Round-Tripping Reined: RBI Rolls Out Relaxed Rules for Investments in AIFs

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

-Sikha Bansal, Senior Associate & Harshita Malik, Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Background

The RBI’s regulatory approach to investments by Regulated Entities (REs) in Alternate Investment Funds (AIFs) has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past two years. Initially, the RBI responded to the risks of “evergreening”, where banks and NBFCs could mask bad loans by routing fresh funds to existing debtor companies via AIF structures, by issuing stringent circulars in December 20231 and March 20242 (collectively known as ‘Previous Circulars’). The December 2023 circular imposed a blanket ban on RE investments in AIFs that had downstream exposures to debtor companies, while the March 2024 clarification excluded pure equity investments (not hybrid ones) from this restriction. This stance aimed to strengthen asset quality but quickly highlighted significant operational and market challenges for institutional investors and the AIF ecosystem. Many leading banks took significant provisioning losses, as the Circulars required lenders to dispose off the AIF investments; clearly, there was no such secondary market. 

In response to the feedback from the financial sector, as well as evolving oversight by other regulators like SEBI, the RBI undertook a comprehensive review of its framework and issued Draft Directions- Investment by Regulated Entities in Alternate Investment Funds (‘Draft Directions’) on May 19, 20253. The Draft Directions have now been finalised as Reserve Bank of India (Investment in AIF) Directions, 2025 (‘Final Directions’) on 29th May, 2025. The Final Directions shift away from outright prohibitions and instead introduce a carefully balanced regime of prudential limits, targeted provisioning requirements, and enhanced governance standards. 

Comparison at a Glance

A compressed comparison between Previous Circulars and Final Directions is as follows –

ParticularsPrevious CircularsFinal DirectionsIntent/Implication
Blanket BanBlanket ban on RE investments in AIFs lending to debtor companies (except equity)No outright ban; investments allowed with limits, provisioning, and other prudential controlsMove from a complete prohibition to a limit-based regime. Max. Exposures as defined (see below) taken as prudential limits
Definition of debtor companyOnly equity shares excluded for the purpose of reckoning “investment” exposure of RE in the debtor companyEquity shares, CCPSs, CCDs (collectively, equity instruments) excluded Therefore, if RE has made investments in convertible equity, it will be considered as an investment exposure in the counterparty – thereby, the directions become inapplicable in all such cases.
Individual Investment Limit in any AIF schemeNot applicable (ban in place)Max 10% of AIF corpus by a single RE, subject to a max. of 5% in case of an AIF, which has downstream investments in a debtor company of RE.Controls individual exposure risk. Lower threshold in cases where AIF has downstream investments.
Collective Investment Limit by all REs in any AIF schemeNot applicableMax 20%4 of AIF corpus across all REsWould require monitoring at the scheme level itself.
Downstream investments by AIF in the nature of equity or convertible equityEquity shares were excluded, but hybrid instruments were not. All equity instruments Exclusions from downstream investments widened to include convertible equity as well. Therefore, if the scheme has invested in any equity instruments of the debtor company, the Circular does not hit the RE.
Provisioning100% provisioning to the extent of investment by the RE in the AIF scheme which is further invested by the AIF in the debtor company, and not on the entire investment of the RE in the AIF scheme or 30-day liquidation, if breachIf >5% in AIF with exposure to debtor, 100% provision on look-through exposure, capped at RE’s direct exposure5 (see illustrations below)No impact vis-a-vis Previous Circulars. 
For provisioning requirements, see illustrations later. 
Subordinated Units/CapitalEqual Tier I/II deduction for subordinated units with a priority distribution modelEntire investment deducted proportionately from Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital proportionatelyAdjustments from Tier I and II, now to be done proportionately, instead of equally. 
Investment PolicyNot emphasizedMandatory board-approved6 investment policy for AIF investmentsOne of the actionables on the part of REs – their investment policies should now have suitable provisions around investments in AIFs keeping in view provisions of these Directions
ExemptionsNo specific exemption. However, Investments by REs in AIFs through intermediaries such as fund of funds or mutual funds were excluded from the scope of circulars. Prior RBI-approved investments exempt; Government notified AIFs may be exempt
Provides operational flexibility and recognizes pre-approved or strategic investments.No specific mention of investments through MFs/FoFs – however, given the nature of these funds, we are of the view that such exclusion would continue.
Transition/Legacy TreatmentNot applicableLegacy investments may choose to follow old or new rulesSee discussion later.

