Divestment hopefuls Bank of Maha, BoI, IOB shoot up on stock market charts, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Public sector banks Bank of Maharashtra, Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank and the Central Bank of India, which are reportedly on the privatisation shortlist have risen manifold during the year.

The rally in PSU banks has strengthened in the last few days despite the yo-yoing markets due to the coronavirus pandemic wave.

Bank of Maharashtra shares have nearly doubled from Rs 13.55 at the start of the year to Rs 25.40 per share. It was up 2.21% over the previous close on Wednesday.

From 10.80 at the start of the year, Indian Overseas Bank’s shares have risen over 52% to 16.45. The shares were up 3.13% over the previous close on Wednesday.

From Rs 50.35 a share in January start, the Bank of India share price has climbed to 72.70 on Wednesday. It was up 4.76% over the previous close.

From 14.10 in January, the share price of Central Bank of India has jumped to Rs 18.45 on Wednesday. It was up 7.89% over the previous close.

The top PSU banks including SBI, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank and PNB are also outperforming over divestment hopes around PSU banks.

More upside seen

Traders see another 10-15% jump in PSB shares if the Nifty holds 14500 levels.

SBI is the top investment pick in case the Nifty holds 14,400, with others offering a good trading opportunity for greater upside on talks around divestment.

PNB, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda and SBI, which hold 74.63 per cent weight in the Nifty PSU Bank, have rallied between 4 per cent and 17.5 per cent in April 20-May 11, driving the index up by 15.05 per cent to 2,239.7 over the same period. This beats the Bank Nifty’s 6 per cent rally through 32,953 over the comparative period.

On May 12, when the Nifty and Bank Nifty corrected by more than 1 per cent, the Nifty PSU Bank closed up 3.2 per cent, underscoring the buying in these counters.

Futures prices of these stocks along with aggregate open interest change signal the market interest in these counters.

Canara Bank active futures contract has risen 17.5 per cent through 151 between April 20 and May 11. Over this period, the aggregate open interest, which measures traders’ outstanding buy-sell positions, rose 11.25 per cent, implying bullish sentiment on the counter.

Bank of Baroda’s 17 per cent gain in futures was accompanied by an 11.3 per cent decline in aggregate OI, signalling that bears were covering their sell positions. Likewise, SBI active futures contract, which has risen 11 per cent in the relevant period, was accompanied by an 8 per cent decline in aggregate OI, implying short covering. PNB futures, which rose 4 per cent, saw aggregate OI jump 40 per cent, suggesting bullish build-up.

The status

Indian Overseas Bank and Central Bank are under the Reserve Bank of India‘s stringent prompt corrective action framework.

These banks have reported net non-performing assets (NPAs) below levels that trigger PCA. However, on the proforma net NPA front, Central Bank falls short as its NNPA is 6.58% against the 6% required to be out of PCA.

The Reserve Bank of India is likely to delay regularising struggling state-run lenders that are under the prompt corrective action (PCA) framework as it has reservations over their capital adequacy levels.

Two public sector banks and one general insurance company are expected to be disinvested this year in addition to the divestment of IDBI Bank, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had announced during Budget presentation in February.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

NARCL to further Govt’s agenda of disinvestment of IDBI Bank, privatisation of PSBs

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), currently being put together by banks and other lenders, may structurally alter the balance-sheets of banks in such a way that it will further the Government’s agenda of divesting its stake in IDBI Bank and privatising two public sector banks (PSBs).

Once chunky stressed assets are out of the books, the valuation of these banks will improve, making them more saleable, opine market experts.

This can help the government realise more value from the proposed sale of its 45.48 per cent stake in IDBI Bank to a strategic buyer as well as privatisation of two PSBs.

Ramnath Krishnan, President-Ratings & Chief Rating Officer, ICRA, observed that NARCL might structurally help with disinvestment in state-owned banks should the Government consider this in the future. “It might structurally alter the balance-sheets of certain banks, which could make them more saleable should disinvestment be an opportunity seriously considered by the Government,” Krishnan said.

