The problem with bad loans

The health of the banking sector is deteriorating. India needs robust insolvency laws

Sunil B.S.   First Published: Thu, Aug 23 2012. 07 30 PM IST

pdated: Thu, Aug 23 2012. 07 36 PM IST

The sharp economic downturn has once again brought the problem of bad loans to the forefront.

In its annual report released on Thursday, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) pointed out that the health of the banking system is linked to the credit cycle. “Financial institutions tend to overstretch their lending portfolio during economic booms and tend to retrench the same during economic downturns,” it said.

The market is often abuzz with speculation about the inability of some overleveraged business groups to service their bank loans. India has traditionally had a system that tries to help companies in financial distress, making it easy for them to restructure loans. Even RBI has pointed out that the ability of Indian banks to maintain asset quality is “partly on account of the policy of loans restructuring”.

While bad assets of Indian banks have grown 46% in the fiscal year ended March 2012, the growth pace of credit has been at 17%. On 31 March, gross non-performing assets (NPAs) of the banking system amounted to Rs.1.37 trillion and restructured assets Rs.218 trillion.

To reduce the adverse effects of economic downturns on companies and lenders, corporate debt restructuring (CDR) was introduced by RBI in 2001. Despite success in helping companies emerge out of financial troubles, there are several shortcomings in this mechanism. India continues to miss strong insolvency laws.

Restructuring often involves extension of maturities, lower interest rates, debt forgiveness, among others, in case a firm is unable to repay its debt. Further, loans may or may not get classified as NPAs after they are restructured. A working group set up by RBI to review existing guidelines on loan restructuring has recommended increasing the provisions for accounts which get the asset classification benefit on restructuring. Hence, such restructuring places huge stress on the resources of banks

Such restructuring has also attracted criticism about being partial towards big companies. RBI deputy governor K.C. Chakravarty, in a recent speech, raised an important question: Are small and marginal borrowers discriminated against by the banks? An economic downturn is likely to affect smaller companies more adversely than larger ones, so smaller borrowers should be having a greater share in restructured accounts. The data with RBI does not show this.

The soft corner which Indian banks have for large companies is also highlighted by a recent report by Credit Suisse Group AG, which pointed out that the exposure to 10 large industrial groups constitutes 13% of the entire Indian banking system’s loan assets.

In the absence of effective laws on insolvency, many firms who can’t repay their debts for reasons beyond their control remain orphans, and banks are forced to restructure their loss-making assets at a cost. The Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA), 1985, enabled sick firms to approach the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) to help them revive.

Under the SICA provisions, a company is classified as sick if it has a track record of erosion of net worth over five years. But what is required is a law, which can detect that a company is going through financial difficulty in earlier, and then attempt to revive it. The lack of infrastructure has resulted in bankruptcy procedures under BIFR to take a long time, something which needs to be addressed. Also, steps should be taken to prevent misuse of BIFR provisions by companies that, under section 22 of SICA, seek immunity from creditors after cooking their accounts; this has plagued efficiency at BIFR for long.

Also asset reconstruction companies (ARCs), which were established by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to acquire, manage and recover illiquid loans or NPAs from banks have failed to take off in a big way. The appetite of Indian investors for securities issued by ARCs is weak, and remains limited to short-tenor papers and those with high ratings. A major hindrance in the way of development of securitization in the country has been high stamp duties. Moreover, the Indian credit markets are closely regulated and loans typically don’t trade on a secondary market, unlike developed countries.

These laws are also tilted in favour of creditors whose major goal remains short term, which is to recover their debts. What is needed are sound insolvency laws in our country along the lines of chapter 11 in the US, which can protect firms and help them adopt a suitable strategy to emerge out of financial difficulties.

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/FF0FFDxOooUbUDEcAWDHmI/The-problem-with-bad-loans.html

http://foreclosureindia.com/

A reconstruction boom?

For the first time, that there exists a legislative framework that allows ARCs to focus on revival and reconstruction.
Haseeb A. Drabu .

By allowing asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) to convert a company’s debt into equity, the framework of management of non-performing assets is likely to undergo a fundamental change.

Amendments to the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) that allow these changes can potentially alter the landscape of asset reconstruction.

