to ensure that the user satisfies the following conditions:
The user has an existing exposure to the relevant reference asset
The notional amount of the TRS does not exceed the face value of the reference asset held by the user, and
The tenor of the TRS does not extend beyond:
The maturity of the reference asset held by the user, or
The standard TRS maturity date is immediately following the maturity of the reference asset.
These safeguards reinforce the principle that hedging-oriented TRS must remain strictly co-terminous and proportionate to the underlying exposure, thereby avoiding over-hedging or speculations. Further, the Draft CD Direction specify that the settlement rules and standard documentation will be specified by shall be specified by the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), in consultation with market participants. However, the market participants are allowed to, alternatively, use a standard master agreement for credit derivative contracts.
Will it impact the bond markets in India?
Will this new instrument have an impact on bond markets in India? The first instance of guidelines on credit derivatives was issued in 2011; this failed to have any impact at all. Then, after the report of the Working Group, new Credit Derivatives Directions were issued in 2022. These also, at least based on anecdotal market information, have not had any significant traction at all.
CDS is much more standardised than TRS; as we have noted above, TRS is only 4.9% of the global credit derivatives market. Will the Indian market, which has not yet picked up credit spread trading in the form of CDS, delve into a far more esoteric TRS trade? Was it based on any reasoned or surveyed market feedback that this regulatory change was inspired? These questions, a priori, are difficult to answer. However, like a new flavour of ice cream, you never know until you try it.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-02-09 18:41:402026-02-09 18:41:42The Swap that does it all: RBI introduces total return swaps on corporate bonds
Holding Companies whose primary intent is to invest in their group companies have lately faced a paradox with respect to the requirement of registration as a Core Investment Company (CIC).
CICs are entities whose principal activity is the acquisition and holding of investments in group companies, rather than engaging in external investments or lending exposure outside the group. Para 3 of the Reserve Bank of India (Core Investment Companies) Directions, 2025 (‘CIC Directions’) prescribes the quantitative thresholds for classification of an NBFC as a CIC. In terms thereof, an NBFC that holds not less than 90% of its net assets in the form of investments in group companies, of which at least 60% is in equity instruments, is classified as a CIC and is required to obtain registration from the RBI, unless exempted.
Conceptually, a CIC is a sub-category of a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) (para 3 of the CIC Directions), just like Housing Finance Companies, Micro Finance Institutions, etc. The threshold criteria that NBFCs are required to satisfy is the principal business criteria (PBC), pursuant to which at least 50% of the total assets of the entity must consist of financial assets and at least 50% of its total income must be derived from such financial assets.
The PBC has historically served as the foundational threshold for determining whether an entity is an NBFC. Once the entity satisfies this principal requirement of carrying out financial activity, the sub-category is to be determined based on its line of business, which, lately, has seen quite a varietty – fron tradtional variants such as investment and lending activities (ICC), to housing finance (HFC), to financing of receivables (Factoring companies), the more recent inclusions are account aggregators (AA), mortgage guarantee companies (MGCs), infrastructure finance compaies (IFC), etc. Each of these NBFCs first, and then they fall in their respective class. For instance, HFCs are a type of NBFCs that primarily focus on extending housing loans and hence, must have a minimum housing loan portfolio of 60% and an individual housing loan of 50%.
Accordingly, all categories of NBFCs must first be ascertained to be carrying out financial activities as their primary business, and thereafter, the specific product helps to determine the category. Consequently, holding companies or CICs should ideally also adhere to the 50-50 criteria first and thereafter meet the 90-60 criteria for CIC classification.
However, there is a common perception among the market participants that CICs, irrespective of meeting such PBC, in case they reach the 90-60 criteria, will be required to obtain registration as a CIC. Several news reports also note this perception.
This perception among the market participants that CICs are not required to adhere to the PBC criteria stems from para 17(3) of the CIC Directions, which explicitly provides that:
“CICs need not meet the principal business criteria for NBFCs as specified under paragraph 38 of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Registration, Exemptions and Framework for Scale Based Regulation) Directions.”
It may be noted that the above-quoted provision, which has recently been made a part of the CIC Directions pursuant to the November 28 consolidation exercise, was earlier included in the FAQs released by RBI on CICs. FAQs are RBI staff views; whereas Directions or Regulations are a part of subordinate law; however, in the consolidation exercise, a whole lot of FAQs and circulars became a part of the Directions.
