Government not inclined to bear loan moratorium costs, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The government is not inclined to bear the burden arising of the recent Supreme Court judgement on a blanket waiver of compound interest or interest on interest on all loan accounts which opted for moratorium during March-August 2020.

“They (banks) are well-poised to handle this and we don’t see any space for government relief,” said a senior government official.

The government has already compensated banks for the interest on interest they had lost on loans outstanding below Rs 2 crore. Analysts estimate the additional cost to reimburse banks for all loans at Rs 7,000-10,000 crore.

“There is no directive from the court ordering the government to bear this cost,” the government official said on the condition of anonymity.

Since there is no deadline to refund the compound interest they have charged, banks can stagger the payment depending on individual account period and other conditions. A final call would be taken shortly, he said.

In its ruling last week, the Supreme Court refused to extend the moratorium beyond August 31, 2020 but directed lenders to waive interest on interest for all borrowers.

According to ICRA estimates, the compounded interest for six months of moratorium across all lenders was around Rs 13,500-14,000 crore, and the relief already extended over loans up to Rs 2 crore had cost the exchequer about Rs 6,500 crore.

A Macquaire research report has put the additional amount at around Rs 10,000 crore.

On account of the stress due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Reserve Bank of India had announced the loan moratorium scheme to grant temporary relief to borrowers for payment of instalments due between March and August 2020.

The apex court in its judgement observed that the government and the central bank would decide on economic policy based on expert opinion. It further said a waiver of complete interest was not possible as it would affect depositors. The court ruled out an extension of the period of loan moratorium and any specific sector-wise relief.

According to Crisil Ratings, standstill on recognition of non-performing assets (NPAs) had tied the hand of lenders and consequently impacted the credit discipline of borrowers.

“Withdrawal of the same will enable lenders to enforce various legal measures and support their recovery efforts,” it said in a note.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Early identification of stress, capitalisation augur well for banks, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Somasekhar Vemuri, Senior Director, CRISIL Ratings

Banks have improved the granularity of their loan books by focusing more on retail asset classes and reducing potential asset-quality shocks due to defaults by large entities. The share of medium and large industries in non-food credit of banks fell from ~40% in fiscal 2012 to ~27% in fiscal 2020, while that of personal loans rose from 18% to 28%.

While granular loans to retail borrowers and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) can result in elevated stress during the pandemic, given the unprecedented impact on household incomes and small businesses, policy mitigations announced would limit the impact to some extent.

Rama Patel, Director, CRISIL Ratings
Rama Patel, Director, CRISIL Ratings

Crucially, measures such as moratorium on loans, relief in interest on interest, one-time debt restructuring, and emergency credit line guarantee schemes have thrown many a lifeline to businesses and households. They also helped banks, especially those with diversified portfolios, thwart significant slippages.

The other major reason for systemic resilience is capital infusion. Public sector banks (PSBs) have raised ~Rs 3.4 lakh crore of equity in the past five years, bulk of it from the government.

That has shored up systemic capital adequacy ratio to 14.7% last fiscal and further to 15.8% as of September 2020 – almost on a par with advanced economies such as the US (15.9%) and South Korea (15.3%). Private sector banks are in a better position, reflected in their capital adequacy ratio of 16.7%, compared with 13.1% for PSBs as of March 2020.

To be sure, NPAs would rise in the pandemic aftermath and necessitate high capitalisation levels.

Robust capitalisation facilitates timely recognition and quick resolution of pandemic-related stress and faster recovery of credit growth. The different trajectories of banking systems in the US and the euro area after the GFC demonstrate this. Higher recapitalisation of US banks compared with the euro area enabled faster resolution of stress and facilitated quicker recovery of credit growth after the GFC in the US.

While it is natural for credit growth to be muted during a crisis due to lower demand and risk aversion, it is important that the pace improves once uncertainty abates and demand returns.

There are two reasons for this. One, bank credit growth significantly influences the growth trajectory of a developing country like India where credit to the private non-financial sector is underpenetrated at ~58% of GDP, compared with over 150% in the US, euro area, South Korea or even China.

Two, it is an essential condition for banking system resilience. Banks need to grow and diversify their loan books to enhance profitability that, in turn, is the key to building capital buffers against future risks and growth. Profitability can be sustained only through credit growth, backed by robust risk management and appropriate pricing.

As the pandemic-related stress continues to unfold, the improved resilience of Indian banks will be tested. A continued focus on shoring up capital to withstand asset-quality pressures will pave the way for credit growth as recovery gathers pace.

Click here to read all ETBFSI blogs.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETBFSI.com does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETBFSI.com shall not be responsible for any damage caused to any person/organisation directly or indirectly.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 2