Posts

Omnibus use vs know-its-use: Is Supply Chain Financing a revolving line of credit?

Vinod Kothari and Dayita Kanodia | finserv@vinodkothari.com

There have been recent concerns that the RBI is not happy with NBFCs extending revolving credit facilities; there are also some reports to suggest that the supervisor has shown opposition to supply chain funding.

This write up delves into what could be the objections of the regulator in NBFCs extending revolving lines of credit, and why supply chain funding, if properly structured, is not a revolving credit facility that the regulator may be objecting to. It is a credit facility for sure, like every other credit facility, but it is way different from a revolving credit facility such as a cash credit, overdraft, or a credit card.

What could be the objection to revolving lines of credit by NBFCs ?

One of the traditional functions of a bank is credit creation, which, in essence, is the multiplied availability of money supply in an economy. For example, a bank accepts a demand deposit of Rs 100 from customer X, keeps 10% of the money as cash, and lends Rs 90 to customer Y, X still has a spending power of Rs 100, and Y has a spending power of Rs 90, though the system has a total cash of only Rs 100. The bank does it on the basis that X or similar depositors do not withdraw all their deposits at a time; therefore, the bank may keep liquidity as a part of its demand liabilities, and deploy the rest.  It is a different issue that Basel requirements of LCR require banks to keep liquid resources, not necessarily in hard cash.

In another way, banks may create liquidity by granting overdraft or cash credit facilities. That is, customer, customer X who has deposited Rs 100 may be permitted to draw upto Rs 200. As the bank estimates that not every customer who has overdraft sanctions will fully use the same, each such customer has a spending power, without the need to have actual cash. 

This is, of course, different from an actual loan, where the money would have moved from the lender to the borrower.

A revolving line of credit is a flexible credit facility that offers borrowers access to a pre-approved amount of funds, which they can draw upon, repay, and redraw as needed. 

Credit card is another classic case of a revolving line of credit – the card company creates spending power, equal to the available credit on each card. If, on an average, every card is drawn to the extent of, say, 33%, a card issuer may create spending ability equal to 3X the money the issuer has.

Credit creation has macroeconomic implications; central bankers use expansion of credit and contraction of credit as tools of achieving macroeconomic objectives.

Since NBFCs are not banks, if NBFCs start creating credit, without actual funding, there may be an exception to the central bank’s powers to control credit in the economy. 

In case of credit cards, the revolving line of credit is also used as a payment instrument. In essence, the card is used to settle payment obligations – therefore, the one who accepts a payment by use of a credit card is acquiring the right to receive money from the card issuer. The card issuer is, in that sense, making an obligation to pay money represented by the card to anyone accepting the card. Such a privilege can only be given to authorised entities. Banks are, by their very nature, authorised entities for the payment system; NBFCs need specific authorisation.

The key features of a revolving line of credit, which may have the regulator’s disapproval, are as follows:

  1. It is a line of credit and not a funding attached to a specific usage. The grantor of the facility approving any particular drawdown or usage of the line of credit does not arise.
  2. The line of credit may be tapped any time, and does not have any major end-use restrictions, except, may be a negative list. 
  3. It may be paid back any time.
  4. Once paid back, it will auto replenish -that is, it will be available for withdrawal again. Even though a revolving facility may have a sunset, but until it lives, it continues to revolve.
  5. Given the fact that there is no specific time for repayment of any particular usage, a revolving facility is considered to be out of order only when it breaches some of the triggers – may be set with respect to the asset-liability cover, or otherwise.

For further details on revolving line of credit – See Lend, Recover, Replenish: A guide to revolving lines of credit

Why is supply chain financing important ?

Supply chains have become extremely important as manufacturing has moved to aggregation. Any large manufacturing operation today is, indeed, a substantial extent of assembly and aggregation of the components made at different places by different suppliers. Thereby, the dependence of a business on upstream vendors has increased. In the same vein, the ability of a business to enable supplies to the end user  with minimum time has become very important. All these factors make effective supply chain management a very important function for most businesses. 