Key Takeaways: 

Detailed analysis on certain aspects of the Final Directions is as follows:

Prudential Limits 

Under the Previous Circulars, any downstream exposure by an AIF to a regulated entity’s debtor company, regardless of size, triggered a blanket prohibition on RE investments. The Final Directions replace this blanket ban with prudential limits:

  • 10% Individual Limit: No single RE can invest more than 10% of any AIF scheme’s corpus.
  • 20% Collective Limit: All REs combined cannot exceed 20% of any AIF scheme’s corpus; and
  • 5% Specific Limit: Special provisioning requirements apply when an RE’s investment exceeds 5% of an AIF’s corpus, which has made downstream investments in a debtor company.

Therefore, if an AIF has existing investments in a debtor company (which has loan/investment exposures from an RE), the RE cannot invest more than 5% in the scheme. But what happens in a scenario where RE already has a 10% exposure in an AIF and the AIF does a downstream investment (in forms other than equity instruments) in a debtor company? Practically speaking, AIF cannot ask every time it invests in a company whether a particular RE has exposure to that company or not. In such a case, as a consequence of such downstream investment, RE may either have to liquidate its investments, or make provisioning in accordance with the Final Directions. Hence, in practice, given the complexities involved, it appears that REs will have to conservatively keep AIF stakes at or below 5% to avoid the consequences as above. 

Now, consider a scenario – where the investee AIF invests in a company (which is not a debtor company of RE), which in turn, invests in the debtor company. Will the restrictions still apply? In our view, it is a well-established principle that substance prevails over form. If a clear nexus could be established between two transactions – first being investment by AIF in the intermediate company, and second being routing of funds from intermediate company to debtor company, it would clearly tantamount to circumventing the provisions. Hence, the provisioning norms would still kick-in. 

Provisioning Requirements

Coming to the provisioning part, the Final Directions require REs to make 100 per cent provision to the extent of its proportionate investment in the debtor company through the AIF Scheme, subject to a maximum of its direct loan and/ or investment exposure to the debtor company, if the REs exposure to an AIF exceeds 5% and that AIF has exposure to its debtor company. The requirement is quite obvious – RE cannot be required to create provisioning in its books more than the exposure on the debtor company as it stands in the RE’s books. 

The provisioning requirements can be understood with the help of the following illustrations:

ScenarioIllustrationExtent of provisioning required
Existing investment of RE in AIF Scheme (direct loan and/or investment exposure exists as on date or in the past 12 months)For example, an RE has a loan exposure of 10 cr on a debtor company and the RE makes an investment of 60 cr in an AIF (which has a corpus of 800 cr), the RE’s share in the corpus of the AIF turns out to be 7.5%. The AIF further invested 200 cr in the debtor company of the RE. The proportionate share of the RE in the investment of AIF in the debtor company comes out to be 15 cr (7.5% of 200 cr). However, the RE’s loan exposure is 10 crores only. Therefore, provisioning is required to the extent of Rs. 10 crores.
Existing investment of RE in AIF Scheme (direct loan and/or investment exposure does not exist as on date or in the past 12 months)Facts being same as above, in such a scenario, the provisioning requirement shall be minimum of the following two:-15 cr(full provisioning of the proportionate exposure); or-0 (full provisioning subject to the REs direct loan exposure in the debtor company)Therefore, if direct exposure=0, then the minimum=0 and hence no requirement to create provision.

Some possible measures which REs can adopt to ensure compliance are as follows: 

  1. Maintain an up-to-date, board-approved AIF investment policy aligned with both RBI and SEBI rules;
  2. Implement robust internal systems for real-time tracking of all AIF investments and debtor exposures (including the 12-month history);
  3. Require regular, detailed portfolio disclosures from AIF managers;
  4. appropriate monitoring and automated alerts for nearing the 5%/10%/20% thresholds; and
  5. Establish suitable escalation procedures for potential breaches or ambiguities.

Further, it shall be noted that the intent is NOT to bar REs from ever investing more than 5% in AIFs. The cap is soft, provisioning is only required if there is a debtor company overlap. But the practical effect is, unless AIFs develop robust real-time reporting/disclosure and REs set up systems to track (and predict) debtor overlap, 5% becomes a limit for specifically the large-scale REs for practical purposes. 

