RBI proposes regulatory changes for NBFCs. Here’s all you need to know

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


With some NBFCs turning systemically significant over the years, owing to their size, complexity and interconnectedness, the RBI has sought to review their regulatory framework, adopting a scale-based approach.

Following its announcement in the December policy, the RBI has released a discussion paper on the revised regulatory framework for NBFCs, which proposes to bucket NBFCs into four layers — Base Layer (NBFC-BL), Middle Layer (NBFC-ML), Upper Layer (NBFC-UL), and a possible Top Layer. Regulations around capital requirement, concentration norms, governance and disclosures have been proposed for each layer.

Here is all you need to know about the proposed framework.

How will NBFCs be bucketed into the four layers?

According to the RBI paper, the nature of activity will be the basis for determining the base and middle layer NBFCs. Hence, NBFC-BL will consist of NBFCs currently classified as non-systemically important NBFCs (NBFC-ND), besides Type I NBFCs (that do not have either access to public funds or customer interface), NBFC P2P (Peer to Peer), NOFHC (Non-Operative Financial Holding Company), and NBFC-AA (Account Aggregator). Given that these NBFCs are unlikely to pose any systemic risk on account of their activities, they can be regulated relatively lightly, according to RBI.

The Middle Layer (NBFC-ML) will consist of all non-deposit taking NBFCs classified currently as NBFC-ND-SI (292 as of July 2020) and all deposit taking NBFCs (64). This layer will exclude NBFCs which have been identified to be included in the Upper Layer. Further, NBFC-HFCs (housing finance company), IFCs (9 infrastructure finance companies), IDFs (4 infrastructure debt funds), SPDs (standalone primary dealers) and CICs (64 core investment companies), irrespective of their asset size, will fall in this bucket.

The upper layer ( top 50 NBFCs) will be determined based on a range of parameters — size (35 per cent weight), inter-connectedness (25 per cent), complexity (10 per cent) and supervisory inputs (30 per cent, which includes type of liabilities, group structure and segment penetration). According to RBI, the top ten NBFCs (as per asset size) will automatically fall in this category (Bajaj Finance, LIC Housing Finance, etc.).

For now the top layer will remain empty. If there is a systemic risk perceived from specific NBFCs in the Upper Layer, the RBI can push some NBFCs into the top layer.

So what are the regulatory changes proposed for NBFCs under each of the three layers?

The proposed regulatory changes broadly pertain to capital, concentration norms and governance/ disclosure norms. For NBFCs in the base layer, regulations do not change significantly, but for the change in NPA classification to 90 days from 180 days currently. The asset size threshold has been raised to Rs 1,000 crore from Rs 500 crore, bringing more NBFCs under the base layer (9,209 from 9,133 earlier) and the entry norms have been tightened, raising the minimum net owned funds criteria to Rs 20 crore from Rs 2 crore earlier.

Certain governance changes have been proposed for the base layer, but the more significant changes have been proposed for entities falling in the middle and upper layer.

Do capital requirements go up significantly for NBFCs in the middle layer?

No, for NBFC-MLs, most of the changes proposed pertain to concentration and governance norms. Currently, NBFCs are required to maintain a minimum capital to risk weighted assets ratio (CRAR) of 15 per cent with minimum Tier I of 10 per cent. This will not change for middle layer NBFCs.

Currently, concentration norms for NBFCs are laid down separately for lending and investment exposures (15 per cent each for single borrower and 25 per cent for a group of borrowers). This is computed as a percentage of net owned funds. For NBFC-MLs, the RBI has proposed to merge the lending and investment limits into a single exposure limit of 25 per cent and group exposure of 40 per cent, computed as a per cent to Tier 1 capital (instead of net owned funds). This is not as stringent as for banks which currently have single and group exposure limits (as a per cent of Tier 1 capital) of 20 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.

Given that systemically important NBFCs already follow a 90-day NPA classification norm, there will be no impact on middle layer NBFCs. The standard asset provisioning of 0.4 per cent also remains unchanged.

Are there any other significant regulatory changes proposed for NBFC-MLs?

Yes. While the RBI has recognised the importance of providing ample flexibility in operations and not laid down hard core sector specific exposure limits, it has come down hard on IPO financing by proposing a Rs 1 crore per individual (per NBFC) ceiling. It has also laid down certain restrictions on lending — buy-back of shares, loans to directors/their relatives, etc.