Till now, banks and lenders in general had access and recourse only to the assets of the borrowers. The debt of a company was directly linked to the physical assets created by it. Equity was kept out of these arrangements unless it was specifically earmarked or borrowed against. It was not available for recovery of overdue debts.

With the new amendment passed by both Houses of Parliament, debt and equity have been made fungible as far as recovery from defaulting companies is concerned. ARCs have been given complete and unbridled access to the equity of a defaulting company. With no restrictions on it, either in terms of size or type, this amounts to powers of changing the ownership and, with that, the management and leveraging not just of financial equity but also the business, brand and other types of equity of a company. This has enormous implications not only for lenders and borrowers but the entire financial architecture of the economy.

The biggest problem for ARCs was their ability to extract value from assets. Apart from all the litigation, procedural problems and unreal pricing of impaired assets by banks, ARCs often face a situation where the value of the asset is lower than that of the debt of the defaulting company. In such a case, the enterprise value of a company is less than its asset value. As such, ARCs can’t make much from the assets that they buy.

Despite a situation where the rate of growth of non-performing assets (NPAs) has been higher than the rate of growth of credit and the consequent high levels of NPAs, ARCs have been asset-starved for the past two years. No wonder then that despite permitting the formation of securitization companies and asset reconstruction companies in 2003, the market for impaired assets in India is far from developed.

Even though a number of ARCs have been set up that have been purchasing NPAs from banks, they haven’t been able to develop a robust stressed asset market or an active distress and restructured debt paper market in India. At best, ARCs have functioned as asset-recovery centres that are primarily into asset stripping rather than asset reconstruction and business revival.

This amendment which gives them recourse to equity has the potential to trigger the development of a healthy market for non-performing and impaired assets. The move seems to have been timed well. It comes at a point when the gross non-performing assets of the banking system are at a decadal high and are likely to be around 4% of the gross advances at the end of this fiscal. If one adds restructured assets, one-time exemptions and evergreen ones, the level is almost twice as much. Seen from a stressed asset market perspective, it is a business worth Rs 5 trillion.

If private equity participants—globally there are specialist distressed asset private equity firms—can team up with local ARCs, this can be a great business opportunity. Not only that, it will also be a systemic gain as their ability to turn around companies will be much higher as India seems to be nearing the end of the downturn. This is an ideal time for investments in distressed assets. From next year, interest rates will start declining and as and when growth picks up, the pricing of these assets will improve faster than their prospects of revival.

At the transactional level, the ability to convert debt into equity will be especially useful as it will reduce interest costs for companies. This is a frequent reason for firms getting into default. In addition to this, reconstruction and revival becomes easier with innovative and quick structuring of the debt component.

These possibilities, including those of changing owners, promoters or managements, will enable ARCs to offer better packages to banks for bad loans.

Now, for the first time there exists a legislative framework that allows ARCs to focus on revival and reconstruction. The efforts will be, or rather should now be, on buying an impaired asset based on business viability, using specialized skills and tools to turn it around and then reselling the stake the moment the company recovers. Apart from making profits for themselves, ARCs will have contributed to the national economy by preventing capital waste.

Haseeb A. Drabu is an economist, and writes on monetary and macroeconomic matters from the perspective of policy and practice. Comments are welcome at haseeb@livemint.com. To read Haseeb A. Drabu’s earlier columns,go towww.livemint.com/methodandmanner-

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/bsS1xllKPFzCj95WqqoSxN/A-reconstruction-boom.html

Asset reconstruction firms expect boost in business

According to a Bill passed on Monday, these firms can convert part of their debt into shares of defaulting companies.
Dinesh Unnikrishnan 

Updated: Wed, Dec 12 2012. 12 42 AM IST

Mumbai: Asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) that purchase bad loans given to sick units from commercial banks are likely to see a revival in their business, once the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill 2011 comes into effect.

The Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha on Monday, allows ARCs to convert part of the debt into the shares of the defaulting companies and purchase the sticky assets of multi-state cooperative banks, among other things.

The actual implementation of the new rules may not take place immediately as the Bill is yet to be cleared by the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, following which the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) will announce detailed guidelines.

