The Recovery of Bad Loans from Large Borrowers Will Be a Big Challenge for Modi Govt

rupee

Earlier this week the Reserve Bank of India released the Financial Stability Report.

Among other things, this report talks about the inability of large borrowers to repay the loans that they have taken on from banks, in particular the public sector banks. The Reserve Bank of India defines a large borrower as a borrower who has taken on a loan of Rs 5 crore or more.

The Indian banking system has been trouble primarily because of the large borrowers and not the retail borrowers. As the Financial Stability Report points out: “Retail loans continued to witness the least stress.

This can be seen from the following chart.

Asset quality in major sectorsChartThe chart makes for a very interesting reading. The retail loans remain the safest form of lending. The gross non-performing assets ratio (or the bad loans ratio) of lending to retail is at 1.8% of the loans given to the sector. Retail loans essentially include home loans, vehicle loans, credit card outstanding, loan against shares, bonds and fixed deposits, and personal loans.

As can be seen from the above chart, the bad loan ratio of retail lending is the least. This explains why 46% of lending carried out by banks between April 2015 and April 2016, has been retail lending. Between April 2014 and April 2015, 32.4% of all lending was retail lending.

Lending to industry is the most risky form of lending. As on March 31, 2016, the bad loans ratio had stood at 11.9%. Over and above this, the stressed advances ratio was at 19.4%. The stressed advances figure is obtained by adding the bad loans to the restructured assets. A restructured asset is essentially a loan where the borrower has been given a moratorium during which he does not have to repay the principal amount. In some cases, even the interest need not be paid. In some other cases, the tenure of the loan has been increased.

Hence, nearly one fifth of the loans given to industry are in trouble. Given this, it is hardly surprising that banks (in particular public sector banks) do not want to lend to industry. Bank lending to industry between April 2015 and April 2016, remained more or less flat.

Industries which have taken on loans from banks can largely be categorised as large borrowers or borrowers who have taken on a loan of Rs 5 crore or more. And this is where the basic troubles of Indian banks lie.

As the Financial Stability Report points out: “Share of large borrowers’ in total loans increased from 56.8 per cent to 58.0 per cent between September 2015 and March 2016. Their share in GNPA s[gross non-performing assets or bad loans] also increased from 83.4 per cent to 86.4 per cent during the same period.”

What does this mean? This basically means that large borrowers have been given 58% of all loans but they are responsible for 86.4% of the bad loans. In fact, the bad loans ratio of large borrowers stood at 10.6% as on March 31, 2016. As on September 30, 2015, it had stood at 7%. When it comes to public sector banks this ratio had stood at 12.9% as on March 31,2016, for large borrowers.

Hence, the bad loans to big borrowers have been going up. One reason, as I had explained in yesterday’s column is that the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) has been forcing public sector banks to recognise bad loans as bad loans. Up until now, banks had been passing off many bad loans as restructured loans.

Of course, even within the large borrowers there are many categories.

While banks are able to go after the small enterprises which have taken on loans and not in a position to repay them, the same cannot be said about the very large borrowers. As the RBI governor Raghuram Rajan had said in a November 2014 speech, the full force of bank recovery is “felt by the small entrepreneur who does not have the wherewithal to hire expensive lawyers or move the courts, even while the influential promoter once again escapes its rigour.” “The small entrepreneur’s assets are repossessed quickly and sold, extinguishing many a promising business that could do with a little support from bankers,” Rajan had further said on that occasion.

The Financial Stability Report does not give a detailed breakdown of large borrowers, but it does give us a very interesting data point about the top 100 borrowers among the large borrowers.

As the Report points out: “Top 100 large borrowers (in terms of outstanding funded amounts) accounted for 27.9 per cent of credit to all large borrowers…There was a sharp increase in the share of GNPAs [Gross Non-Performing Assets] of top 100 large borrowers in GNPAs of all large borrowers from 3.4 per cent in September 2015 to 22.3 per cent in March 2016.”

What does this mean? The loans given to the top 100 borrowers among the large borrowers constitute for 27.9% of all loans given to large borrowers. As on September 30, 2015, the bad loans of the top 100 borrowers among large borrowers amounted to around 3.4% of bad loans of all large borrowers. By March 31, 2016, this had jumped to 22.3% of bad loans of all large borrowers.

What does this tell us? It tells us very clearly that banks were treating its largest borrowers with kids gloves and not recognising their bad loans as bad loans. This could have possibly been done by restructuring their loans.