Investment Policy

The Final Directions call for framing and implementing an investment policy (amending if already exists) which shall have suitable provisions governing its investments in an AIF Scheme, compliant with extant law and regulations. Para 5 of the Final Directions does not mandate board approval of that policy, however, Para 29 of the RBI’s Master Directions on Scale Based Regulations stipulates that any investment policy must be formally approved by the Board. In light of this broader governance requirement, it is our view that an RE’s AIF investment policy should similarly receive Board approval. Below is a tentative list of key elements to be included in the investment policy:

  • Limits: 10% individual, 20% collective, with 5% threshold alerts;
  • Provision for real-time 12-month debtor-exposure monitoring and pre-investment checks;
  • Clear provisioning methodology: 100% look-through at >5%, capped by direct exposure; proportional Tier-1/Tier-2 deduction for subordinated units; and
  • Approval procedures for making/continuing with AIF investments; decision-making process
  • Applicability of the provisions of these Directions on investments made pursuant to commitments existing on or before the effective date of these Directions.

Subordinated Units Treatment

Under the Final Directions, investments by REs in the subordinated units7 of any AIF scheme must now be fully deducted from their capital funds, proportionately from Tier I and Tier II as against equal deduction under the Previous Circulars. While the March 2024 Circular clarified that reference to investment in subordinated units of AIF Scheme includes all forms of subordinated exposures, including investment in the nature of sponsor units; the same has not been clarified under the Final Directions. However, the scope remains the same in our view.

What happens to positions that already exist when the Final Directions arrive?

As regards effective date, Final Directions shall come into effect from January 1, 2026 or any such earlier date as may be decided as per their internal policy by the REs. 

Although, under the Final Directions, the Previous Circulars are formally repealed, the Final Directions has prescribed the following transition mechanism:

Time of making Investments by RE in AIFPermissible treatment under Final Directions
New commitments (post-effective date)Must comply with the new directions; no grandfathering or mixed approaches allowed
Existing InvestmentsWhere past commitments fully honoured: Continue under old circulars
Partially drawn commitments: One-time choice between old and new regimes

Closing Remarks

The RBI’s evolution from blanket prohibitions to calibrated risk-based oversight in AIF investments represents a mature regulatory approach that balances systemic stability with market development, and provides for enhanced governance standards while maintaining robust safeguards against evergreening and regulatory arbitrage. 

Of course, there would be certain unavoidable side-effects, e.g. significant operational and compliance burdens on REs, requiring sophisticated real-time monitoring systems, comprehensive debtor exposure tracking, board-approved investment policies, and enhanced coordination with AIF managers. Hence, there can be some challenges to practical implementation.  Further, the success of this recalibrated regime will largely depend on the operational readiness of both REs and AIFs to develop transparent monitoring systems and proactive compliance frameworks. 

  1.  https://vinodkothari.com/2023/12/rbi-bars-lenders-investments-in-aifs-investing-in-their-borrowers/ 
    ↩︎
  2.  https://vinodkothari.com/2024/03/some-relief-in-rbi-stance-on-lenders-round-tripping-investments-in-aifs/ 
    ↩︎
  3.  https://vinodkothari.com/2025/05/capital-subject-to-caps-rbi-relaxes-norms-for-investment-by-res-in-aifs-subject-to-threshold-limits/ ↩︎
  4.  The limit was 15% in the Draft Directions, the Final Directions increased the limit by 5 percentage points.
    ↩︎
  5.  This cap at RE’s direct loan and/or investment exposure has been introduced in the Final Directions.
    ↩︎
  6.  Para 29 of the RBI’s Master Directions on Scale Based Regulations stipulates that any investment policy must be formally approved by the Board. 
    ↩︎
  7. SEBI, vide Master Circular for AIFs, had put restrictions on priority distribution model. Later, pursuant to Fifth Amendment to SEBI (AIF) Regulations, 2024, SEBI issued a Circular dated December 13, 2024 wherein certain exemptions were allowed and differential rights were allowed subject to certain conditions. See our article here. ↩︎

Let them pledge but don’t make it count: RBI’s clarification on voluntary pledge

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

Harshita Malik | finserv@vinodkothari.com

The Banking Puzzle

I was giving a collateral-free loan only, but the borrower didn’t agree – he voluntarily came and pledged family gold and silver jewellery! 