On the governance front, it has recommended constitution of remuneration committee, rotation of statutory auditors, and additional disclosures for mid-layer NBFCs.

How stringent are the norms for upper layer NBFCs? Are they on par with banks?

Yes, regulations will be more or less in line with that of banks. Given the scale of operations and the systemic significance, the RBI intends to tighten the norms for the top 25-30 NBFCs.

For instance, banks under the Basel III framework have to maintain a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) capital (of 7.375 per cent including capital conservation buffer). The RBI has proposed to introduce CET 1 for NBFC-UL, at 9 per cent. Similarly, NBFCs in the upper layer will also have to comply with the leverage requirement. Under Basel III, the leverage ratio is computed as capital (Tier I capital — numerator) divided by the bank’s exposures (denominator). Hence, a rise in exposure would lead to a fall in LR. The RBI has prescribed a minimum 3.5 per cent leverage ratio for banks (4 per cent for Domestic Systemically Important Banks) and proposes a suitable ceiling to be laid down for NBFC-ULs as well.

The top NBFCs will also move to differentiated standard provisioning norms (against the fixed 0.4 per cent), on par with banks. Hence NBFCs with higher exposure to say commercial real estate, may have to carry higher provisioning than earlier.

On the concentration norms, the RBI has proposed merging of lending and investment limits as in the case of mid-layer NBFCs, but closer to the existing banks’ limits with certain modifications.

While tightening governance and disclosure norms for NBFC-UL, the RBI also envisages mandatory listing for such NBFCs.

 

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

RBI plans a four-layered regulatory framework for NBFCs

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) plans to usher in a four-layered regulatory and supervisory framework for non-banking finance NBFCs as it embarks on the path of a scale-based regulation in the backdrop of the recent stress in the sector.

In its discussion paper on “Revised Regulatory Framework for NBFCs — a Scale-Based Approach”, RBI said its proposed framework could be visualised as a pyramid, comprising NBFCs grouped in four layers — Base Layer (BL), Middle Layer (ML), Upper Layer (UL) and a possible Top Layer (TL).

There will be least regulatory intervention for NBFCs in BL. As one moves up the pyramid, the regulatory regime will get stricter.

The framework proposes to prescribe Bank-like regulations for the top 25 to 30 NBFCs in the country.

Base Layer

About 9,209 NBFCs will be in the Base Layer (BL), which can consist of NBFCs, currently classified as non-systemically important NBFCs (NBFC-ND/Non-Deposit taking), Peer to Peer lending platforms, Account Aggregators, Non-Operative Financial Holding Company, and NBFCs up to ₹1,000 crore asset size.

As low entry point norms raise the chances of failure arising from poor governance of non-serious players, the central bank plans to revise these norms for NBFC-BL from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

RBI proposes harmonising the extant NPA (non-performing asset) classification norm of 180 days to 90 days for NBFC-BL.

Middle layer

NBFCs in the Middle Layer (ML) can consist of entities, currently classified as NBFC-ND-SI/Non-Deposit taking-Systemically Important, deposit-taking NBFCs, Housing Finance Companies, Infrastructure Finance Companies, Infrastructure Debt Funds, Standalone Primary Dealers and Core Investment Companies.

While no changes are proposed in capital requirements for NBFC-ML, RBI said the

linkage of their exposure limits are proposed to be changed from Owned Funds to Tier I capital, as is currently applicable for banks.

The extant credit concentration limits prescribed for NBFC-ML for their lending and investment can be merged into a single exposure limit of 25 per cent for the single borrower and 40 per cent for a group of borrowers anchored to the NBFC’s Tier 1 capital.

NBFC-ML: IPO financing

While underscoring that Initial Public Offer (IPO) financing by individual NBFCs has come under scrutiny, more for their abuse of the system, the paper proposed to fix a ceiling of ₹1 crore per individual for any NBFC. NBFCs are free to select more conservative limits.

Further, a sub-limit within the commercial real estate exposure ceiling should be fixed internally for financing the land acquisition.

Restrictions on lending

As per the framework, a few restrictions should be extended to NBFCs in ML, including not allowing them to provide loans to companies for buy-back of shares/securities.

Guidelines on sale of stressed assets by NBFCs will be modified on similar lines as that for banks.

