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

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

RBI imposes Rs 2 crore penalty on Standard Chartered Bank, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Mumbai: The Reserve Bank on Thursday imposed a penalty of Rs 2 crore on Standard Chartered Bank-India for delays in reporting of frauds to it. The monetary penalty has been imposed on the bank for non-compliance with certain directions contained in the ‘Reserve Bank of India (Frauds – Classification and Reporting by commercial banks and select FIs) Directions 2016′.

“The penalty has been imposed… for delays in reporting of frauds to RBI, revealed during the statutory inspection of the bank with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019,” the central bank said in a statement.

A notice was issued to the Standard Chartered Bank-India advising it to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on it for such non-compliance with the directions.

“After considering the bank’s reply to the notice and oral submissions made in the personal hearing, RBI concluded that the charge of non-compliance with aforesaid RBI directions was substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty,” the statement said.

The central bank also noted that its action is based on the deficiencies in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


India’s GDP is within the striking distance of attaining positive growth, the Reserve Bank said observing that the letter “V” in the V-shaped recovery stands for vaccine. The Indian government launched the world’s biggest vaccination drive on January 16 to protect people from COVID-19.

“What will 2021 look like? The shape of the recovery will be V-shaped after all and the ‘V’ stands for vaccine,” said an article on the ‘state of economy’ in the RBI‘s January Bulletin.

India has launched the biggest vaccination drive in the world, backed by its comparative advantage of having the largest vaccine manufacturing capacity in the world and a rich experience of mass inoculation drives against polio and measles.

“If successful, it will tilt the balance of risks upwards,” said the authors who among others include RBI Deputy Governor Michael Debabrata Patra.

The RBI, however, said the views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the central bank.

E-commerce and digital technologies will likely be the bright spots in India’s recovery in a world in which there will be rebounds for sure, but pre-pandemic levels of output and employment are a long way off, they said.

The article further said: “Recent shifts in the macroeconomic landscape have brightened the outlook, with GDP in striking distance of attaining positive territory and inflation easing closer to the target.”

India’s GDP is estimated to contract by a record 7.7 per cent during 2020-21 as the COVID-19 pandemic severely hit the key manufacturing and services segments, as per government projections released earlier this month.

The economy contracted by a massive 23.9 per cent in the first quarter and 7.5 per cent in the second quarter on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article further said that in the first half of 2021-22, GDP growth will benefit from statistical support and is likely to be mostly consumption-driven.

With rabi sowing surpassing the normal acreage way before the end of the season, bumper agriculture production is expected in 2021.

“India being the global capital for vaccine manufacturing, pharmaceuticals exports are expected to receive a big impetus with the start of vaccination drives globally. Agricultural exports remain resilient and under the recent production linked (PLI) scheme, food processing industry has been accorded priority,” it said.

Harnessing the synergies by transforming low-value semi-processed agri products through food processing would not only improve productivity but also boost India’s competitiveness, it added.

The article notes that slippage ratios have been falling and loan recoveries are improving even as provisioning coverage ratios have risen above 70 per cent. Capital infusion and innovative ways of dealing with loan delinquencies will occupy policy attention in order to ensure that finance greases the wheels of growth on a durable basis before the demographic dividend slips away.

“It will take years for the economy to mend and heal, but innovative approaches can convert the pandemic into opportunities. Will the Union Budget 2021-22 be the game-changer?,” it said.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is scheduled to present the Union Budget in Lok Sabha on February 1.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

HDFC Bank signals IT issues may not be fixed by March, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


HDFC Bank has indicated in its conference call with analysts that the lender might not complete fixing its back-end IT issues during the current fiscal. The bank said that its action plan relating to disaster recovery would take 12-18 months, while its immediate plans would take 10-12 weeks.

The country’s largest private bank had reported its Q3 results on Saturday — the first after the RBI pulled up the lender for repeated problems faced by customers in accessing digital banking.

The bank had reported an 18% year-on-year growth in earnings. The bank’s share price rose by over 1% after the results on a day the sensex fell by nearly 1% after its record profit of Rs 8,758 crore.

According to Macquarie research analyst Suresh Ganapathy, the tech resolution will take time and could spill over to end of June 2021.

“They want to be very sure everything is in place, ramp up capacity and then call the RBI for due diligence … As of now, inability to give credit cards has not affected account openings … But if this continues beyond June, we can see some impact coming in the near term… Meanwhile, for others like ICICI and Axis, this is an opportunity to ramp up their credit card base,” said Ganapathy.