Referring to IDBI Bank’s healthy provision coverage ratio (PCR), Mangesh Kulkarni, Research Analyst, Almondz Global Securities, assessed that with most of its legacy assets being provided for 100 per cent, it can straight away transfer them to NARCL. So, the path to divestment of Government’s stake in IDBI Bank and privatisation of two PSBs will be streamlined once NARCL starts operations, he added.

IBA sets the ball rolling

The Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) has set the ball rolling on NARCL with the appointment of State Bank of India’s Padmakumar M Nair as its new Chief. Nair is currently Chief General Manager with SBI’s Stressed Assets Resolution Group.

NARCL is being set up following Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s FY2022 Budget announcement that the high level of provisioning by public sector banks on their stressed assets calls for measures to clean up the bank books.

Stressed assets with principal outstanding of ₹500 crore and above, aggregating about ₹1.50- lakh crore, are expected to be transferred to NARCL.

At a recent press meet, Rakesh Sharma, MD & CEO, IDBI Bank, said large public sector and private sector banks will be investing in NARCL, with each bank taking less than 10 per cent stake. IDBI Bank will also consider investing in the company.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

IOB, Central Bank privatisation bid runs into RBI hurdle, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is likely to delay regularising struggling state-run lenders that are under the prompt corrective action (PCA) framework as it has reservations over their capital adequacy levels.

This may derail the privatisation prospects of Indian Overseas Bank and Central Bank, which are reported to be among the four banks shortlisted by the government for privatisation.

Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), UCO Bank and Central Bank of India are currently under the stringent PCA of RBI.

The RBI objection

In FY21, the government infused Rs 20,000 crore in ve banks through the instruments. Central Bank of India was the biggest beneficiary with Rs 4,800 crore, followed by Indian Overseas (Rs 4,100 crore), UCO Bank (Rs 2,600 crore).

However, the RBI has raised questions over the government’s bank capital infusion programme through non-interest-bearing bonds, according to a report.

The RBI reasons that capital infusion through bonds cannot be taken at face value and, therefore, these banks may still be short of regulatory capital, they said. In such a situation, they will continue under the PCA framework. Under the PCA regime, business restraints are imposed on struggling banks until they regain health.

The government went ahead despite RBI’s initial reservations and now the regulator has expressed serious concerns. The entire fund infusion through such bonds will then not count toward regulatory capital.

RBI is not inclined to pull these lenders out of the PCA framework based on such capital infusion and may further direct lenders to recalculate their capital adequacy ratio based on the actual value of the bonds.

The PCA status

All three banks under PCA Indian Overseas Bank, UCO Bank and Central Bank have reported net non-performing assets (NPAs) below levels that trigger PCA. However, on the proforma net NPA front, Central Bank falls short as its NNPA is 6.58% against the 6% required to be out of PCA.

Even after PCA exit, these banks may still be under RBI watch. In the case of IDBI Bank, which has committed to comply with the norms of minimum regulatory capital, net NPA and leverage ratio on an ongoing basis, RBI has said the lender would be under continuous monitoring. “It has been decided that IDBI Bank be taken out of PCA framework, subject to certain conditions and continuous monitoring,” RBI had said.

Privatisation bid

Four banks on the privatisation shortlist included Bank of Maharashtra, Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank and the Central Bank of India.

Two public sector banks and one general insurance company are expected to be disinvested this year in addition to the divestment of IDBI Bank, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had announced during Budget presentation last month.

Bringing the banks out of PCA could boost their valuations in the event of privatisation.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Allow us to sell bad loans back to defaulting promoters, ARCs tell RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


As the government gears up to roll out National Asset Reconstruction company or bad bank, next month, asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) have sought more leeway from the banking regulator.

They have asked the RBI to let them sell assets of defaulting promoters back to them and want corporates and high net worth individuals to be allowed to invest in troubled loans through the securities issued by ARCs.

Level-playing field

Responding to the RBI’s call for suggestions to overhaul their structure in the country, it has said that special regulatory dispensation/benefit if any given to proposed ARC should apply to all existing ARCs and level playing field from the regulatory perspective be given to all existing ARCs.

ARCs were allowed to sell bad loans back to defaulting promoters under the SARFAESI Act. However, it was disallowed under the IBC clause, which has hampered the ARCs.