The paper suggested that NBFCs with ten and more branches shall mandatorily be required to adopt Core Banking Solution.

The paper recommended a uniform tenure of three consecutive years applicable for statutory auditors of the NBFC. It suggested that a functionally independent Chief Compliance Officer should be appointed.

Compensation Guidelines for NBFCs along the lines of banks can be considered to address issues arising out of excessive risk-taking caused by misaligned compensation packages.

Per the paper, making some of the disclosures prescribed for banks applicable to NBFCs would bring greater transparency and at the same time, provide a better understanding of the entity to the stakeholders.

Upper Layer

This layer can consist of NBFCs which are identified as systemically significant among them and will invite a new regulatory superstructure.

This layer will be populated by NBFCs which have a large potential of systemic spill-over of risks and can impact financial stability.

There is no parallel for this layer currently, as this will be a new layer for regulation.

The regulatory framework for NBFCs falling in this layer will be bank-like, albeit with suitable and appropriate modifications. It is expected that a total of not more than 25 to 30 NBFCs will occupy this layer.

It is felt that CET (Common Equity Tier) 1 capital could be introduced for NBFC-UL to enhance the quality of regulatory capital. It is proposed that CET 1 may be prescribed at 9 per cent within the Tier I capital.

To tune the regulatory framework for NBFC-UL to greater sensitivity, the paper suggested that NBFCs in this layer should be prescribed differential standard asset provisioning on banks’ lines.

Given the higher systemic risk posed by NBFC-UL, the Large Exposure Framework (LEF) as applicable to banks, can be extended with suitable adaptation.

Since NBFCs lying in the Upper Layer have the ability to cause adverse systemic risks, the regulatory tools can be calibrated on the lines of the private banks; that is, such NBFCs should be subject to the mandatory listing requirement and should follow the consequent Listing Obligations and Disclosures Requirements.

Top Layer

Considered supervisory judgment might push some NBFCs from out of the upper layer of the systemically significant NBFCs for higher regulation/supervision. These NBFCs will occupy the top of the upper layer as a distinct set.

Ideally, this top layer of the pyramid will remain empty unless supervisors view specific NBFCs.

In other words, if certain NBFCs lying in the upper layer are seen to pose extreme risks as per supervisory judgement, they can be put to significantly higher and bespoke regulatory/ supervisory requirements.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Indian Bank reports ₹514-cr profit in Q3

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Public sector lender Indian Bank (post amalgamation with Allahabad bank) has reported a decent performance for the third quarter in a row. It recorded a net profit ₹514 crore for the quarter ended December 31, 2020, helped by lower provisions despite a 17 per cent drop in non-interest income. This is against a loss of ₹1,739 crore (combined results of both banks in Q3 of FY20).

In Q3, the operating profit of Indian Bank grew 10 per cent at ₹3,099 crore compared with ₹2,816 crore in the December quarter a yearago.

Total income stood at ₹11,421 crore (₹11,366 crore in Q3 previous fiscal). Net interest income was higher by 31 per cent at ₹4,313 crore (against ₹3,293 crore).

“Staff expenses were higher by 34 per cent at ₹1,572 crore. The bank has worked out the full impact of the XI bipartite settlement on wage revision settled in December 2020. As on December 31, 2020, the bank held provision of ₹1,570.57 crore to cover the full wage arrears payable against the provision of ₹1,598.97 crore held as on September 30, 2020.

“The bank has continued its steady growth in both business and profit combined with good control over asset quality. Our relentless focus on arresting slippages, coupled with better recoveries, contributed to good performance. Even taking into account unflagged NPAs the position is very much in control. While there is a steady growth in profits, our cost income ratio has been coming down every quarter,” said Padmaja Chunduru MD & CEO, Indian Bank.

Cost-to-income ratio stood at ₹45.73 per cent in Q3 (down from 47.97 per cent September 2020 quarter and 49.08 per cent in March 2020 quarter).

While total provisions were lower by 43 per cent at ₹2,585 crore (₹4,555 crore in Q3 of FY20), loan loss stood at ₹738 crore (₹4,705 crore).