Thankfully, this game is now over. And for that both the RBI and the Modi government deserve credit. The bigger challenge now lies ahead. The government as the major owner of public sector banks needs to make sure that these largest of defaulters are made to repay the loans of public sector banks that they have taken on.

Given that, such a thing has rarely happened in the past, it will be interesting to see how the Modi government will go about this. If it can clean this mess up, then the phrase that telephones from the government to the public sector banks have stopped, will acquire a real meaning. Let’s hope for the best.

Watch this space!

The column originally appeared in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on July 1, 2016
 

The Clean Up of Public Sector Banks is On, but the Basic Problem Still Remains

RBI-Logo_8

Earlier this week, the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) released the biannual Financial Stability Report. And this is how the most important paragraph of the report reads: “The gross non-performing advances (GNPAs) of SCBs sharply increased to 7.6 per cent of gross advances from 5.1 per cent between September 2015 and March 2016 after the asset quality review (AQR). A simultaneous sharp reduction in restructured standard advances ratio from 6.2 per cent to 3.9 per cent during the same period resulted in the overall stressed advances ratio rising marginally to 11.5 per cent from 11.3 per cent during the period. PSBs continued to hold the highest level of stressed advances ratio at 14.5 per cent, whereas, both private sector banks (PVBs) and foreign banks (FBs), recorded stressed advances ratio at 4.5 per cent.”

What does this mean? As on March 31, 2016, the gross non-performing advances (or bad loans) of banks stood at 7.6% of the loans that they have given out. This figure had stood at 5.1% as on September 30, 2016. It had stood at 4.6% as on March 31, 2015.

This basically means that between March last year and March this year, the bad loans of banks have gone up by 300 basis points. One basis point is one hundredth of a percentage. Between September 2015 and March 2016, the bad loans of banks have gone by 250 basis points.

Nevertheless, this is good news. But how can bad loans of banks going up be good news?  It is good news because the banks (particularly public sector banks) are finally getting around to recognising bad loans as bad loans. Up until now, they were basically postponing the recognition of bad loans as bad loans by passing them as restructured loans.

A restructured loan essentially implies that the borrower has been given a moratorium during which he does not have to repay the principal amount. In some cases, even the interest need not be paid. In some other cases, the tenure of the loan has been increased.

This is how banks had been helping many borrowers who were no longer in a position to repay the loans they had taken on. In many cases, restructuring was just an exercise to postpone the recognition of bad loans. Even after the loans were restructured many borrowers, were not in a position to repay their loans.

This becomes clear from looking at the stressed advances ratio of the banks. The stressed advances figure is obtained by adding the total bad loans to the restructured assets. Over the last few years, the stressed advances ratio of banks has gone up at a rapid rate, as banks restructured loans at a rapid pace.

This has now stopped. The restructured asset of banks as on March 31, 2016, fell to 3.9% of loans. In September 2015, it had stood at 6.2% of total advances. This basically means that the strategy of banks to postpone recognition of bank loans by passing them off as restructured assets has come to an end. Given this, the overall stressed assets ratio of banks as on March 31, 2016, stood at 11.5%, against 11.3% as on September 30, 2015.

A stressed asset ratio of 11.5% was basically obtained by adding bad loans of 7.6% to restructured assets of 3.9%. In September 2015, the restructured assets had stood at 6.2% whereas the bad loans had stood at 5.1%, leading to a stressed assets ratio of 11.3%.

What this tells us is that between September 2015 and March 2016, the stressed assets ratio has gone up by just 20 basis points from 11.3% to 11.5%. Indeed, this is good news for the simple reason that banks are now being forced to recognise bad loans as bad loans and not pass them of as restructured assets like they were doing earlier.

This is a huge feather in the cap of both the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Narendra Modi government. The basic problem is with public sector banks which gave out loans in the past primarily to many crony capitalists, which these borrowers are now not in a position to repay.

The stressed asset ratio of public sector banks as on March 31, 2016, stood at 14.5%. As on September 30, 2015, the ratio had stood at 14.1%. The stressed asset ratio of public sector banks is now going up at a slower rate than it was in the past, as can be seen from the accompanying table.

 

DateRatio
March 31, 201614.50%
September 30, 201514.10%
March 31, 201513.50%
September 30, 201412.90%
March 31, 201411.70%
September 30, 201312.30%
March 31, 201310.90%
  

 

What this means is that public sector banks are cleaning up their act by recognising more and more bad loans. This wasn’t happening in the past. Now it is important that they go after the borrowers (especially the larger ones) and recover as much of the loans as they can. The more the loans they can recover, the lesser will be the capital that the government will have to put into these banks, to get them up and running again.