This is perhaps the way Banks will be reacting after the RBI Clarificatory circular on Voluntary Pledge of Gold (‘Voluntary Pledge Circular’). The Voluntary Pledge Circular dated July 11, 2025 which addresses all Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs & SFBs), State Co-operative Banks, District Central Co-operative Banks states that a a voluntary pledge of gold or silver as collateral by a borrower for an agricultural or MSME loan shall not amount to a violation of the Reserve Bank of India (Lending Against Gold and Silver Collateral) Directions, 2025 (‘Gold Lending Directions’), provided that the sanctioned amount is within the collateral-free limit laid down in the earlier RBI guidelines. 

It may be noted that as per separate RBI circulars dated December 6, 2024 and July 24, 2017 farm lending upto Rs. 2 lacs and MSE lending upto Rs. 10 lacs shall be done without collateral.

This clarification by the regulator may enable lenders to circumvent the regulations by categorizing collateral as a voluntary pledge for loans within the collateral-free caps, whereas in reality, the borrower may have been directly or indirectly compelled to offer such collateral.

Further, the circular also makes reference to the Gold Lending Directions. A question may arise if the Gold Lending Directions will apply even in the case of voluntary pledge of gold. 

The Gold Lending Directions should apply in all such cases of voluntary pledges to avoid a situation of regulatory arbitrage, where lenders could potentially bypass regulatory guidelines merely by categorizing the pledge as voluntary.

Our resources on the topic- 

  1. Bank-NBFC Partnerships for Priority Sector Lending: Impact of New Directions – Vinod Kothari Consultants
  2. RBI revises Priority Sector Lending Norms
  3. Meeting priority sector lending shortfalls: One more option
  4. PSL guidelines reviewed for wider credit penetration
  5. The new PSL Master Direction and its Impact on NBFCs

Can NBFCs “outsource” internal audit functions to external auditors? 

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

– Anshika Agarwal (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has consistently emphasized the significance of robust internal control systems; where gaps are found by the supervisor, it has penalised  regulated entities for non-compliance. Recently, the RBI imposed a penalty on an NBFC for outsourcing one of its core management functions, i.e., internal audit to an external auditor, thereby raising doubts as to whether internal audit for NBFCs can be conducted by external auditors. Does the very fact that internal audit is being conducted not internally but by an external chartered accountancy firm amount to “outsourcing” of core management function?  This article examines outsourcing in the context of internal audit function,  and the conditions subject to which internal audit may be conducted by external agencies. 

Understanding the concept of ‘Outsourcing’

Outsourcing is defined under the Basel 2005 document1 as “a regulated entity’s use of a third party (either an affiliated entity within a corporate group or an entity that is external to the corporate group) to perform activities on a continuing basis that would normally be undertaken by the regulated entity, now or in the future.” Similarly, the IOSCO Consultation Paper2 refers to outsourcing as “a business practice in which a regulated entity uses a service provider to perform tasks, functions, processes, or activities that could otherwise be undertaken by the regulated entity itself.”

NBFCs, especially those with asset-light models or limited resources, opt for outsourcing to manage financial as well as non-financial functions. Outsourcing by NBFCs typically involves delegating tasks such as loan application processing, collection of documents, data processing, IT support, customer service, and back-office operations to third-party providers. While outsourcing boosts operational efficiency, they also carry risks, particularly when core management functions are outsourced. Notably, outsourcing is distinct from availing professional services like legal, audit, consulting, or property management, which are ancillary to the NBFC’s core business. In case of outsourcing of financial functions by regulated entities, there are specific guidelines issued by the RBI to regulate the arrangements. Clear regulatory oversight is crucial to strike a balance between leveraging external expertise and maintaining ethical, efficient practices in the financial services sector.

Regulatory Framework: The RBI’s Perspective

The RBI guidelines are specifically aimed at managing risks related to outsourcing of financial services. Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Company – Scale Based Regulation) Directions, 2023 (‘SBR Directions’)3, particularly Annexure 13 on Instructions on Managing Risks and Code of Conduct in Outsourcing of Financial Services by NBFCs (‘Outsourcing Guidelines’), Para 2 lays down stringent conditions for outsourcing to ensure compliance, accountability, and effective risk management. While outsourcing can support operational efficiency, core management functions must remain under the direct control of the regulated entity.