Fresh slippages in Q3 were at ₹88 crore, while cash recovery was about ₹744 crore. Gross NPAs (GNPA) stood at 9.04 per cent in Q3 of this fiscal, down from 9.89 per cent in September 2020 quarter and 12.69 per cent from December 2019 quarter. Net NPA was at 2.35 per cent, down from 2.96 per cent in the preceding quarter, and 4.22 in the year-ago quarter. Provision coverage ratio was 86.51 per cent

“In case, if we factor the notional NPAs, the rations would be – 10.38 per cent gross NPA; 3.49 per cent net NPA; and 81.59 per cent PCR. We are confident of maintaining Gross NPA below 10 per cent and net NPA below 3 per cent,” said Chunduru.

Domestic advances grew 7 per cent to ₹3,79,074 crore. Retail, agriculture and MSME loans grew by 13 per cent (at ₹66,679 crore), 11 per cent (at ₹75,040 crore) and 11 per cent (at ₹68,805 crore), respectively. The three segments accounted for 56 per cent of advances.

Total deposits grew 8 per cent at ₹5,21,248 crore when compared with ₹4,81,277 crore in Q3 of last fiscal. CASA grew in double digit and had 41 per cent share.

The bank has secured board’s nod to raise up to ₹4,000 crore of equity to reduce government’s holding in the bank to below 75 per cent by August.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

YES Bank posts Q3 net of ₹151 crore

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Private sector lender YES Bank reported a standalone net profit of ₹150.71 crore for the third quarter of the fiscal year with robust growth in net interest income.

It had a net loss of ₹18,560 crore in the quarter ended December 31, 2019. The bank’s board, which met on Friday, also approved raising ₹10,000 crore of funds in one or more tranches “through one or more permissible modes, including but not limited through a Qualified Institutions Placement/ Rights Issue / Global Depository Receipts / American Depository Receipts / Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds / Further Public Offering or a combination thereof, subject to shareholders’ enabling approval”, it said in a regulatory filing.

Shareholders’ approval

Prashant Kumar, Managing Director and CEO, YES Bank, said the fund raise proposal is only an enabling provision as shareholders’ approval takes time.

“There is good traction in business and improvement in collection efficiencies. Demand from all sectors, including retail, MSME, corporate,” he told reporters.

For the October to December 2020 quarter, YES Bank’s net interest income more than doubled to ₹2,560 crore from ₹1,065 crore in the same period a year ago. Its non-interest income also grew by 91.4 per cent to ₹1,197 crore in the third quarter this fiscal.

Net interest margin was at 3.4 per cent as on December 31, 2020, versus 3.1 per cent in the second quarter of the fiscal and 1.4 per cent in the third quarter of last fiscal.

Provisions amounted to ₹2,199 crore at the end of the third quarter this fiscal, which was 85.2 per cent higher than the second quarter this fiscal, but much lower than ₹24,766 crore in the third quarter last fiscal.

“Total step up in provisioning of about ₹2,935 crore consists of additional ₹765 crore towards Covid-19-related provisioning (aggregate at ₹2,683 crore) and balance majorly towards increasing PCR of both NPA and NPI,” said YES Bank in a statement.

Gross NPAs stood at ₹29,546.54 crore or 15.36 per cent of gross advances as on December 31, 2020, versus 16.9 per cent at the end of the second quarter and 16.8 per cent a year ago. Net NPAs were at 4.04 per cent at the end of the third quarter this fiscal.

The bank’s proforma gross NPAs would, however, be at nearly 20 per cent, said Kumar. The bank has invoked loan restructuring of ₹8,062 crore.

Deposit mobilisation continues at ₹1,46,233 crore, which was 7.7 per cent growth on a sequential basis and 38.8 per cent over the nine month period.

Net advances also grew by 1.7 per cent quarter on quarter at ₹1,69,721 crore, with a strong pick-up in retail and SME disbursements.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Yes Bank posts Q3 net profit of Rs 151 cr

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Private sector lender YES Bank reported a standalone net profit of Rs 150.71 crore for the third quarter of the fiscal year with robust growth in its net interest income. It had reported a net loss of Rs 18,560 crore in the quarter ended December 31, 2019.

The bank’s board, which met on Friday, also approved raising Rs 10,000 crore of funds in one or more tranches “through one or more permissible modes, including but not limited to a Qualified Institutions Placement/ Rights Issue / Global Depository Receipts / American Depository Receipts / Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds / Further Public Offering or a combination thereof, subject to shareholders’ enabling approval,” it said in a regulatory filing.