ARCs have asked for this minimum investment to be brought down to 2.5% in cases where the bank selling the bad loan is not the investor. Other suggestions include a request to be classified as non-banking financial companies, which will enable ARCs to borrow from banks.

Bad bank

National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), the name coined for the bad bank announced in the Budget 2021-22, is expected to be operational in June.Bad bank refers to a financial institution that takes over bad assets of lenders and undertakes resolution.

The new entity is being created in collaboration with both public and private sector banks.

NARCL will take over identified bad loans of lenders. The lead bank with offer in hand of NARCL will go for a ‘Swiss Challenge’, where other asset reconstruction players will be invited to better the offer made by a chosen bidder for finding higher valuation of an NPA on sale.

The company will pick up those assets that are 100 per cent provided for by the lenders, he added.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in Budget 2021-22 announced that the high level of provisioning by public sector banks of their stressed assets calls for measures to clean up the bank books.

“An Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Asset Management Company would be set up to consolidate and take over the existing stressed debt,” she had said in the Budget speech. It will then manage and dispose of the assets to alternate investment funds and other potential investors for eventual value realisation, she added.

Last year, IBA had made a proposal for creation of a bad bank for swift resolution of non-performing assets (NPAs). The government accepted the proposal and decided to go for asset reconstruction company (ARC) and asset management company (AMC) model for this.

Mehta further said NARCL will pay up to 15 per cent of the agreed value for the loans in cash and the remaining 85 per cent would be government-guaranteed security receipts.

The government guarantee would be invoked if there is loss against the threshold value, he added.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

IBA CEO, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (NARCL), the name coined for the bad bank announced in the Budget 2021-22, is expected to be operational in June.

Bad bank refers to a financial institution that takes over bad assets of lenders and undertakes resolution.

The new entity is being created in collaboration with both public and private sector banks, Indian Banks’ Association Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Sunil Mehta said.

“Various preparatory work is going on and we hope that it should be operational next month. The biggest advantage of NARCL would be aggregation of identified NPAs (non-performing assets).

“This is expected to be more efficient in recovery as it will step into the shoes of multiple lenders who currently have different compulsions when it comes to resolving a bad loan,” he said.

NARCL will take over identified bad loans of lenders, Mehta said. He added that the lead bank with offer in hand of NARCL will go for a ‘Swiss Challenge’, where other asset reconstruction players will be invited to better the offer made by a chosen bidder for finding higher valuation of an NPA on sale.

The company will pick up those assets that are 100 per cent provided for by the lenders, he added.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in Budget 2021-22 announced that the high level of provisioning by public sector banks of their stressed assets calls for measures to clean up the bank books.

“An Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Asset Management Company would be set up to consolidate and take over the existing stressed debt,” she had said in the Budget speech. It will then manage and dispose of the assets to alternate investment funds and other potential investors for eventual value realisation, she added.

Last year, IBA had made a proposal for creation of a bad bank for swift resolution of non-performing assets (NPAs). The government accepted the proposal and decided to go for asset reconstruction company (ARC) and asset management company (AMC) model for this.

Mehta further said NARCL will pay up to 15 per cent of the agreed value for the loans in cash and the remaining 85 per cent would be government-guaranteed security receipts.

The government guarantee would be invoked if there is loss against the threshold value, he added.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has said that loans classified as fraud cannot be sold to NARCL. As per the annual report of the RBI, about 1.9 lakh crore of loans have been classified as fraud as on March 2020.

To facilitate smooth functioning of asset reconstruction companies, the RBI last month decided to set up a panel to undertake a comprehensive review of the working of such institutions.

After enactment of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act in 2002, regulatory guidelines for ARCs were issued in 2003 to enable development of this sector and to facilitate smooth functioning of these companies.

Since then, while ARCs have grown in number and size, their potential for resolving stressed assets is yet to be realised fully.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

AIBEA opposes govt decision to privatise IDBI Bank, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


All India Bank Employees’ Association (AIBEA) has opposed the government’s move to privatise IDBI Bank, terming the decision as a “retrograde” move. The association said the government should control a minimum of 51 per cent share capital of the bank.

The bank came into trouble as some private corporate houses cheated IDBI Bank by not repaying the loans taken, while the need of the hour is to take action against the defaulters and recover the money, the bank union said in a statement.