Meaning of SCF

SCF, also known as channel finance or reverse factoring, is a financial arrangement that helps companies optimize their working capital and improve the efficiency of their supply chain operations. It involves the use of financial instruments and techniques to facilitate the smooth flow of funds between buyers, suppliers, and financial institutions.

The Global Supply Chain Finance Forum defines Supply Chain Finance as, 

“the use of financing and risk mitigation practices and techniques to optimize the management of the working capital and liquidity invested in supply chain processes and transactions. SCF is typically applied to open account trade and is triggered by supply chain events. Visibility of underlying trade flows by the finance provider(s) is a necessary component of such financing arrangements which can be enabled by a technology platform.

In a SCF arrangement, the buyer procures goods or services from a supplier and receives an invoice for the transaction. The supplier receives upfront payment based on the invoice amount, improving their cash flow. This arrangement provides the buyer with the flexibility to settle the payment by the invoice’s due date, optimizing working capital for both parties.

Importance of SCF

  1. Working Capital Optimization: Buyers can extend their payment terms, which can free up cash for other investments, while suppliers can access early payments to meet their financial obligations.
  2. Increased chances that the buyer will pay on the due date: Due to the presence of a financial institution, it is more likely that the buyer will pay on the due date. 
  3. Improved Supplier Relationship: Due to SCF, the supplier receives early payment while the buyer has the flexibility to pay on the due date. This also improves the buyer-supplier relationship.

Various modes of SCF

The following are some of the SCF product types:

  1. Receivables discounting: Sellers of goods and services sell individual or multiple receivables to a finance provider at a discount.
  2. Factoring: Sellers of goods and services sell their receivables at a discount to a ‘factor’. Typically, the factor becomes responsible for managing the debtor portfolio and collecting the payment of the underlying receivables.
  3. Reverse factoring (Payables finance): It is a buyer-led program within which sellers in the buyer’s supply chain are able to access finance by means of receivables purchase.
  4. Purchase-order finance: Pre-shipment or purchase-order finance is a loan provided by a finance provider to a seller of goods and/or services for the sourcing, manufacture, or conversion of raw materials or semifinished goods into finished goods and/or services, which are then delivered to a buyer.

The Global Supply Chain Finance Market has increased by 7% to USD 2,347bn in the year 2023

For further details on Supply Chain Finance – see Unlocking Working Capital: An Overview of Supply Chain Finance

Credit with a purpose vs Credit on demand

The key defining features of revolving line of credit will help us to differentiate the same from SCF. In fact, SCF emerged as an alternative to the traditional mode of working capital finance – viz., overdraft or cash credit. SCF reduces the need for revolving facilities for working capital – hence, it is referred to as an alternative working capital financing product.

The table below distinguishes between SCF and RLOC. 

Points of DistinctionSCF RLOC
Purpose and End-Use RestrictionsIn SCF, each drawdown is made against a specific purchase or sale transaction. Therefore, it is transactional funding – funding of a specific transaction. In case of purchase financing, it becomes funding for the purpose of enabling a purchase, and in case of sales financing, it becomes a mode of releasing funding locked in a specific sale. Once again, what sales will qualify for funding are clearly defined by the grantor of the facility. Typically, the grantor may approve every specific sale or purchase invoice.RLOC offers unrestricted use, giving borrowers the flexibility to allocate the funds as needed. In other words, revolving facilities can be used for any spending.  
Structure and RepaymentIn SCF, each transaction is treated as a unique drawdown, meaning repayment is generally linked to the cash flow generated from the sale or purchase for which the funds were advanced. Further, further disbursal may also be restricted in case the amount pertaining to the earlier facility is overdue. A revolving credit structure where the borrower can repay and re-borrow funds multiple times during the term of the facility, providing continuous liquidity regardless of specific transactions.
Annualised Percentage RateCredit is advanced against a specific invoice with a defined repayment period, APR calculation is possible.Calculating APR for RLOCs may not be feasible, as the exact dates of repayments and future disbursements are unknown at the time of sanction.

It is important to note that in SCF like in case of a RLOC, there can be a sanctioned credit limit within which the drawdowns can be made. However, the setting of a credit limit is common for any credit facility. However, in SCF unlike RLOC, the drawdown would depend upon the availability of an invoice pertaining to a specific sale or a purchase, of goods or services which are either approved by qualifying criteria, or are approved specifically by the facility provider. 