Chiefs of leading asset reconstruction companies are optimistic that the provision to convert debt in distressed companies to equity will make such purchases more attractive as equity ownership will give more control to them in the operations of companies besides yielding higher returns once the companies turn profitable.

For companies too, conversion of debt into equity will be beneficial as their interest payment burden will come down.

“It’s indeed a big positive for ARCs,” said P. Rudran, managing director and chief executive officer of Arcil, India’s largest ARC. “This will enable us to do actual reconstruction of businesses for the eligible firms. ARCs will be able to take equity ownership in such companies and exit at a later stage by earning an upside on the equity, when the unit turns profitable.”

Another key provision of the debt recovery Bill allows banks to accept immovable property of defaulting companies to realize claims.

ARCs are currently not allowed to directly pick up stakes in stressed units whose loans they buy from commercial banks or other financial institutions. Instead, they typically facilitate the bringing in of long-term capital to these firms.

According to Rudran of Arcil, the provision to allow banks and financial institutions to file caveats and to be heard in debt recovery tribunals before any stay is granted will ensure that the process of law is not misused by unscrupulous borrowers to delay settlements and payment of dues.

“When you are reviving a running company, you are investing in a sick unit. ARCs always wanted to have equity relationships in companies which have a potential to revive but it was not allowed,” said P.H. Ravikumar, managing director and chief executive officer of Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. “The new provisions will help ARCs to focus more on reviving the units rather than just buying out the bad assets.”

Ravikumar is optimistic that the provisions in the new law will help Indian ARCs buy more assets and enhance their ability to revive sick units in a slowing economy. Birendra Kumar, chief executive officer of International Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd, said more clarity will come only after the Reserve Bank announces the norms.

Slowing global exports, high inflation and high interest rates have hit the earnings of most industrial units, especially small and medium enterprises, in Asia’s third largest economy. This has impacted the ability of many companies to repay loans to commercial banks.

However, despite the rise in non-performing assets (NPAs), the business of ARCs is not swelling. Even Arcil, the largest among the ARCs, added just Rs.200 crore to its books this fiscal. For the other two ARCs, there have been hardly any deals in the current fiscal. Arcil has assets under management worth Rs.6,200 crore, Invent has bought assets worth Rs.2,500 crore, while International has principal outstanding assets of Rs.4,000-Rs.4,500 crore. Analysts said the business prospects of ARCs look bright in India, given the stress in the economy and the rise of bad loans and restructured assets. Gross NPAs of 40 listed banks rose by 47% to Rs.1.6 trillion in September from Rs.1.1 trillion in the year-ago period, with state-run banks leading the pack.

Analysts expect at least 25-30% of the restructured assets to turn bad in the absence of a major pick up in the economy, which grew at 5.3% in September quarter. Total restructured assets under the so-called corporate debt restructuring mechanism touched Rs.1.9 trillion on a cumulative basis till September. “It is boom time for ARCs, given the rise in bad loans in the banking system,” said Abhishek Kothari, research analyst at Violet Arch Securities Ltd.

“Post the new regulations, there is a likelihood of more bad loans being sold to ARCs as they will be keen to take equity relationships, which will reward them at a later stage, when valuations go up.”

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xtLcRxhvhTqpwySmiABmYM/Asset-reconstruction-firms-expect-boost-in-business.html

Foreign investment limit in ARCs raised to 74%. The finance ministry said that 74% would be the combined investment limit for FDIs and FIIs

Asit Ranjan Mishra 

New Delhi: A day after allowing asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) to take equity stakes in bad assets of banks through amendment of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act in Parliament, the government on Friday raised foreign investment limit in ARCs to 74% from 49% at present.

The proposal is considered critical to boost the asset reconstruction business in India at a time when bad loans in the banking system have been on the rise in a slowing economy. Gross non-performing assets (NPAs) in the banking system were around 3.5% of the total assets at the end of the first half of this fiscal, according to government estimates. Cumulatively, banks restructured Rs.1.9 trillion of loans till September.

In a press statement, the finance ministry said 74% would be the combined limit for foreign direct investors (FDIs) and foreign institutional investors (FIIs), removing the prohibition on FIIs investing in ARCs. “The total shareholding of an individual FII shall not exceed 10% of the total paid-up capital,” it added.