The RBI has barred the bank from launching digital initiatives and issuing credit cards until it fixes issues with its IT system and ensures that multiple outages of online services that happened in the past do not repeat.

According to analysts, though it would take time to fix the issues, the bank was optimistic of getting permission from the RBI for a digital lending platform for auto loans.

According to Siji Philip of Axis Securities, the bank has made a representation to the regulator for digital lending for four-wheelers and two-wheeler loans.

“On the restrictions imposed by the RBI on December 2, the bank has made progress according to the plan provided to the regulator. The bank expects to complete the process in 10–12 weeks, which will then be subject to RBI inspection,” a note by Edelweiss said. It added that the bank aims to introduce a digital platform for auto loans in 90 days.

ICICI Securities said that the bank’s credit card portfolio was up 9% quarter-on-quarter despite the ban on acquiring new customers coming into effect from mid-December.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

HC to RBI, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Delhi High Court on Monday said that according to the Supreme Court’s decision on withdrawal of money by depositors of scam-hit PMC bank for exigencies, exceptions can be carved out for urgent medical and educational requirements.

A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh asked the depositors, whose needs have been highlighted before the court in a PIL, to once again approach the RBI-appointed administratorof PMC bank giving details of their financial needs along for medical or educational reasons within three weeks.

The bench asked the administrator to look into the applications by the depositors and take a decision within a further period of two weeks and communicate the same to the court before the next date of hearing on February 26.

During the hearing, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) told the court that the apex court asked it to consider the educational and medical requirements of depositors as per directives issued by the top bank.

RBI said its directives only provide for considering medical emergencies and not educational emergencies which everyone would have.

The bench, however, said the apex court has clearly mentioned both medical and educational emergencies and it was going to go by that.

The court was hearing an application by consumer rights activist Bejon Kumar Misra seeking directions to the RBI to consider other needs of PMC Bank depositors such as education, weddings and dire financial position, not just serious medical emergencies as being done at present.

The application was filed through advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi in Misra’s main PIL seeking directions to the RBI to ease the moratorium on withdrawals from the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank during the coronavirus pandemic.

Sudhi, during the hearing, contended that the apex court order had come when the situation was normal and now during the pandemic, the depositors have been able to withdraw only a total of Rs one lakh since restrictions on withdrawals from the bank was imposed by RBI in September 2019.

He argued that it was very difficult for depositors to meet their various needs from just Rs one lakh in more than a year.

RBI argued that while it sympathises with the plight of the depositors, but everyone would have some or the other financial emergency and if money to the tune of Rs five lakh was released to all, as provided in case of medical emergencies, the bank would go under and depositors would not get their entire deposits back.

RBI said it was trying to keep the bank functioning in the interests of the depositors and had floated an expression of interest for investing in it and has received some bids.

The PMC Bank has been put under restrictions, including limiting withdrawals, by the RBI, following the unearthing of a Rs 4,355-crore scam.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Neal Cross, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Q. How do you view the digital transformation journey of banks in India?
Neal:
If you see most digital transformations around the world, probably 99.99% of them won’t deliver on their promise, I’m not being contentious, it’s just that I have been long in this industry to see not a single software project being on time and on budget feature and that’s just the reality.

Digital transformation is not about software, 99.99% of it might not fail but might not live up to the expectation or the promises delivered by the consultancies who work in this space.

In many companies and banks over the years great IT capabilities have been built and CTO wanted to transform the architecture to make it more agile and open but got delayed due to budgets or prioritizing new products so it gets delayed and delayed and pushed back in creating agile architecture. The same story is with data, banks are brilliant in collecting data and lucky around data monetization. But historically, they’re bad at data and arrived towards the data monetization party too late. We’ve seen wonderful things with Big Techs and E-commerce giants partying on this free data they’ve got and how they’ve monetized.

Banks, by the time they realized and turned up for the party of data monetization, the police (referring to data privacy issues and scandals happened in the past) arrived and everyone is fearful and positioned as “we take care of your data”. While data is safe in banks but it’s lying and lost in disparate systems and nobody knows who owns the data. Banks should use and move the data within the systems and within the regulatory ambit to enrich the life of consumers and then the whole cycle of budget for the exercise repeats and the transformation exercises takes a back seat.