The Cabinet on Wednesday gave in-principle approval for strategic disinvestment along with transfer of management control in IDBI Bank in line with the Budget announcement earlier this year.

The central government and LIC together own more than 94 per cent equity of IDBI Bank.

“The need is to take action on the defaulters and recover the money. Unfortunately, now the decision has been taken to sell the bank to a private company. IDBI Bank is a national asset and should not be sold away in this fashion. It is a retrograde move,” AIBEA said.

If sold to a private company, the existing reservation in jobs for SC/ST category will be withdrawn, it said, adding this is social injustice to the unemployed youth of this country.

The only major problem of the bank is its huge bad loans of Rs 36,000 crore as of March 31, 2021 (22 per cent). Out of the operating profit of Rs 1,900 crore for the year ended March 2021, Rs 1,500 crore have been set off for provision for bad loans, AIBEA Secretary General C H Venkatachalam said.

“Now to camouflage these ills of the bank, the bank is being sold away. We express our strong protest against this decision and urge upon the government not to proceed with the sale of IDBI Bank,” he said.

AIBEA said bank’s deposits of Rs 2.3 lakh crore is people’s money and it should be used for their welfare and national development, not for the private corporate loot.

IDBI was started as a Development Financial Institution (DFI) in the 1960s. It was later converted as IDBI Bank much against the statute approved by Parliament earlier, it added.

It said the bank played a leading role in financing industrial development in the country.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Budget proposal has not affected ULIP segment of ICICI Pru Life: MD and CEO

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Optimistic about the outlook for the life insurance industry, NS Kannan, Managing Director and CEO, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, said as of now Covid-related claims for the sector are under control. In an interview with BusinessLine, he said while there continues to be demand for protection and health products, underwriting norms have become stricter for retail protection. Excerpts:

What is your outlook for the life insurance sector?

Amidst the pandemic, life insurance sector ended in the growth path. I expect the industry will see double-digit growth. We will have to watch how the pandemic develops but we will get back in line with nominal GDP growth of about 15 per cent.

Is the surge in Covid 19 infections a cause for concern for the sector?

Our industry’s claims will be linked to overall mortality of the insured population, which is very much under check. I don’t think it will be a big concern for the industry. We have increased the provision by another ₹33 crore in case some deaths have not been reported to us. Also, given the emergence of the second wave, we decided to be prudent and create a provision of another ₹299 crore. So, as of today, we are carrying a provision of ₹332 crore.

Number of life insurance policies dips in FY21; group covers lead the fall

How many Covid-related claims has the company paid?

We have reported 2,500 lives we had claims on in terms of number of deaths in our portfolio. Net of reinsurance, we had to pay out about ₹264 crore as claims.

ELSS vs ULIP: Which suits you best

What kind of products do you think there will be more demand for?

There has been a lot of demand for protection products and also health insurance products we are allowed to do. There is also momentum in group term insurance. The only caveat is that we are not able to entirely fulfil the entire demand. Given the pandemic one has to be careful about underwriting. Also, for large insurance, we need the support of reinsurers and they are also focussed on proper underwriting. Underwriting standards have become tougher. There is also still a bit of friction in terms of medical examination, which is needed for higher value insurance. This has slowed down the process of issuance. Demand is up but in retail protection there are some supply-side constraints.

ICICI Pru MF launches new fund of funds

Credit life, which is the second segment of protection, had got impacted in the first half but has come back in the second half because banks and NBFCs have started disbursements for retail home loans and other loans. Group term has been a huge opportunity and we had about 100 per cent growth in the segment.

Has there been an impact of the Budget proposal on ULIPs?

As an industry, we have moved away from tax-based selling to goal-based selling. Second, ULIP is a powerful product, allowing customers to take advantage of market movements in a transparent and tax-effective manner. Even in the new regime, customers can invest up to ₹2.5 lakh without tax implications. The new regime was in place from February 1 and there were two full months of this impact. But in our case, ULIP segment has grown 11 per cent year-on-year in the fourth quarter. Empirical evidence of the two months indicates there is no impact at all. As long as long-term investments are on the same platform across mutual funds and insurance, there is nothing to worry.