Going by the intent of the NBFC classification and categorisation, the above-quoted provisions seem more relevant for registered CICs, implying that CICs once registered need not meet the PBC on an ongoing basis. CICs predominantly hold investments in group companies and therefore satisfy the 90–60 thresholds, but often do not derive any financial income from such investments. Group investments, being strategic in nature, are rarely disposed of, and the dividend income from such investments depends on the dividend/payout ratio, which may be quite low. In several cases, such entities continue to earn income, say, by way of royalty for a group brand name. Even the slightest of non-financial income will seem to breach the PBC criteria, which may challenge the continuation of registration of the CIC as an NBFC. In order to redress this, the provision under para 17(3) of the CIC Directions provides that CICs need not meet the PBC criteria on an ongoing basis.
What is the basis of this argument? The definition of a CIC comes from para 3, which says as follows: “These directions shall be applicable to every Core Investment Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘CICs’ and individually as a ‘CIC’), that is to say, a non-banking financial company carrying on the business of acquisition of shares and securities, and which satisfies the following conditions.” Para 17 (3) is a note to Para 17, which apparently deals with conditions of continued registration.
Given that CIC is a category of NBFC, it would be counter-intuitive to say that the regulatory requirement requires holding companies to go for registration as a CIC even if they do not meet the PBC for an NBFC. In fact, if an entity is not an NBFC because it fails the principality of its business, it would not even come under the statutory ambit of the RBI by virtue of section 45-IC.
Accordingly, without going by just the text of the regulations, in our view, considering the regulatory intent, the following could be inferred:
If there are group holding companies which have intra group investments, but also have operating income from one or more sources, such that the operating income is more than finanical income, these companies are not NBFCs at all. If they are not NBFCs, they cannot be CICs irrespctive of the extent of investment/loans as a part of their asset base. As we say this, we emphaise that the operating income shoudl be substantive and should be indicating a strategic business intent, rather than a pure one-off or passive income.
CICs are a type of NBFC.
Holding companies will be classified as a CIC in case they first meet the 50-50 criteria for NBFC and thereafter the 90-60 criteria as well. The registration requirement may then be ascertained based on the asset size and access to public funds by the CIC.
A CIC (registered or unregistered) need not meet the PBC criteria on an ongoing basis.
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-02-07 10:49:332026-02-09 11:43:44The NBFC that doesn’t have to be: CICs and Principal Business paradox
https://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.png00Staffhttps://vinodkothari.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/vinod-kothari-logo.pngStaff2026-01-30 18:49:052026-01-30 18:49:07Representation with respect to NBFC-related Regulatory Issues
The framework for Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (IOS) constitutes a cornerstone of the RBI’s customer protection and grievance redressal mechanism across the financial sector. With the objective of providing customers a single, unified and accessible platform for redressal of complaints against Regulated Entities, the RBI introduced the Integrated Ombudsman framework.
The IOS 2026 seeks to refine and reinforce the existing mechanism by expanding the scope of coverage, strengthening the powers of the Ombudsman, tightening procedural timelines, enhancing disclosure and reporting. The table below highlights and analyses the key changes introduced under IOS 2026 as compared to the IOS 2021, to enable stakeholders to assess the regulatory and operational impact of the revised framework.
Provision
IOS 2021
IOS 2026
Analysis / Impact
Definition of “Customer” & “Deficiency in Service”
The term “Customer” was not defined. Limited definition for ‘Deficiency in Service’, largely linked to users/applicants of financial services.
‘Customer’ means a person who uses, or is an applicant for, a service provided by a Regulated Entity. (Para 3(1)(h)) ‘Deficiency in Service’ now applicable across all services provided by Regulated Entities and not just restricted to financial services. (Para 3(1)(i))
Broadens the scope of protection by covering all services offered by Regulated Entities, not just financial services.
Definition of “Rejected Complaints”
Not expressly defined
New definition introduced – complaints closed under Clause 16 of the Scheme. (Para 3(1)(o))
Clarificatory in nature; definition is not used elsewhere in the Scheme
Power to Implead Other Regulated Entities
No explicit power
Ombudsman empowered to make other Regulated Entities a party to the complaint if such Regulated Entity has, by an act, negligence, or omission, failed to comply with any directions, instructions, guidelines, or regulations issued by the RBI. (Para 8(6))
Expands investigative and adjudicatory powers of the RBI Ombudsman
Annual Report on Scheme Functioning
The Ombudsman was required to submit an annual report to the Deputy Manager of the RBI; however, the RBI was not obligated to publish it.