Also, it is important to point out that this cleaning up has been possible because of the asset quality review initiated by the Rajan led RBI. The RBI asset quality review covered 36 banks (including all public sector banks). This review accounted for 93% of the total lending carried out by the scheduled commercial banks.

As the RBI Financial Stability Report points out: “The exercise sought to validate objective compliance of banks with applicable income recognition, asset classification and provisioning (IRACP) norms and exceptions were reported by the supervisors as divergences in asset classification / provisioning.” This basically means that RBI was checking for whether banks are recognising bad loans as bad loans.

Indeed, the fact that the bad loans ratio has jumped to 7.6%, tells us that many banks were not recognising bad loans as bad loans, and that anomaly has been corrected. The first step in tackling a problem is to recognise that it exists. The Indian banks, in particular, the public sector banks have now started to do that.

The Financial Stability Report suggests that “under the baseline scenario, the gross non-performing assets ratio [bad loans ratio] may rise to 8.5 per cent by March 2017 from 7.6 per cent in March 2016. If the macro scenarios deteriorate in the future, the gross non-performing assets ratio may further increase to 9.3 per cent.” The point is that the worst is still not over for India’s banks.

Also, this basically means that banks need to be aggressive about recovering their loans. Further, it’s time that the government as the owner of public sector banks, starts forcing the defaulting promoters to give up on their equity.

Nevertheless, the bigger problem still remains. The bigger problem is the fact that the public sector banks continue to remain government owned. As Ruchir Sharma writes in The Rise and Fall of Nations—Ten Rules of Change in the Post Crisis World: “Spend a lot of time in field, and it is all too easy to find evidence that the state is not a competent banker.”

The Indian public sector banks have ended up in trouble more than a few times before. One of the reasons for this is the politicians forcing these banks to lend to crony capitalists. And as long as these banks continue to remain government owned, that risk remains, especially given that it is crony capitalists who ultimately finance the electoral ambitions of India’s politicians.

The column was originally published in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on June 30, 2016

Why Are We Not Talking About Bad Loans of LIC?

LIC

On April 21, I wrote a column titled, Why It’s Best to Stay Away from Buying LIC Policies. One feedback I got on the social media, primarily from insurance agents trying to sound intelligent, was that, if we don’t have the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC) of India, who will carry out socially responsible investing.

None of these agents bothered to define socially responsible investing. But assuming that they know what it means, let me give you a very good example of what is definitely not socially responsible investing.

Let’s take the case of ITC, a company which still makes a bulk of its money from selling cigarettes. As of March 31, 2016, the LIC owned 14.39% stake in the company. As of yesterday i.e. May 9, 2016, this stake was worth Rs 37,510 crore.

What is a socially responsible insurance company doing by staying invested in a cigarette maker? In fact, in the recent past, this cigarette maker opposed the decision of the government for a larger pictorial warning on the cigarette packets.

Can these insurance agents who believe that LIC is into socially responsible investing tell the world at large what is India’s largest insurance and investment company, hoping to achieve by staying invested in a company which sells the stick of death?

Also, it is worth remembering here that the money that LIC manages and invests, are the hard earned savings of millions of Indians. And given the situation it should be managing this money in the best possible way.

But is it doing that? Take a look at the following table.

DateGross non-performing assets ratio
December 31, 20154.23%
December 31, 20143.98%
December 31, 20134.09%
December 31, 20122.97%
December 31, 20111.34%

 

What the above table clearly shows us is that the gross non-performing assets of LIC or bad loans, have gone up dramatically over the last five years. As on December 31, 2011, the bad loans had stood at 1.34% of the total debt portfolio of LIC.

Since then the bad loans have jumped to 4.23% of the debt portfolio of LIC. LIC buys corporate bonds and lends to the central government as well as state governments, municipalities, state electricity boards, state road transportation companies and so on.

The latest loan portfolio of LIC is not available. What is available is the loan portfolio as on March 31, 2015. This data is available in the 2014-2015 annual report of the firm. As the annual report points out: “The non-performing assets as at 31st March, 2015 are Rs12,213.37 crores out of a total debt of Rs 3,70,625.89 crores…The percentage of gross non-performing assets is 3.30%.”

The bad loans of LIC as on March 31, 2015, had stood at 3.30%. Nine months later as on December 31, 2015, they had jumped by 93 basis points to 4.23% of the total debt portfolio. One basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage.