What is your strategy, going ahead?

Despite the pandemic, we are not changing our strategy to double our value of new business to about ₹2,650 crore by 2023. We will continue to pursue it through the 4Ps of premium growth, protection business growth, persistency improvement and productivity enhancement. Our focus will be on top-line growth. In the fourth quarter, we are firmly back on the growth back and that gives us confidence. We have about 600 new partners and we added seven significant banks last year. On the product side, we have a much diversified product mix. So all this gives us a lot of confidence that we can pursue top-line growth and expand the VNB.

Term insurance rates have been increased by some insurers. Will there be more repricing with the second wave?

The increase in term insurance rates was driven largely by reinsurers increasing the pricing. To the extent of reinsurance pricing, we passed it on in the month of July (last year). We don’t have any proposal to further increase pricing.

We don’t know how the second wave will emerge. We have to wait and see. World over, I don’t think the conclusion has emerged so strongly regarding the lingering or long-term mortality impact of the pandemic.

How do you view the increased FDI limit for the sector?

We wholeheartedly welcome the move as a company and industry. Recently, the draft rules were gazetted, which are reasonable and easy conditions to comply with. Insurance penetration is very low and it being a regulated business there will always be strict capital requirements for the industry and so foreign capital is always welcome. For us, it is a shareholder issue and not a company issue. As an insurance company, we don’t require any capital. We are quite well-capitalised with 217 per cent solvency ratio. We have also increased about ₹1,200 crore of Tier 2 capital.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Stuck in India due to Covid ? Know your tax liability

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Doubts regarding the residency status of those who are stuck in India during FY21 were expected to be clarified in the Budget. But the Budget was silent on the issue. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has now come out with a circular on this. The long-awaited circular has not changed conditions for determining the residential status, but it has reiterated that the possibility of double taxation is low. If you have been stranded in India and working out of home, here’s what you need to know:

What are the existing rules applicable to determine the residential status as per the Income Tax Act?

As per the current income tax provisions, an Indian citizen or a person of Indian origin (PIO) whose Indian income does not exceed ₹15 lakh per annum becomes a resident of India if she/he stays at least 182 days in the country in a financial year. If the Indian income of such a person exceeds ₹15 lakh, she/he attains residency in India if a) stays in India for 182 days or more in a financial year, or b) stays for 120 days or more in the relevant financial year and also stays for 365 days or more in preceding four previous years.

If the person is a not a citizen of India or a PIO, then the 120 days in the second scenario above will be replaced with 60 days.

Note that these rules are applicable from FY21. The residential status rules applicable for FY20 were tweaked to provide some relief to taxpayers by excluding the period of stay in India from March 22, 2020 to March 31, 2020 for the purposes of determining the residential status if the taxpayer was not able to leave India during that period.

What are the instances wherein one may become the resident of India for the reason of being stranded in the country due to Covid-19?

There could be two main instances wherein an individual may become a resident in India in FY21 (on the back of exceptional situations) due to which income earned may become taxable both in India and abroad.

One, a person of Indian origin working abroad who acquired residence status there but temporarily returned to India because of Covid-19 situation. He may become a resident in India while retaining the residency status of the other country in which she/he is working.

Two, a non-resident visitor to India (perhaps on a holiday or to work for a few weeks) gets stranded here due to the pandemic and attains the resident status here. It is also relevant to note that even in cases wherein an individual became resident in India, he would most likely become not ordinarily resident in India and hence his foreign sourced income shall not be taxable in India unless it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in India.

Does the CBDT circular provide relief on the residency conditions for FY21 to those stranded in the country?

There is no relief provided in terms of period of stay for FY21 for the purpose of residential status. The circular just states that NRIs and foreign nationals stuck in India due to Covid-19 pandemic and facing double taxation in FY21 can submit the details to the income-tax department by March 31.

The circular tries to allay the fear of double taxation — taxability both in abroad and in India – of an income. It says the possibility of double taxation doesn’t exist as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, read with the DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) with each country.

In spite of that, if a particular tax payer suffers from double taxation due to forced stay in India despite complying with the rules in DTAA, he/she shall provide such information online to the Income Tax Department in Form NR annexed with CBDT circular by March 31, 2021 (https://tinyurl.com/taxres21). After examining the case, the tax department decides if any relaxation is required to be given in that case.