RBI’s Concerns About Evergreening

The RBI has raised concerns about the practice of “evergreening” in financial arrangements, particularly when it comes to credit facilities such as RLOCs. Evergreening occurs when additional funds are borrowed to pay off existing debt, creating a cycle of borrowing without actual repayment, often concealing the true creditworthiness or financial health of the borrower. This practice poses systemic risks, as it may lead to artificially inflated financial statements and delayed recognition of bad debts.

Why RBI’s Concerns Do Not Apply to Supply Chain Financing:
The structural design of SCF mitigates the risk of evergreening. Since each drawdown in SCF is linked to a specific, commercial transaction, further financing is typically contingent on the timely settlement of previous advances. If a borrower fails to repay a previous drawdown on schedule, additional financing for new transactions is withheld, preventing the borrower from obtaining funds solely to meet previous obligations. This transaction-based financing model ensures transparency and aligns with RBI’s efforts to curb evergreening practices, as each drawdown must have a legitimate underlying trade transaction.

RLOC and Evergreening Risks:
In contrast, an RLOC does not impose restrictions on the use of funds or require them to be linked to specific transactions. Borrowers may potentially use an RLOC to repay prior debts, thus getting their line of credit reinstated and then further borrowing.

Financial Sector Regulator – ‘Rule of Law’ Review

– Aditya Iyer (adityaiyer@vinodkothari.com)

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [118.03 KB]

RBEye: Red-eyed RBI wants lenders to revisit interest rate policies

-Vinod Kothari (vinod@vinodkothari.com)

Against the backdrop the action against 4 specific lender, RBI now expects all NBFCs to appraise their boards of the action taken by the regulator, and in specific terms, have the interest rate policy examined with respect to, at least, the following, in “unambiguous terms”:

  • The Board of each NBFC shall adopt an interest rate model taking into account relevant factors such as cost of funds, margin and risk premium and determine the rate of interest to be charged for loans and advances
  • The rate of interest must be annualised rate so that the borrower is aware of the exact rates that would be charged to the account.

Usually, it is believed that if a penal or disciplinary action is taken against some, it is in relation to aberrations by the respective entities. While others need to sit up and take notice it is but natural, but it is a bit different this time – the regulator itself is expecting that all NBFCs need to sensitise their boards on the action taken. The action taken by the RBI is hardly a surprise and therefore, all boards of all NBFCs know it for sure – however, what is not known is what was the background for the action taken. Generic expressions such as “fair, reasonable and transparent pricing, especially for small value loans” have been used in the press release, but these have always been there and have always been the abstractions that everyone talks about, and tried to walk. But what boards of every NBFC will need to know is the nature of the aberrations. Other than just expressing concerns and sending alert signals, NBFCs may need to do self introspection and course correction, for which they would have expected granular observations, as in the case of gold lending vide circular dated September 30, 2024

It may be the expectation of the regulator that interest rate models, based on which the actual setting of interest rates by business is done, are not vague or subjective, and leave room for opportunistic pricing. For example, the risk premium on loan is imposed on the price: this should be a reflection of the expected loss models. There may be loan acquisition costs and servicing costs – which may be either fixed, variable or semi variable. These may be translated into a mark-up based on appropriate pricing models. The most important component of loan pricing, of course, is the cost of capital – including the cost of equity, which may be priced on the basis of actual (in case of equity, expected) costs of each of the sources of capital. In essence, there is entity-wide or product-wide pricing, such as cost of capital and servicing, and loan-specific pricing, such as cost of acquisition and credit risk premium.

These models may be granularly put before the Boards of NBFCs. Boards do not get into pricing, but with the kind of shocks that RBI has given to some lenders, boardrooms rather get into details of pricing being charged.

Another very important factor in pricing are the “extras”, which have become increasingly important over time. These may be fees that NBFCs get from allied services, or subventions from vendors, etc. These constitute part of the returns, but are not shown as cost to the borrower. These may also eventually be a matter of concern. 