The biggest challenge with digital transformation is not the technology but the culture and people. Having worked across different organizations and industries, I know what good tech culture feels like. I never wanted to work with a bank, because I had been selling to banks for 20 odd years and I know the culture, the big difference between a tech company and a bank is the approach. Bank’s think from an ownership mindset over systems and its people but tech company’s entire model is partnerships. The second thing I noticed is banks are very hierarchical, micro-management, process based roles and I have never seen in any other organizations.

Thirdly, it’s around risk appetite. Banks are very funny, almost schizophrenic because their entire business model is monetizing risk but are skeptical of taking risks due to regulatory or compliance issues or culture. Capital Markets strive on risk, banks’ business is around pricing risk and Insurance companies model is avoiding risk, if you look at these three level it directly correlates to their innovation capabilities.

Banks need to experiment a lot, while it’s a regulated environment but it can start at small things, rigid processes won’t take it anywhere. Technology, Data & Culture is what will drive digital transformation and by the time banks realise it’s too late.

Digital Transformation should start at “Why are we doing this?” “What outcome do we want?” You don’t have to boil the ocean, just fix the bits and pieces which are going to make money. You don’t have to digitise everything, just digitise which is going to make money.

Do simple cultural transformation, you don’t need to get rid of your staff or hire Google employees. Get people the inspiration to try new things and give them the freedom to enjoy their work life.

On the Indian Banks: Banks in India are huge banks with huge staff bases, you can forgive them as compared to the banks in the West, because in India the smartphone churn came later but banks in western didn’t catch-up with the digital transformation even when they got smartphones quiet before India. The population in India is catching up quickly and banks in India have done a fairly good job.

I wouldn’t put India as the most innovative finance market from the bank perspective on what we are doing! I won’t put it in tier 1 innovation, but overall the ecosystem is doing well.

But I would put India on number one around putting up the national infrastructure Aadhar platform and UPI, etc. Regulators, FinTech & e-commerce have been doing a good job.

Q. How do you view Bank-FinTech collaborations?
Neal:
FinTechs started with competing banks but then eventually realised it’s too hard to go alone and in most of the cases customer acquisition cost and regulatory compliance is too high. Banks have distribution and FinTechs have tech and speed.

In any megatrend if you see, for e.g. e-commerce, The race between Amazon and Walmart, has merged in between from starting at extreme ends. That’s exactly what we are seeing between Banks and FinTechs. Banks are fintech-y and Fintechs are bank-y- more towards building hybrid models. (Neal explained this in a lighter tone)

FinTechs are agile, quick, focus on the client, think differently and don’t have historical roles and technology and quite a lot of it is not directly regulated. Banks are good at security, trust, products but slow, culture issues and expensive.

I know a lot of banks these days say they are FinTech companies that they magically transformed in such a short period of time but when I meet them they are “bankers”.

Questioning banks, Neal asks, do you want to be a bank or tech company? You’re not good at building softwares but as a bank you’re great at being resilient, safe, secured and reliant system and that’s the sweet spot for bank’s technology team and they’re really good at that and they should focus more on that and stuff which they own like digital banking platforms but if you want to do something new and interesting, in all fairness banks should partner with FinTechs and keep their capability with themselves.

That’s where the world is moving towards where you’ve many partners, for e.g. Neo-banking platforms in India. Banks should partner where it makes sense, usually around the UX, RegTech, SupTech, compliance. It takes an average 9-10 months to sell a technology solution to a bank, if you’re a small FinTech and you’ve got a small sales team, you’ve got to understand, is this going to be successful and qualify quickly, you’ve to understand why the bank is concerned if you don’t do pen testing. It’s changed quite a lot in recent times, banks do have a point. In fairness, banks don’t get hacked, I can’t recall any recent incident where someone hacked into and took all money, it doesn’t often happen because of bank’s control and FinTechs have to learn a lot in that.

Banks and FinTechs can build a nice symbiotic relationship and do things at which they’re good at.

Q. What are your views on neobanking entities?
Neal:
There are different models in this particular space, a bank rolling out a neobank like DigiBank by DBS Bank, even if it fails the bank can roll it back into its fold like how recently BBVA did it with Simple. The other model is building a digital bank from scratch like Standard Chartered did with Mox in Hong Kong, that’s quite an undertaking and there they’re looking at better operational metrics and it’s to be seen how it performs.