Does it mean that you have to worry about taxes if you have worked from India in FY21 for a company incorporated outside the country ?

There is no a straight forward answer. It is possible that a person is stranded in India due to Covid-19 but continued to earn income from the employer abroad by working from home. According to Mukesh Kumar, Director at M2K Advisors, salary earned by an employee for services rendered in India is taxable in India, irrespective of whether the employee is a resident or non-resident.

However, in case of foreign citizens, remuneration received from a foreign entity is exempt if the foreign entity is not engaged in any business in India, the stay of the employee does not exceed certain number of days (say, 183 days as per the India-USA DTAA) in the financial year and such remuneration is not claimed as deduction in India. However, to claim the tax treaty benefit, the employee should obtain tax residency certificate from the other country. However, experts say that obtaining a tax certificate from other country, sometimes, could be a time-consuming and a costly affair.

So, if your income becomes taxable in India, will you get the tax credit if the taxes are already paid on that income abroad?

A resident person in India is entitled to claim credit of the taxes paid in any other country in accordance with the rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This can be done by submitting the withholding tax certificate from the other country or any other supporting document evidencing payment of tax in the other country along with the return of income in India in Form 67. Having said that, if the tax rates in the country in which taxes are already paid are lower than the applicable tax rates in India, the assessee will be liable to pay the balance amount.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

PSB acquirer will have to meet ‘Fit and Proper’ criteria, says RBI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Prospective owners wanting to take over public sector banks (PSBs) will have to meet the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) ‘fit and proper’ criteria and ensure that the banks, post- takeover, are well capitalised according to Governor Shaktikanta Das.

This observation comes in the backdrop of Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s announcement in the Budget that as part of the Government’s “strategic disinvestment and sale” programme it proposes to take up the privatisation of two PSBs.

“It (privatisation of PSBs) is a major reform which the government has embarked upon. So, as the owner of public sector banks, they will decide.

“But, nonetheless, I must add that there is a constant dialogue between the RBI and the Central government,” Das said in an interview to news channel CNBC TV18.

The Governor emphasised that in this privatisation exercise, RBI is directly concerned with two aspects — one is the ‘fit and proper’ criteria (the new owners should meet this requirement of RBI), and two, RBI would be very keen that the Bank, post takeover, is well capitalised.

And the promoter, who takes over the PSB, should have enough financial strength to capitalise the bank significantly, he added.

Talks with Centre

“Other than that, the approach, etc, these are constantly under discussion and the Government does consult us as and when required. The final call will be that of the government,” Das said.

He observed that amendment to the Bank Nationalisation Act will be required. And the Government is working on that.

As per the ‘Report of the Internal Working Group to Review Extant Ownership Guidelines and Corporate Structure for Indian Private Sector Banks’, the Reserve Bank issued detailed guidelines in February 2005 on ownership and governance of private sector banks. The broad principles underlying the framework of this policy was to ensure that the ultimate ownership and control of private sector banks is well diversified.

While diversified ownership minimises the risk of misuse or imprudent use of leveraged funds, the fit and proper criteria, were viewed as over-riding consideration in the path of ensuring adequate investments, appropriate restructuring and consolidation in the banking sector.

Per the Report, globally, the regulators give approvals on a case-to-case basis subject to a number of considerations including the overall sectoral impact of the transaction and the satisfaction of ‘fit and proper’ principles by the person/s acquiring the stake, which may inter alia include reputation, financial soundness, credit standing etc.

In case of acquirers being non-individuals, the due diligence may extend even to the parent institution or major shareholders.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Is EPF alone good enough for retirement kitty?

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Maximum safety for the corpus, fixed returns and tax-free status at the time of investment (up to ₹1.5 lakh), on interest accumulated as well as on the maturity proceeds make EPF among the most efficient instruments for building long-term savings.