Vinod Kothari Consultants did a webinar recently on the RBI crackdown – here is the link to the recording of the webinar: https://youtu.be/poy6_HehPgU?feature=shared.

Other related resources:

  1. Is half-truth a lie: Hidden Costs in zero-interest loans
  2. Fair Lending: RBI bars several practices
  3. FAQs on Penal Charges in Loan Accounts

Recent Updates to HFC Directions: What you need to know

-Chirag Agarwal | chirag@vinodkothari.com

On October 10, 2024, RBI updated the Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Company – Housing Finance (‘HFC Directions’) applicable to HFCs. The HFC Directions were updated to consolidate various circulars that have been issued since its last update on March 21, 2024. A significant change in this edition is the introduction of a new format for the Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) following the rollout of the Key Facts Statement (KFS) vide circular no DOR.STR.REC.13/13.03.00/2024-25 dated April 15, 2024. 

In this article, we will be discussing the changes introduced by the October 10th update to the HFC Directions.

Clarification regarding MITC and KFS

Previously, Para 85.8 of the HFC Directions mandated that to facilitate a quick, and better understanding of the terms and conditions of the housing loan,  a document containing the ‘Most Important Terms and Conditions’ (MITC) must be furnished to the borrower. However, when the KFS circular was first introduced, there was some ambiguity regarding whether both the MITC and KFS would apply to HFCs. This confusion arose because both disclosures contained overlapping information. However, with the recent updates to the HFC Directions on October 10, 2024, clarity has been provided on this matter. The revised regulations clearly state that “the HFCs shall additionally obtain a document containing the other most important terms and conditions (MITC) of such loan (i.e., other than the details included in KFS)”. 

Notably, the MITC has now been renamed as Other Most Important Terms and Conditions (‘OMITC’). The OMITC will no longer include disclosures that are already covered in the KFS. The revised format no longer includes an obligation to disclose details of the loan amount, interest rate, type of interest, details of moratorium, date of reset of interest, installment type, loan tenure, the purpose of the loan, fees and other charges, as well as the details of the grievance redressal mechanisms now exclusively appear in the KFS. Further, other substantive aspects have been retained, i.e., details of the security/collateral for the loan, details of the insurance, conditions for disbursement of the loan, repayment of the loans and interest,  procedure to be followed for recovery, the date on which annual outstanding balance sheet will be issued, and details of the customer services.

This updated approach simplifies the compliance process for HFCs by clearly defining where specific information should be disclosed. It reduces redundancy and ensures that borrowers can find critical information in a consolidated format without surfing through repetitive disclosures. 

Consolidation of Circulars

The following circulars and notifications have been consolidated under the HFC Directions pursuant to the update:

Details of circulars consolidatedOur resources on the topic
Key Facts Statement (KFS) for Loans & AdvancesThe Key to Loan Transparency: RBI frames KFS norms for all retail and MSME loans
Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management in Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) (including Housing Finance Companies)Revamped Fraud Risk Management Directions: Governance structure, natural justice, early warning system as key requirements
Guidance Note on Operational Risk Management and Operational ResilienceRisk Management Function of NBFCs – A Need to Integrate Operational Risk Management & Resilience
Review of Risk Weights for Housing Finance Companies (HFCs)HFCs: risk weights for undisbursed home loans rationalised
Investments in Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs)Some relief in RBI stance on lenders’ round tripping investments in AIFs
Frequency of reporting of credit information by Credit Institutions to Credit Information Companies

Conclusion 

To summarise, the recent updates to the HFC Directions not only consolidate past circulars but also clarify the relationship between the MITC and KFS. HFCs can now navigate their disclosure requirements more effectively, enhancing transparency and making it easier for consumers to understand the terms of their loan.