A single sponsor will not be allowed to hold more than 50% of the shareholding in an ARC either by way of FDI or FII. “The foreign investment in ARCs would need to comply with the FDI policy in terms of entry route conditionality and sectoral caps,” the statement said.

S.C. Bhatia, chief executive officer of Phoenix ARC, said the move is is more of an enabler and it will take time to produce results. “Unless banks are incentivised to sell (bad loans) to ARCs, I don’t see a flood of equity coming into ARCs,” he said.

There are several regulatory restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on the source of funding that ARCs can tap. Out of the available sources, banks, notified financial institutions and non-banking financial companies do not lend much to ARCs. Another source of liquidity for ARCs could have been domestic funds, but there are a very few in India focused on distressed assets. Since foreign investors are minority shareholders at present, they don’t take an active part in the revival of assets.

Typically, ARCs set up separate trusts to acquire individual assets. These trusts issue security receipts (SRs) against the bad assets bought. The SRs are bought by banks themselves as qualified institutional buyers, or QIBs, as well as other investors. Under the current laws, banks can undertake corporate debt restructuring and convert some of the debt into equity according to prescribed guidelines. But no such option was available for asset reconstruction companies (ARCs). They acquire bad debts from banks and other lenders at a discount and then try to recover them, earning a fee.

Through the amendment of the SARFAESI Act by passing the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011 in Parliament, the government allowed ARCs to take equity interest in such bad debts.

The finance ministry also increased the limit of FII investment in SRs from 49% to 74%. It has also done away with the individual limit of 10% for investment of a single FII in each tranche of SRs issued by ARCs. “Such investment should be within the FII limit on corporate bonds prescribed from time to time, and sectoral caps under the extant FDI regulations should be complied with,” it added.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/xZNSZVtOkqUHUAyHuklgwO/Foreign-investment-limit-in-ARCs-raised-to-74.html

Bank auction buyers cannot file writ petitions seeking refund: HC

MOHAMED IMRANULLAH S.

Dismisses case seeking refund of Rs. 4.25 lakh from Canara Bank

Purchasers of immovable properties in auctions conducted by nationalised banks cannot file writ petitions seeking refund of their money, on account of certain encumbrances in the properties, as such transactions are purely commercial in nature, the Madras High Court Bench here has held.

Justice K. Chandru passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by an individual seeking a direction to the Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Melur Branch, Tuticorin, to refund Rs. 4.25 lakh with interest from November 8, 2011, as the property he purchased could not be registered in his name.

According to the petitioner, E. Muthuraj of Tuticorin, he purchased 10.107 cents of land at Sankaraperi village through an auction conducted by the bank. He paid the entire sale consideration to the bank and also obtained a sale certificate issued in his favour.

Subsequently, when he attempted to register the property in his name, the Sub-Registrar concerned informed the writ petitioner that the property actually belonged to the government and no sale deed could be registered with respect to it in favour of a third party.

An application made by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the District Registrar Office revealed that the land was part of Boodhan Movement, initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave in 1950s for the benefit of landless poor, and it stood in the name of the State government’s Boodhan Board.

However, in a counter affidavit filed by the bank through its counsel C. Jawahar Ravindran, it was stated that the property was taken charge of under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act from one of its loan defaulters.

When the property documents were submitted as security by the borrower, the bank’s panel of legal experts had opined that the mortgagor had a valid title over it. Stating that the bank was unaware of the encumbrance, it rejected any kind of liability to repay the amount to the auction purchaser.

Further, the bank relied upon Rule 15 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Boodhan Yagna Rules, 1959, which permits mortgaging of property belonging to Boodhan Board. It also pointed out that the sale certificate issued in favour of the purchaser was exempted from being registered under the Registration Act.

After recording the contentions put forth by the petitioner as well as the bank, Mr. Justice Chandru recalled that in a judgement passed on September 12, a Division Bench of the High Court had held that it was the purchasers who must be diligent enough in enquiring about the encumbrances before purchasing properties through bank auctions.