However, tweaking EPF norms in the Budget and outside of it has been the practice in the last few years. This year is no different, with the Budget proposing taxation of interest on employees’ contribution over ₹2.5 lakh to provident funds, made after April 1, 2021. While this move is targeted at high-income earners according to the government, the tweaking of EPF rules over the years holds a lesson for all classes of investors – don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Target of changes

EPF has been the favourite tinkering target for many years now, bringing uncertainty to retirement planning based on EPF alone. Budget 2016 originally proposed that only 40 per cent of the EPF corpus will be tax-free (for corpus from contributions made beginning April 1, 2016), only to roll back the much-criticised move. A monetary limit of ₹1.5 lakh for employer contribution (for taking tax benefit) was also proposed and withdrawn.

In Budget 2020, employer contribution towards recognised provident fund, NPS and other superannuation funds was prescribed an upper limit of ₹7.5 lakh, beyond which it would be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the employee. Accretions to this, such as interest or dividend to the extent of the employer’s contribution included for tax purposes, is also taxed.

The Employee Pension Scheme (8.33 per cent of the employers’ matching 12 per cent contribution goes here ) was withdrawn for new employees who joined the workforce after September 1, 2014 and whose basic pay plus dearness allowance (DA) exceeded ₹15,000 per month. Also, pensionable salary was subject to a cap of ₹15,000 for those joining after September 2014. Prior to that, higher contribution was allowed at the option of the employer and employee. (matters remain sub-judice, though).

VPF attraction dims

A back of the envelope calculation shows that an income (basic pay and dearness allowance (DA)) of about ₹20 lakh a year, at 12 per cent, will fetch an EPF contribution of about ₹2.5 lakh. Thus, the government’s defence to taxing interest on EPF contribution over ₹ 2.5 lakh is that it is targeted at the high-income group. But directionally, this move discourages Voluntary Provident Fund (VPF) contributions as even those earning below ₹20 lakh could be using the VPF route to invest further in the EPF. Up to 100 per cent of the basic pay and DA can be contributed to the VPF in a year by an employee, over and above the 12 per cent contribution to EPF. Earning the same interest rate as the EPF, the VPF provides a risk-free, tax-free route to further build your retirement corpus if you are an EPF subscriber. The attractiveness of the VPF now dims for these investors.

Return uncertainty creeps in

Not only that, the ability of the EPFO to give returns unconnected with the market situation is being put to test lately. In what was perhaps the first time, the EPFO last year declared that it would pay the promised interest of 8.5 per cent for FY20 in two instalments, split as 8.15 per cent from debt investments and 0.35 per cent from the equity portion.

Until sometime ago, the EPF contributions were invested entirely in debt instruments. The EPFO began investing in the stock market in 2015. About 15 per cent of the incremental flows is in now invested in the stock market through the ETF (exchange-traded fund) route. When the EPFO declared an interest rate of 8.5 per cent for 2019-20 earlier , the idea was that it could offload its ETF holdings to the necessary extent to fund this interest outgo. But the market sell-off due to the Covid-19 outbreak at the fag end of the financial year spoilt the plan. Thus, stock market investments have now brought an amount of uncertainty to returns and this factor is here stay.

Also, the EPFO’s practice of higher interest payouts on the debt portion when compared to the prevailing market interest rates — which has quite been the norm so far – may not carry on forever, as interest, declared from the surplus available may not mirror the returns made by its underlying portfolio. The stock market exposure accentuates this divide.

Pat for NPS

While EPS has been losing sheen in many ways, the National Pension System (NPS), which is a market-linked retirement product, has been in the spotlight. As early as Budget 2015, the then Finance Minister spoke of bringing out a mechanism to help employees migrate from EPF to the corporate NPS scheme, clearly bringing out the government’s preference to shift the burden from their shoulders. This was followed by providing an additional deduction of ₹ 50,000 from taxable income for NPS investments, over and above the ₹1.5-lakh 80C deduction limit in the same budget.

Budget 2016 declared the 40 per cent of the NPS corpus that is compulsorily invested in annuities, tax-free (annuity income taxable). Budget 2019 declared the remaining 60 per cent that can be withdrawn in lump sum, also tax-free. Returns earned on NPS contributions are tax exempt as well (except on employer contribution in case of corporate NPS over a certain limit). These factors should serve as a wake up call for investors who until now could take low risk and earn high returns. The time to sweat it out has arrived.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 2 3