This is a huge jump over a period of just nine months. Now compare this to the bad loans of public sector banks, which have been in the news for a while now. The State Bank of India, the biggest public sector bank reported a bad loan ratio of 5.1% of its loans, as on December 31, 2015. Syndicate Bank and Vijaya Bank reported bad loan ratios of 4.6% and 4.32%. The private sector ICICI Bank reported a bad loan ratio of 4.7%.

While the bad loans of banks have been much discussed, no such discussion seems to be happening around the bad loans of LIC. Other than an analytical piece in the Mint by Ravi Krishnan, and one newsreport in The Hindu Business Line, nothing much seems to have been written around the issue.

To put things in perspective, the loan book of LIC is pretty big. As The Hindu Business Line puts it: “LIC’s total debt” of about Rs 3,70,625 crore as of March 2015, is actually higher than HDFC Bank’s loan book of about Rs 3,65,495 crore in the FY15 fiscal.” The newspaper goes on to report that LIC has filed cases against around seventy defaulters.

While the Reserve Bank of India, the regulator of banks, seems to be taking an active interest in helping banks clean up its act, the insurance regulator, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India(IRDAI) hasn’t said anything on this front in the public domain. This is not surprising given that a former chairman of LIC is the current chairman of the insurance regulator IRDAI.

It needs to be mentioned here that LIC has the backing of the government, like the public sector banks, and hence, there is nothing to worry about. But ultimately, like has been happening with the public sector banks, the tax payers are there to pick up the tab, if the situation does spiral out of control.

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul Diary on May 10, 2016

The Moral Hazard of Settling with Vijay Mallya

Mallya4545

I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse. Okay? I want you to leave it all to me. Go on, go back to the party. – Don Corleone in The Godfather

Vijay Mallya has made an offer to banks to settle the Rs 9,091 crore that he owes them. He has promised to pay Rs 4000 crore by September 2016. He has also promised to pay Rs 2,000 crore if wins a case against a company, which allegedly supplied defective engines to the now defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

Has Mallya made an offer which the banks should not refuse? Many analysts and experts seem to be of the opinion that banks should take on this offer and in the process limit their losses.  Parag Jariwala, vice-president at Religare Capital Markets told the Mint newspaper thatMallya’s settlement offer to banks is not too bad…The actual loss if banks accept Mallya’s proposal will be just 7% on principal.”

Over the last couple of days many people on Twitter have told me that “something is better than nothing’’ and given this banks should accept Mallya’s proposal and limit their losses. Honestly, this is a very simplistic way of looking at things. It would have perhaps made some sense if Mallya was the only or perhaps one of the few defaulters in town. But that is not the case.

Mallya owes Indian banks around Rs 9,091 crore. This is a very small amount when we look at the total amount of money owed by various corporates to Indian banks. The minister of state for finance Jayant Sinha shared some interesting data in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, on March 11, 2016.

The accompanying table shows us how big the problem of banks’ lending to corporates actually is.

Rs. in Crore
Corporate Lending
YearGross AdvancesGross NPAsGNPA Ratio
2012-1331,11,7611,00,1183.22
2013-1434,06,0251,54,9554.55
2014-1536,15,1331,93,1235.34
2015-16 (till Dec. 15)38,41,8362,60,6536.78

 

The gross non-performing ratio has more than doubled between 2012-2013 and December 15, 2015. It has jumped from 3.22% to 6.78%. The gross non-performing ratio is essentially obtained by dividing gross non-performing assets by gross advances or total loans given by the banks, in this case to corporates.
And how do we define gross non-performing assets? As the per the Reserve Bank of India: “An asset…becomes non performing when it ceases to generate income for the bank.” When the corporate borrower stops paying interest and repaying the principal on a loan (a loan is an asset for a bank), the bank typically allows for a grace period of 90 days. After this grace period is over, the bank categorises the loans as a non-performing asset and starts setting aside money (or making provisions) for it. The total sum of such loans forms the gross-non-performing assets or bad loans.

If we look at total bad loans of Rs 2,60,653 crore, Mallya’s loans of Rs 9,091 crore form only 3.5% of the total bad loans. If the banks decide to settle with Mallya, they will end up setting a precedent. Then other defaulters will also want to settle and not pay up what they owe to the banks. Do they banks really want to end up in such a situation?

While settling with Mallya may not hurt banks financially much, the same cannot be said of a scenario where they were to start settling the Rs 2,60,553 crore corporate bad loans in total.

Also, any such settlement will build in “moral hazard” into the financial system. And what is moral hazard? As Mohamed A El-Erian writes in The Only Game in Town: “[It] is the inclination to take more risk because of the perceived backing of an effective and decisive insurance mechanism.”