Core Management Functions: Non-Negotiable Responsibilities 

The Outsourcing Guidelines explicitly prohibits NBFCs from outsourcing core management functions vital to governance, decision-making, and risk management. The core management functions are those that are vital and crucial for the existence as well as operations of the entity. These have been defined to include:

These functions are critical for ensuring the organization’s stability and operational integrity. For example, internal audit functions identify risks, ensure regulatory compliance, and assess control effectiveness. Entrusting such functions to external entities could compromise decision-making and erode organizational trust.

Contractual Engagement for Internal Audit

While the internal audit function itself is a core management process, the Outsourcing Guidelines in the same lines allows regulated entities to engage internal auditors on a contractual basis. This means external professionals can be brought in to execute internal audits, provided their engagement adheres to regulatory standards, independence is maintained, and the entity retains oversight and control rather than putting all the responsibility on a third party. 

For example, an entity may handle several operational tasks related to an audit, such as preparing documentation, organizing records, or conducting initial reviews. However, the ultimate responsibility for decision-making, oversight, and ensuring compliance with regulations rests with the audit committee or the entity’s senior management. This approach ensures that the internal management retains control over key aspects of the audit process, even while delegating specific tasks or availing expertise support. In contrast, the action of outsourcing shifts the entire responsibility for the audit to a third-party. This means the external firm is accountable for managing and executing all aspects of the audit, from operational tasks to final implementation. Such an outsourcing may reduce the internal workload, however, it also transfers control and accountability to an external entity, which may not align entirely with the entity’s internal objectives and strategic priorities. 

In other words, what is permitted is to avail the expertise services of a third party for carrying out the internal audit function but not the transfer of the entire responsibility of carrying out internal audit to a third party.

ICAI Standards: Expertise and Independence in Internal Audits

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) Standards on Internal Audit4 states that “Where the Internal Auditor lacks certain expertise, he shall procure the required skills either though in-house experts or through the services of an outside expert, provided independence is not compromised”. 

The aforesaid guidance from the ICAI emphasizes maintaining expertise and independence. While not explicitly addressing outsourcing, these standards recognize that internal auditors may lack certain specialized skills. In such scenarios, they encourage engaging in-house or external experts while safeguarding independence.

The standards indirectly allow for outsourcing when:

  • Specific expertise is unavailable in-house,
  • Independence remains uncompromised

By availing the services of experts ensures that internal audit teams possess the necessary skills to perform effective reviews, while the entity retains oversight and accountability.

Companies Act, 2013: Flexibility in Internal Audit Assignments

Section 138 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA 2013’)5, specifies the requirement for internal audits for certain classes of companies. It allows the appointment of internal auditors, which may include chartered accountants, cost accountants, or other professionals, as decided by the Board. Explanation of Rule 13 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014, states that “the internal auditor may or may not be an employee of the company”.

The aforesaid provision also enables companies to engage external auditors to perform internal audits, even if they are not part of the organization. While the CA 2013 does not explicitly prohibit outsourcing of internal audit functions, it places the ultimate responsibility for conducting and reporting on internal audits with the Board. This also clarifies that companies may utilize external expertise while maintaining oversight and control of the audit process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the RBI’s recent penalties underscore the importance for regulated entities to maintain strict compliance with outsourcing regulations, particularly regarding core management functions. While the Outsourcing Guidelines as well as the provisions of CA 2013 permit engaging external auditors on a contractual basis to perform operational tasks related to audits, accountability and strategic control such as having audit plan approved by the audit committee, regular reporting to the audit committee, discussion of the board and audit committee on the conduct of audit,implementing remedial measure on the oversight of the audit committee or senior management must remain firmly within the organization. Adherence to these principles will help maintain the fine distinction between outsourcing the internal audit function and appointing external auditors as internal auditors, specifically in the context of internal audits.

Read our other related resources –

  1. UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF OUTSOURCING- ENVISAGING A TOUGH ROAD AHEAD FOR THE SERVICE PROVIDERS
  2. Draft framework for Financial Services Outsourcing

  1.   https://www.bis.org/publ/joint12.pdf (last accessed in November 2024) ↩︎
  2.   https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD654.pdf (last accessed in November 2024) ↩︎
  3.  Reserve Bank of India, Master Direction – Scale Based Regulation (SBR): A Revised Regulatory Framework for NBFCs, October 22, 2021. Available at: https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=12550 ↩︎
  4.  Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Standard on Internal Audit (SIA) 2: Basic Principles Governing Internal Audit. Available at: https://resource.cdn.icai.org/52727iasb-basicprinciples-3.pdf ↩︎
  5.  The Companies Act, 2013, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Available at: https://www.mca.gov.in/. ↩︎

The Clean up call: RBI Action against Lending practices

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Virtual Webinar | 28th October 2024 | 6:15 PM.