It has now been made mandatory for the RBI to publish an annual report on the functioning and activities carried out under the Scheme. (Para 8(7))
Enhances transparency and public accountability of the Ombudsman framework
Interim Advisory
No express provision
Ombudsman expressly empowered, if deemed necessary and based on the circumstances of the complaint, to issue an advisory to the RE at any stage to take such action as may lead to full or partial resolution and settlement of the complaint. (Para 14(6))
Enables interim reliefs/directions and more effective complaint handling. This would help in resolving disputes by settlement at any stage. IOS permits advisories i.e., communications from the Ombudsman advising REs to take actions for full or partial complaint resolution. Advisories are non-binding and serve as a pre-award tool to facilitate quicker settlements.
Principal Nodal Officer (PNO) – Change Reporting
Reporting obligation not specified
Any change in appointment or contact details of PNO must be reported to CEPD, RBI (prior to change or immediately post-change) (Para 18(2))
Additional intimation requirement for regulated entities
Compensation – Consequential Loss
Capped at ₹20 lakh
Enhanced to ₹30 lakh (Para 8(3))
Increases the limit of potential financial risk for Regulated Entities
Compensation – Harassment & Mental Anguish
Consolatory damages capped at ₹1 lakh
Increased to ₹3 lakh (in addition to other compensation) (Para 8(3))
Compensation limit tripled
Limit on Amount in Dispute
No monetary cap
No change – still no limit (Para 8(3))
Ombudsman continues to have wide jurisdiction irrespective of dispute value
Timeline for Filing Complaint
1 year from RE’s reply; or 1 year + 30 days if no reply from RE
Complaint must be filed within 90 days from the expiry of the RE’s response timeline (30 days) or last communication, whichever is later. (Para 10(1)(g))
Considerably tightens timelines; this would mean the customers must act swiftly
Guidance on Complaint Filing
Dispersed across the Scheme
Consolidated guidance provided in Part A of the Annexure along with Complaint Form. (Annex)
The guidance merely reiterates the points from the scheme that relate to admissibility of a valid complaint, but this is useful for the complainant as he will be aware of the complaint filing requirements and shall not be required to be thorough with the scheme itself
Modes of Filing Complaint
Specified the options to file a complaint through portal, email, or courier at CRPC.
Explicitly specified the email-ID of CRPC, and the address at which the complaint shall be couriered. (Para 6(2))
Specification of the details for filing complaint
Data Consent in Complaint Form
No explicit consent requirement
Explicit consent for use of personal data mandatory. (Annex)
Aligns complaint process with evolving data protection and privacy standards
Categorisation of Complaints in complaint form
Limited classification
Detailed categorisation of complainant type and nature of complaint. (Annex)
Enables better routing, analytics, and faster resolution
Reduces frivolous filings and early-stage rejections
Appellate Authority
Executive Director in charge of concerned RBI department
Executive Director in charge of Consumer Education and Protection Department (CEPD) explicitly designated. (Para 3(1)(a))
Clarificatory in nature
Introduced system-based validation
No such provision
Complaints received via portal, will undergo a system-based validation/check and will be rejected at the outset for being non-maintainable complaints. For the complaints received via e-mail and physical mode, CRPC will assess their maintainability under the Scheme. (Para 12(1))
This would enhance the “gatekeeping” responsibility of the CRPC, which should speed up the process for valid complaints by weeding out inadmissible ones.
Actionables for REs:
REs should review and align their internal grievance handling and escalation processes to ensure all service-related complaints are covered.
REs shall provide prior intimation to the CEPD, RBI for any change in the appointment or contact details of the Principal Nodal Officer (PNO)
REs shall take note of the enhanced compensation limits under the Scheme and accordingly reassess potential liabilities, update grievance redressal frameworks, and sensitize relevant teams to ensure compliance with revised thresholds.
Para 18, as in the earlier Scheme, requires REs to display the salient features of the Scheme, a copy of the IOS 2026, and the updated contact details of the Principal Nodal Officer on their website and at their branches/places where the business is transacted.