If the banks start settling with corporates what is the signal that they are sending to the future corporate borrowers? That it is okay to take on a lot of risk with the money that they borrow from the bank or simply siphon it off. And if things go wrong, they can always settle with the bank for a lower amount.

Hence, it is very important that such a wrong precedent is not set.

On a different note, Mallya’s offer raises several other questions. If he is in a position to pay Rs 4,000 crore to banks why did he leave the country? Or why did he not pay the salaries of the employees of Kingfisher Airlines and leave them in a lurch?

Or does all this tell us that the former king of good times is simply buying time? On that your guess is as good as mine.

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul Diary on April 4, 2016

Vijay Mallya Is Just A Small Part Of The Big Banking Problem

Mallya4545

If media coverage were to be a reflection of the scale of any problem, then it can safely be said that Vijay Mallya has all alone been responsible for the crisis in the Indian banking sector.

But that is clearly not the case.

Mallya owes Indian banks around Rs 9,000 crore. This is a very small amount when we look at the total amount of money owed by various corporates to Indian banks. The minister of state for finance Jayant Sinha shared some interesting data in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, on March 11, 2016.

The accompanying table shows us how big the problem of banks’ lending to corporates actually is.

Rs. in Crore
Corporate Lending
YearGross AdvancesGross NPAsGNPA Ratio
2012-1331,11,7611,00,1183.22
2013-1434,06,0251,54,9554.55
2014-1536,15,1331,93,1235.34
2015-16 (till Dec. 15)38,41,8362,60,6536.78

 

The gross non-performing ratio has more than doubled between 2012-2013 and December 15, 2015. It has jumped from 3.22% to 6.78%. The gross non-performing ratio is essentially obtained by dividing gross non-performing assets by gross advances or total loans given by the banks, in this case to corporates.

And how do we define gross non-performing assets? As the per the Reserve Bank of India: “An asset…becomes non performing when it ceases to generate income for the bank.” When the corporate borrower stops paying interest and repaying the principal on a loan(a loan is an asset for a bank), the bank typically allows for a grace period of 90 days. After this grace period is over, the bank categorises the loans as a non-performing asset and starts setting aside money (or making provisions) for it. The total sum of such loans forms the gross-non-performing assets.

It is worth remembering here that a loan being categorised as a gross non-performing asset does not mean that all is lost for the bank when it comes to that particular loan. The bank can recover money from the asset that has been offered as a collateral against the loan. Of course this is not as straightforward as it sounds.

In Mallya’s case, he has also given personal guarantees to banks while taking loans for Kingfisher Airlines. Mallya owes around Rs 9000 crore to banks. This is a very small amount if one compares it to the gross-non-performing assets of corporate lending carried out by banks.

As on December 15, 2015, it was at Rs 2,60,653 crore. Mallya’s Rs 9,000 crore works out to around 3.5% of the total corporate gross non-performing assets. The percentage would be even more lower if we compare it to the total gross non-performing assets.

Also, Credit Suisse in a report released in October 2015 identifies some of the biggest corporates who are having a tough time repaying the money they have borrowed from banks. The Credit Suisse analysts (Ashish Gupta, Kush Shah and Prashant Kumar): “Going through the annual reports available for ‘House of Debt’ companies, we find instances where auditors have highlighted that the company has been in default for a period of up to 360 days. According to their auditors report, eight of the ten ‘House of Debt’ groups were in default last year. Total debt with these companies in default was at US$53 billion (~48% of total debt with the groups) of which US$37 billion were reported to be in default for 0-90 days by the auditors.

The corporates which form the House of Debt group are as follows—Adani Group, Essar Group, GVK group, GMR group, Jaypee Group, JSW Group, Lanco Group, Reliance ADAG, Vedanta Group and Videocon Group.

Hence, the point is that the mess in the Indian banking sector is substantially bigger than just Vijay Mallya. It’s just that Mallya with his flashy lifestyle has become the poster boy for these corporates who have borrowed from banks and are now not in a position to repay.

The finance minister Arun Jaitley has been very vociferous about Mallya and has said: “The facts are very clear: Every government agency will take strong action against him. Banks will go all out to recover every single penny.”

Indeed, that is great. Nevertheless, the question is why just Mallya? What about the other corporates who have borrowed from banks and are now not repaying their loans? They owe the banks close to Rs 2,51,000 crore. Mallya owes just Rs 9,000 crore.

Why is the same aggression missing when it comes to the other borrowers?

The nation wants to know.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Swarajya Mag on March 22, 2016