To watch the webinar, click here.

Click here to register: https://forms.gle/BtiZdmEDrU7Y9Tcb9

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [663.81 KB]

OVERVIEW OF THE RBI REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NBFCS

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Vinod Kothari & Anita Baid | finserv@vinodkothari.com

This presentation was used during the ICSI Crash course

Day 1

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [2.30 MB]

Day 6

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [2.02 MB]

Two days refresher course on NBFC Regulations

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

Fill the google form to register: https://forms.gle/mpVZhhhqsZV9uiti8

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [481.77 KB]

Refer our resources on SBR:

Resources on Scale Based Regulations

Online Workshop on Regulatory Concerns on Fair Lending Practices and KYC

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by
Register here: https://forms.gle/cQ3RYWAwhqd3hqTs7
Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [370.96 KB]

Our resources on KYC can be accessed here.

Our resources on SBR:

Resources on Scale Based Regulations

NBFC Regulation turned sixty

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Vinod Kothari, finserv@vinodkothari.com

Not sure if any cake was cut[1], but NBFC regulation turned 60, on 1st Feb., 2024. It was on 1st Feb., 1964 that the insertion of Chapter IIIB in the RBI Act was made effective. This is the chapter that gave the RBI statutory powers to register and regulate NBFCs.

1964: Insertion of regulatory power

What was the background to insertion of this regulatory power? Chapter IIIB was inserted by the Banking Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963. The text of the relevant Bill, 1963  gives the object of the amendment: “The existing enactments relating to banks do not provide for any control over companies or institutions, which, although they are not treated as banks, accept deposits from the general public or carry other business which is allied to banking. For ensuring more effective supervision and management of the monetary and credit system by the Reserve Bank, it is desirable that the Reserve Bank should be enabled to regulate the conditions on which deposits may be accepted by these non-banking companies or institutions. The Reserve Bank should also be empowered to give to any financial institution or institutions directions in respect of matters, in which the Reserve Bank, as the central banking institution of the country, may be interested from the point of view of the control of credit policy.”

Therefore, there were 2 major objectives – regulation of deposit-taking companies, and giving credit-creation connected directions, as these entities were engaged in quasi-banking activities.

Read more →

Consolidated NBFC Regulations for all Scales and Functions

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

– Anita Baid, Vice President | anita@vinodkothari.com

Updated as on 09.11.2023

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued a notification outlining a new regulatory framework for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) on October 19, 2023 (‘SBR Framework’). The RBI has played a crucial role in regulating the NBFC sector over the years. With the sector’s evolution and changing dynamics, the regulator has been proactive in amending regulations. Previously, NBFCs were classified into two categories: systemically important and non-systemically important. However, starting from October 2022, the RBI introduced a new classification system based on layers: base, middle, upper, and top.

The reclassification introduced some progressive changes but also created certain ambiguities in the applicability of regulatory rules. Specifically, the terms “base layer” and “middle layer” were related with non-systemically important (non-SI) and systemically important (SI) NBFCs. When classifying NBFCs based on asset size, those with assets under Rs. 500 crores were considered non-SIs, while those with assets over Rs. 500 crores were classified as SIs.

However, the SBR Framework introduced a different set of criteria. According to this framework, NBFCs with assets less than Rs. 1000 crores are categorized as Base Layer entities, while those with assets exceeding Rs. 1000 crores are classified as Middle Layer entities. This creates a gray area for NBFCs with assets falling between Rs. 500 crores and Rs. 1000 crores.

To address this issue and provide a more streamlined regulatory framework, the RBI has issued the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Company – Scale Based Regulation) Directions, 2023 (‘SBR Master Directions’).