For the October to December 2020 quarter, YES Bank’s net interest income more than doubled to Rs 2,560 crore from Rs 1,065 crore in the same period a year ago. Its non-interest income also grew by 91.4 per cent to Rs 1,197 crore in the third quarter this fiscal.

 

The net interest margin was at 3.4 per cent as on December 31, 2020, versus 3.1 per cent in the second quarter of the fiscal and 1.4 per cent in the third quarter of the last fiscal.

Provisions amounted to Rs 2,199 crore at the end of the third quarter this fiscal, which was 85.2 per cent higher than that in the second quarter, but was much lower than Rs 24,766 crore in the third quarter of the last fiscal.

“The total step-up in provisioning of about Rs 2,935 crore consists of an additional Rs 765 crore towards Covid-19 related provisioning (aggregate at Rs 2,683 crore) and balance majorly towards increasing the PCR of both NPA and NPI,” YES Bank said in a statement.

 

Gross NPAs stood at 15.36 per cent of gross advances as on December 31, 2020 versus 16.9 per cent at the end of the second quarter and 16.8 per cent a year ago. Net NPAs were at 4.04 per cent at the end of the third quarter this fiscal.

The bank said deposit mobilisation continues at Rs 1,46,233 crore, which represented 7.7 per cent growth on a sequential basis and 38.8 per cent over the nine-month period.

Net advances also grew by 1.7 per cent quarter-on-quarter at Rs 1,69,721 crore, with a strong pick-up in retail and SME disbursements.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

SBI Life Q3 profit falls 40% at ₹233 crore

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


SBI Life Insurance Company reported a 40 per cent decline in third quarter net profit at ₹233 crore against ₹390 crore in the year-ago period.

Notwithstanding the 25 per cent year-on-year (y-o-y) decline in benefits paid (net), the bottom line was weighed down by a significant change in actuarial valuation (including movement in fund for future appropriation).

Net premium income (including first year premium, renewal premium and single premium) rose 18 per cent y-o-y in the reporting quarter to ₹13,766 crore.

Income from investments (net) soared 214 per cent y-o-y to ₹12,777 crore. This income is net of amortisation and losses (including capital gains).

Net commission paid increased 14 per cent y-o-y to ₹517 crore. Operating expenses related to insurance business (including employees remuneration and welfare expenses and other operating expenses) nudged up 1.14 per cent y-o-y to ₹630 crore.

Benefits paid (net) declined 25 per cent y-o-y to ₹4,644 crore. This is inclusive of interim bonus and terminal bonus.

The life insurer reported a significant jump under the head “change in actuarial liability” to ₹20,244 crore (₹7,657 crore in the year-ago quarter).

Solvency ratio

The surplus declined 51 per cent y-o-y to ₹297 crore. The solvency ratio improved a tad to 2.34 against 2.30 in the year-ago quarter. The 13th month persistency ratio improved to 86.17 per cent against 85.71 per cent.

 

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Securitisation volume improves in Q3 on revival in economy: Crisil

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The securitisation volume in the third quarter (Q3/October-December 2020) of FY21 crossed ₹26,000 crore, trumping the first-half (H1/ April- September 2020) FY21 level of ₹22,000 crore, according to CRISIL Ratings.

The credit rating agency observed that the volume pick up happened as more originators entered the market; and, mutual funds, which had by and large stayed away in H1, started investing in new issuances.

This takes the total volume for the first nine months of this fiscal to about ₹ 48,000 crore, though that is still way behind fiscals 2018 (about ₹ 60,000 crore), 2019 (about ₹145,000 crore) and 2020 (about ₹ 1,52,000 crore.

CRISIL noted that the interest returned in the securitisation market, especially in September 2020, as the moratorium period for underlying assets ended.

Asset-backed securities

The agency stated that the stability in pool collections in the post-moratorium period has been a sign of confidence in securitisation for investors.

Consequently, mutual funds have joined banks, insurance companies, and high net-worth individuals (HNIs) as investors in securitisation transactions, albeit gradually.

Krishnan Sitaraman, Senior Director, CRISIL Ratings Ltd, said, “Disbursement activity at non-banking financial companies (NBFCs, including housing finance companies and microfinance institutions) has resumed in sync with the uptick in economic activity.

“With a gradual increase in investor appetite and amenable market conditions in the form of a lower interest rate environment, NBFCs have again started raising incremental funds through securitisation.”