Our other resources on the topic are:-

  1. Aligning Regulations: Harmonizing the Frameworks for HFCs and NBFCs
  2. Housing finance companies regulatory framework: RBI proposes sectoral harmonisation
  3. HFCs: risk weights for undisbursed home loans rationalised

Simple, Transparent and Comparable (STC) securitisation: Discrepancy in risk weights needing urgent remedy

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [324.74 KB]


Our resources on Securitisation:

  1. What is securitisation?
  2. Basel III requirements for Simple Transparent and Comparable (STC) Securitisation
  3. IOSCO Paper on Simple, Transparent and Comparable (STC) securitization
  4. Time value of money, NPVs, IRRs

Surging gold loan business sets off RBI alarm

Several practices in gold lending pointed by supervisor; 3 months’ time to mend ways

– Team Finserv (finserv@vinodkothari.com

The Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) issued a notification dated September 30, 2024[1] raising concerns on the irregular practices observed in the grant of loans against pledge of gold ornaments and jewellery. 

The RBI’s comprehensive review has unveiled notable deficiencies, including lapses in due diligence process, credit appraisals, ineffective monitoring of loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, a lack of transparency in the auctioning of jewellery upon default and so on. This notification compels all commercial banks, primary co-operative banks, and non-banking financial companies to undertake a meticulous evaluation of their existing gold lending processes and rectify identified gaps or shortcomings.

Read more

Indian securitisation enters a new phase: Banks originate with a bang

Abhirup Ghosh | abhirup@vinodkothari.com

The Indian securitisation market has been without banks as originators for nearly 17 years, until HDFC Bank[1] launched a landmark transaction that may signal their potential return. Prior to the Global Financial Crisis, which raised significant questions about the viability of securitization as a financial product, banks like ICICI Bank were actively involved in the market, with ICICI’s last reported transaction occurring in 2007[2].

It is notable that erstwhile HDFC Limited, prior to its merger into the Bank, was the largest single originator of home loan securitisations; however, the present transaction is not home loans.

After the GFC, banks shifted from being originators to becoming investors in securitised assets. To meet the priority sector lending targets, banks started investing heavily in the securitisation market, be it in pass-through certificates or through acquisition of loan pools. This was a stark contrast to the situation elsewhere in the world, where the issuances are primarily made by banks.

Read more

Co-Lending and GST: Does the relationship between co-lenders constitute a supply that may be subject to GST?

Team Finserv (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction 

Banks and Non Banking Financial Companies (‘NBFCs’) have been receiving notices from statutory authorities stating the occurrence of evasion of goods and services tax (‘GST’) in respect of co-lending arrangements. At present, the GST laws do not address the implications of GST on co-lending transactions. In response to the investigations carried out Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) on various banks and financial institutions, industry participants had requested for clarification on the matter in 2023 on whether GST is applicable on colending transactions.  However, the issue still remains unaddressed.

While multiple theories go around in the market on the subject, this article aims to discuss the theories and examine them in light of applicable laws. 

The issue

It is common knowledge that, for GST to be applicable, there needs to be a supply of goods or services. Therefore, the primary question to be answered here is whether the originating or servicing co-lender (‘OC’) provides any services to the arrangement? Can it be argued that the OC who is retaining a higher proportion of interest as compared to its proportion of funding of the principal amount of loan is actually providing services to the arrangement, and therefore, should be paying GST on the services to the other lenders?

The analysis

It is crucial to understand the nature of the relationship between the lenders involved. A co-lending arrangement is essentially a collaborative partnership between two lenders. To the extent two lenders agree to originate and partake in lending jointly, it is a limited purpose partnership or a joint venture. To the extent the two co-lenders extend a lending facility, the relation between the two of them together on one side, and the borrower on the other, amounts to a loan agreement. However, as there are two lenders together on the lender side, the borrower makes promises to two of them together, and therefore, the rights of any one of them is governed by the law relating to “joint promisees”. Given this framework, co-lending arrangements cannot simply be viewed as service agreements between the parties involved. Instead, they represent a distinct legal relationship characterized by shared responsibilities, rights, and risks associated with the lending process.

Does it qualify as a Supply?

The interest rates expected by the two co-lenders may vary due to the differing roles they play in the co-lending arrangement. It may be agreed that the funding co-lender receives a specific percentage of the interest charged to the borrower, while any excess interest earned beyond this hurdle rate shall be retained by the OC. Since the OC is performing services in the co-lending arrangement, would this excess spread be considered as consideration for supply of service under GST laws?