For banks doing this the DBS Bank way could be the right way to go which is a hybrid way essentially cutting your tech stack in half and keeping the backend stuff, put a bus or microservices layer and build net new code on top of that. All the front end stuff is new and over a period of time you can replace the stuff below as customers won’t know about it and at the same time bring changes in the culture.

At DigiBank, the bank staff were in a separate building, they had different reporting lines and slightly different roles but stationed more in an innovation lab kind of space.

The second model is getting a license from a regulator and building a bank from scratch like Xinja, Starling, etc. It’s a start-up; these things cost $50mn just for initial build for a full service bank. It’s funny how people tell me how successful these banks are and I’m like can you come back and tell me how successful they’re when they’ve lent some money or got some deposits. They’re essentially a prepaid card with a mobile application and that’s not a bank.

In fairness, I would not like to do that, it’s an expensive affair. The Xinja team was amazing but got blindsided by Covid-19, set high interest rates, the only way I have seen to succeed in a banking venture is to buy your clients, either buy them through free ATMs, free transactions, like In India, banks offer 7% deposit rates. Some way you’ve got to spend a lot of money to get people on your platform. These models kind of make money, Starling has turned profitable because they’ve a business model which works.

The third type are payment apps like Revolut, Monzo, etc. They do transactions, give flashy cards and everyone’s incredibly proud of their cards. We did one with Razer FinTech where if you tap a card the NFC is enough to light the Razer logo and these apps look to scale up on these transactions and hope they grow. Not all of them have been successful in terms of being profitable.

The fourth type, like neobanking platforms we’ve seen in India and in my mind that’s a brilliant play. You don’t need a license as you’re not storing the data. It goes directly to your partners core platform you’re managing the operations and I think that’s kind of great.

The final type which could be worrisome for traditional financial institutions is the neobanks created by e-commerce and tech companies giants because they’re good at technology and they’ve massive scale.

The top three banks according to me are WeBank (China), MYbank (China) and Kakao Bank (South Korea), because they’ve free distribution and tens of millions of clients, so the cost of customer acquisition is low and they’ve data for scoring.

I like the India model which is putting a wrapper on the bank and it’s a smashing idea. Building a digital bank from scratch is only for the brave but there’s money there as you’re doing the traditional bank model better. These ones like payment models we’re going to see lots of failures because the only way they work is by continuously pumping money.

India has taken the right path, some regulators have jumped on this too quickly in terms of Hong Kong and we might see how it will pan out. Singapore, it’s a tiny market but regulators are pushing as banks are refusing to innovate and taking it slow.

Essentially solving customer’s problems is the main idea, banks have been doing it the monolithic way and that’s what digital disruption is about. It’s not about technology, it’s about someone else solving your customer’s problem better than you and that’s digital disruption.

Q. Any advice to the regulators?
Neal:
My advice to regulators is to read science fiction, what is playing out has already been defined, the future is defined. A lot of it is inevitable, regulators should read science fiction, understand tech megatrends because the way it rolls out affects how people operate in a society and how people will purchase products in future and they’ve a difficult job here.

Even if regulators have a team which thinks about future regulation based on future tech and societal trends you’ll be way ahead of the curve, things like blockchain, cloud-computing, we already have hands on it and we are still waiting for it.

While I did get blindsided by how crypto evolved but generally everything else is talked about and is inevitable. My guidance is around tech and societal trends, think about how regulations need to change in the future with fewer regulations.

The cost of regulatory burden for banks goes up and up every year and in fairness if you’re a regulator your job is to write regulation, if you don’t do that you don’t have a job while I do acknowledge Regulators do a fantastic job.

My point is, you keep adding layers on and on and if you write new stuff can’t you just take some other stuff away or simplify what you’ve done. Secondly, be clearer, it’s a challenge and you can’t be wrong as a regulator and they cannot be specific, and that leads to interpretation problems.

Regulators should use technology to enforce regulations, give out clarity and simplify things. In the last five years they’ve changed a lot and are doing a stellar job.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

GNPA situation may not turn as bad, say analysts, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


In the quarter-ended September 2020, the GNPA ratio of scheduled commercial banks improved to 7.7% against 9.3% in the year-ago period. India’s banking sector did see a decrease in its gross non-performing assets (GNPA) owing to the moratorium offered by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and due to recoveries and higher write-offs by the multiple banks.