Non-performing assets recovered via IBC rise 61% in 2019-20

The agency said asset-backed securities (ABS) continued to dominate in retail securitisation this fiscal.

Commercial vehicle, gold, microfinance, tractor and unsecured personal loans comprised over two-thirds of the volume securitised, while mortgage-backed securitisation (MBS) transactions with underlying home loans and loans against property, accounted for the balance.

As much as 63 per cent of the volume securitised this fiscal has been through the direct assignment (DA) route, including those under the government-sponsored Partial Credit Guarantee scheme.

The agency observed that rising collection efficiency in securitised pools with underlying microfinance loans has increased investors’ appetite for fresh exposures in the sector.

Fund mobilisation by microfinance triples

Funds mobilised by microfinance entities through securitisation in the third quarter tripled from the first half of the fiscal. However, construction equipment-, vehicle- and tractor-backed pools constituted over half of ABS issuances, it added.

The agency is of the view that as economic activity rebounds, NBFCs are expected to shift their focus to incremental disbursements and consider securitisation as a key funding source.

Consequently, if collection efficiencies continue to be steady, securitisation volumes could spurt in the fourth quarter and, possibly, equal or even surpass cumulative issuance witnessed in the first three quarters of the current fiscal.

Rohit Inamdar, Senior Director, CRISIL Ratings, “Once lenders refocus on portfolio growth, they may choose to tap into securitisation for meeting their incremental funding needs.

“Investors, reassured by improved collection ratios, would likely drive the market. Traction in securitisation volumes will, however, be dependent on continued improvement in collection efficiency and stabilisation of the business environment for NBFCs.”

Jana SFB: Disbursements almost normal, only micro finance loans lagging

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

IL&FS tackles recovery of ₹32,000-crore debt

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The new board of IL&FS has addressed stressed debt worth ₹32,000 crore as of December quarter and retained the aggregate recoverable debt at over ₹56,000 crore by FY22,

The Group maintains its estimates of addressing out of an overall debt of over ₹99,000 crore (as of October 2018).

The aggregate debt of ₹32,000 crore comprises about ₹21,600 crore of debt addressed basis cash balances and ₹10,300 crore of additional net recovery expected from resolution and restructuring applications filed with the NCLT, Mumbai and NCLAT, the approvals for which are awaited.

Also read: IL&FS money-laundering case: Enforcement Directorate attaches assets worth ₹452 crore of British national

The aggregate debt represents nearly 57 per cent of the overall targeted recovery value of about ₹56,300 crore and nearly 32 per cent of the overall debt of over ₹ 99,000 crore.

The debt addressed basis cash balances increased by about ₹2,500 crore since September 30, 2020 on receipt of ₹780 crore towards settlement by IL&FS Solar Power, tariff payments from the Discom by IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power of about ₹1,190 crore and ₹300 crore recovered in IL&FS Financial Services from borrowers outside the IL&FS group.

Also read: PFS clears resolution plan of IL&FS Tamil Nadu Power Co

The Resolution and Restructuring applications (for resolution of over ₹14,000 crore) that have been filed with NCLT and NCLAT for final approvals, including ₹7,550 crore for three road assets, ₹4,900 crore for restructuring of ITPCL, ₹1,370 crore towards settlement to be received by Kiratpur Ner Chowk Expressway and Fagne Songarh Expressway pursuant to termination of concession agreements and ₹ 200 crore for environment and real estate entities.

However, the Group faced some delays in moving ahead on the resolution mainly due to impact of Covid. This has also been compounded by delay in receipt of annuities and attrition of key managerial and operational personnel, it said.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Punjab & Sind Bank reports fraud of Rs 94cr in NPA account, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Punjab & Sind Bank on Thursday reported a fraud of Rs 94.29 crore in an NPA account of Supertech Township Projects. In a regulatory filing, the state-owned lender said it has reported the fraud to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

“…it is informed that an NPA Account, viz M/s Supertech Township Projects Limited with outstanding dues of Rs 94.29 crore has been declared as fraud and reported to RBI today as per regulatory requirement,” the Delhi-headquartered bank said.

The account has been fully provided for as per the existing RBI norms, it added. NKD NKD RUJ RUJ

Follow and connect with us on , Facebook, Linkedin



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 503 504 505 506 507 540