As discussed earlier, co-lending is inherently a partnership between two entities where each party’s contributions, functions, and responsibilities can vary. This results in a differential sharing of both risks and rewards, which means that the income earned from the loan may not necessarily be distributed in the same ratio as the principal loan amount.

The sharing of interest in co-lending arrangements is typically determined by each co-lender’s involvement in managing the loan’s overall risk—covering both pre and post-disbursement activities. Consequently, the excess interest earned by one co-lender over another is not reflective of a supply of a service provided by one entity to the other. Instead, this excess interest is merely a differential income that retains its original characteristic as interest income.

In a co-lending arrangement,  the co-lenders split their mutual roles i.e the co-lender performs various services pursuant to the co-lending arrangement, the same cannot be constituted as a separate supply provided to the other co-lender. For example if the borrower interface is being done by OC, it would be wrong to regard the OC as an agent for the Funding Co-lender. Both of them are acting for their mutual arrangement, sharing their responsibilities as agreed. Neither is providing any service to  the other. The co-lenders are effectively splitting the functionalities to the best of their capacity and expertise under their co-lending arrangement, which does not tantamount to any additional services being provided by one co-lender to the other. 

This view can be further strengthened by the ITAT ruling of May 7, 2024 which confirmed that the excess interest allowed to be retained with the NBFC was not a consideration for rendering professional/ technical services by the transferor NBFC to the transferee bank and neither would it fall within the ambit of commission or brokerage. 

ITAT examined some major points for characterisation of the excess interest spread retained by the NBFC analyzing mainly:

Excess interest retained not in the nature of professional/technical fees

The ruling examined whether the retained interest could be classified as fees for professional or technical services under Section 194J. The ITAT noted that while the NBFC had a service agreement with the bank, wherein it was responsible for managing and collecting payments, the agreed-upon service fee of Rs. 1 lakh was clearly defined and separate from the excess interest. The court dismissed the revenue department’s argument that the service fee of Rs 1 lakh was inadequate and the excess interest be considered as fee for rendering the services by the transferor NBFC, stating that the NBFC’s role was not as an agent acting on behalf of the bank.

Excess interest retained not in the nature of commission or brokerage 

The ITAT ruling clarified that the excess interest retained by the NBFC does not qualify as commission or brokerage under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal determined that the loans originated by the NBFC were not on behalf of the bank, but rather as independent transactions governed by a separate service agreement. This agreement stipulated distinct service fees for the NBFC’s management of the loans, emphasizing that the NBFC was not acting as an agent for the bank.

By making this distinction, the ITAT characterized the excess spread as a financial outcome of the contractual arrangement rather than a commission for services rendered. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that there was no obligation to deduct TDS on the excess interest retained by the NBFC, reinforcing the understanding that such retained interest is not subject to typical taxation associated with agent-like relationships. You may refer to our article on the ruling here

Conclusion

Therefore, taking into consideration the structure of the co-lending arrangement it can be concluded that the differential or higher interest rate retained by the OC shall not be treated as consideration for performing the agreed-upon role between the co-lenders. The recent ITAT ruling provides crucial clarity regarding the treatment of excess spreads in co-lending arrangements, affirming that such retained interest does not constitute a supply of services or a fees for professional services, commission, or brokerage. By highlighting the distinct nature of the contractual relationship between co-lenders, the ruling reinforces the idea that excess interest is a product of shared risk and reward rather than compensation for services rendered. Consequently, applying GST to a transaction that does not constitute a service would be inappropriate and misaligned with the tax framework.

Workshop on Co-lending and Loan Partnering – For registration click here: https://forms.gle/bq18tHgQb618jAcb9

Our other resources on this topic:

  1. White-paper-on-Co-lending
  2. The Law of Co-lending
  3. Shashtrarth 10: Cool with Co-lending – Analysing Scenario after RBI FAQs on PSL
  4. FAQs on Co-lending
  5. Vikas Path: The Securitised Path to Financial Inclusion

Workshop on Co-lending and Loan Partnering

For registration click here: https://forms.gle/bq18tHgQb618jAcb9

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [334.23 KB]