The SBR Master Direction, effective immediately, intends to consolidate the various regulations for NBFCs of different scales and functions in one place. The consolidation has streamlined various regulations issued under the SBR Framework governing the different layers of NBFCs. It brings clarity to compliance requirements and ensures that all NBFCs operate within a framework that is consistent and transparent. The SBR Master Directions is divided into sections for different categories of NBFCs, based on size as well as function:

  1. Regulations for Base Layer;
  2. Regulations for Middle Layer (this would be in addition to the regulations for BL);
  3. Regulations for Upper Layer (this would be in addition to the regulations for BL and ML);
  4. Regulations for Top Layer (to be specifically communicated upon classification in TL);
  5. Specific Directions for MFIs this is in addition to the regulations based on layers);
  6. Specific Directions for Factors and NBFCs registered under Factoring Act (this is in addition to the regulations based on layers);
  7. Specific Directions for IDFs (this is in addition to the regulations based on layers).

Further, the specific regulations issued by the RBI would still be relevant and continue to be applicable for Housing Finance Companies, Core Investment Companies, NBFC-P2P, NBFC-Account Aggegator, deposit taking NBFCs, Residuary Non-Banking Companies, Mortgage Guarantee Companies and  Asset Reconstruction Companies. Additionally, based on the classification under the SBR Framework (BL or ML), the relevant provisions of the SBR Master Directions shall be applicable. 

Previously, under the SBR notification dated October 22, 2021, the RBI clarified that all references to NBFC-ND (non-systemically important non-deposit taking NBFC) would now be referred to as NBFC-BL, and all references to NBFC-D (deposit-taking NBFC) and NBFC-ND-SI (systemically important non-deposit taking NBFC) would be known as NBFC-ML or NBFC-UL, depending on the case.

Furthermore, it specified that existing NBFC-ND-SI with asset sizes of ₹ 500 crore and above but below ₹1000 crore (except those necessarily categorized as Middle Layer) would be reclassified as NBFC-BL.

However, upon an initial review of the SBR Master Directions, it appears that certain guidelines that were typically applicable to NBFC-SI and should logically apply to NBFC-ML are explicitly retained for NBFCs with asset sizes exceeding ₹ 500 crores. Here is a list of such guidelines:

  1. Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets dated June 07, 2019, as amended from time to time would be applicable on all NBFCs-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset size of ₹500 crore and above. It may be noted that there are specific norms for restructuring of advances by non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore
  2. Non-Cooperative Borrowers identification shall be done by all NBFC-Factors, NBFCs-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset s.ize of ₹500 crore and above.
  3. Refinancing of Project Loans to any existing infrastructure and other project loans by non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore.
  4. Framework for Revitalizing Distressed Assets in the Economy shall apply to non-deposit taking NBFCs with asset size less than ₹500 crore.
  5. Early Recognition of Stress and Reporting to Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC) reporting by all NBFC-Factors, NBFC-D and non-deposit taking NBFCs of asset size of ₹500 crore and above. 

As the financial landscape continues to evolve, the RBI’s proactive approach ensures that the NBFC sector remains well-updated. 

Upon further perusal of the SBR Master Directions, it can be noticed that there are certain regulations that were issued under the SBR Framework that have not been consolidated, such as follows:

  1. Compliance Function and Role of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) – NBFCs
  2. Implementation of ‘Core Financial Services Solution’ by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)

Further, there are specific master directions on information technology framework, fraud reporting, etc. that have not been consolidated. It may also be noted that para 4.2 clarifies that the SBR Master Directions consolidate the regulations as issued by Department of Regulation (DoR); any other directions/guidelines issued by any other Department of the RBI, as applicable to an NBFC shall continue to be adhered to. Accordingly, the aforesaid regulations that were issued by the Department of Supervision (DoS) or Department of Non-Banking Supervision (DNBS) have not been consolidated and are neither listed in the Repeal Section of the SBR Master Directions. There does not seem to be any reason for the aforesaid regulations to be repealed, and hence, it seems that only those circulars and notifications that are issued by the DoR have been considered while compiling the regulations, including those introduced under the SBR Framework. Considering that there are standalone notifications on the aforesaid issued by the DoS or DNBS, therefore, the said regulations should also continue to be applicable.

Our YouTube Series realting to the topic: Tattva

Our Resources on SBR can be accessed here:

Resources on Scale Based Regulations

Implementation of Compliance Function by NBFC-ML

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Eliza Bahrainwala, Executive| eliza@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [77.82 KB]

Our related resources on the topic:-

  1. Enhanced Corporate Governance and Compliance Function for larger NBFCs
  2. Compliance Risk Assessment

Our Resource Centre on SBR:

Resources on Scale Based Regulations