Going forward, some believe the stressed asset formation outlook is anticipated to be more benign than what was earlier expected. “The biggest change in outlook has been the formation of stressed assets which, at the start of the pandemic, we had anticipated to be around 10-12% of banks’ loan books. However, based on our recent channel checks with rating agencies, corporate banking heads of banks, consultants and also feedback from KV Kamath Committee, we expect overall stressed asset formation to halve to 5-6%,” said a report by Macquarie Research.

One of the biggest reasons for this is lower restructuring in the corporate segment. Macquarie pointed out that many large corporates haven’t sought restructuring and only a dozen large companies (with exposures greater than Rs 15 billon) have opted for it restructuring. It, however, expects the retail NPLs to increase in the next few quarters and can touch a 10-year high. “We draw comfort from the fact that collection efficiencies (CE%) from September to December 2020 have been high in the mid-90s, despite 40% of the loan book under moratorium as of August 31, 2020. Hence, we have reduced the credit cost estimates cumulatively for FY21E-FY23E by 150bps for private sector and 120bps for PSU banks to 550bps and 650bps, respectively,” it added.

Meanwhile analysts at BofA Securities have also turned hopeful. Anand Swaminathan, Research Analyst, BofAS India, said, “Asset quality is no longer an existential risk in mid-2020, Indian banks’ asset quality has been surprisingly resilient. Our channel checks further support few risks of negative surprises near term. Moreover, new disbursals are already back to above pre COVID levels in most segments. After NPA recognitions are dealt with in 1H, we expect growth tailwinds to emerge in 2H.”

He also believes that capital and liquidity have never been better, and this should help cushion downside risks from asset quality and net interest margins and help further consolidate market share gains in 2021. Further, multiple government and regulatory measures have been a major help for asset quality in 2020 and this will support the growth revival in 2021, he added.

Swaminathan, however, noted new NPA formation could throw some surprises, and this may disturb the pace of growth recovery.

In fact, last week, RBI came out with its Financial Stability Report, in which it said banks’ GNPA may rise to 13.5% by September 2021, from 7.5% in September 2020 under the baseline scenario. The GNPA ratio of PSBs may increase from 9.7% in September 2020 to 16.2% by September 2021; that of PVBs (private banks) to 7.9% from 4.6% in 2020; and FBs’ (foreign banks) from 2.5% to 5.4%, over the same period. Under the baseline scenario, it would be a 23-year-high. The last time banks witnessed such NPAs was in 1996-97 at 15.7%, showed the RBI data.

And in case of severe stress scenario, the GNPA ratios of PSBs, PVBs and FBs may rise to 17.6%, 8.8% and 6.5%, respectively, by September 2021. The GNPA ratio of all SCBs may escalate to 14.8%. This highlights the need for proactive building up of adequate capital to withstand possible asset quality deterioration, said the report.

Most experts view the performance of financial sector will remain under pressure on account of lack of credit uptake, risk aversion, lower fee income and covid-related provisioning, but some banking analysts have predicted light at the end of the tunnel.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

HDFC Bank signals IT issues may not be fixed by March, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


MUMBAI: HDFC Bank has indicated in its conference call with analysts that the lender might not complete fixing its back-end IT issues during the current fiscal. The bank said that its action plan relating to disaster recovery would take 12-18 months, while its immediate plans would take 10-12 weeks.

The country’s largest private bank had reported its Q3 results on Saturday — the first after the RBI pulled up the lender for repeated problems faced by customers in accessing digital banking. The bank had reported an 18% year-on-year growth in earnings. The bank’s share price rose by over 1% after the results on a day the sensex fell by nearly 1% after its record profit of Rs 8,758 crore.

According to Macquarie research analyst Suresh Ganapathy, the tech resolution will take time and could spill over to end of June. “They want to be very sure everything is in place, ramp up capacity and then call the RBI for due diligence… As of now, inability to give credit cards has not affected account openings … But if this continues beyond June, we can see some impact coming in the near term… Meanwhile, for others like ICICI and Axis, this is an opportunity to ramp up their credit card base,” said Ganapathy.

The RBI has barred the bank from launching digital initiatives and issuing credit cards until it fixes issues with its IT system and ensures that multiple outages of online services do not repeat. According to analysts, though it would take time to fix the issues, the bank was optimistic of getting permission from the RBI for a digital lending platform for auto loans. ICICI Securities said that the bank’s credit card portfolio was up 9% quarter-on-quarter despite the ban on acquiring new customers coming into effect from mid-December.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

1 89 90 91 92 93 95