Pointing out that statutory rules provide for sale of a property only after 30 days of a public notice issued by banks, the Division Bench said that the time was intended to serve two purposes:

One for the bank’s loan defaulter to gather resources and repay the money if possible and another for all intending purchasers to make sufficient enquiries as a person of normal diligence and ordinary prudence would do while buying an immovable property.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/bank-auction-buyers-cannot-file-writ-petitions-seeking-refund-hc/article4105979.ece

Private Treaty under SARFEASI act

In the event the authorised officer intends to sell the secured asset by the above two methods by fixing the reserve price and if he fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he shall effect the sale at such price which is consented by the borrower in terms of the second proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Rules. The authorised officer has two options. In the event the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price and in the event the consent of the borrower is obtained, he can sell the secured asset at such price for which the borrower has consented by following the procedure enumerated in sub-rule (5)(b) and (c) as well as sub-rule (6) of Rule 8. The consequential question would be in the event the consent of the borrower could not be obtained, namely, when the borrower refuses to give consent, what would be the procedure to be adopted by the authorised officer? In the event no consent could be obtained, he cannot resort to sell the property either by obtaining quotations or by private treaty and has no other option except to resort to sale by public tenders or public auction. In this context, a reference also can be made to the first proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Rules providing that no sale under the rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is less than the reserve price, specified under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9. Only for that reason, the second proviso requiring the consent of the borrower has been made. This issue will be considered in point no.(3). As far as the first question is concerned, in the event the authorised officer fails to obtain a price higher than the reserve price, he cannot sell the secured asset for a lesser price than the reserve price without the consent of the borrower. The said issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in K.Raamaselvamand others v. Indian Overseas Bank, Aminjikarai Branch and another, AIR 2010 Madras 93, where the Division Bench held as follows:-

"12....It is crystal clear from the present stand taken by the borrower that there is no consent for confirmation of such sale. As a matter of fact, the Authorised Officer has never bothered to find out from the borrower whether he was willing that the sale should be confirmed, despite the fact that the Authorised Officer had failed to obtain a price higher than the reserve price.

14. We do not think that in view of the clear language in the second proviso, such a contention can ever be countenanced. In fact, the first and second provisos contemplate the situation that if the bid amount is less than the reserve price, such a position is covered by the first proviso and if the bid amount is more than the reserve price, the situation is contemplated in the main provision. However, if the Authorized Officer fails to obtain the price higher than the reserve price, with the consent of the borrower, the sale may be confirmed only after the borrower and the secured creditor give their consent. By no stretch of imagination, it could be construed that even if the Authorised Officer fails to obtain price higher than the reserve price, he may, confirm the sale without obtaining any consent from the borrower or from the secured creditor."

What if the borrower fails to give consent?

21. Point No.(3): This question relates to a situation when the borrower refuses to give consent to the authorised officer to sell the secured asset for less than the reserve price and the authorised officer decides to sell the secured asset by private treaty. The power of the authorised officer to sell the secured asset by private treaty is beyond dispute, as it is one of the methods contemplated for sale of immovable property in terms of Rule 8(5) of the Rules. However, in the event the authorised officer decides to sell the secured asset by private treaty, such sale should be strictly in conformity with Rule 8(8) of the Rules. The said sub-rule states that “sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the parties in writing”. When this rule mentions the sale by any methods other than public auction or public tender, it conveys two things, namely, in the event the sale is made through public auction or public tender in terms of Rule 8(5)(b) and (c), the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 8 would be attracted. In the case of any other sale, the provisions of Rule 8(5)(a) & (d) would alone be attracted. As a consequence, a sale by private treaty must be on such terms as between the parties in writing. The word “parties” came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court-Madurai Bench in J.RajivSubramanian and another v. M/s Pandiyas and others, AIR 2012 Madras 12, where the Division Bench held as follows:-

“33. The first question for our consideration is as to what are the formalities to be adopted when invoking private treaty and effecting a sale on that basis. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to refer to Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2000 which reads thus:

"5. Before effecting the sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:

a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or

b) by inviting tenders from the public;

c) by holding public auction; or

d) by private treaty."

As per the private treaty, other than public auction or public tender, it can be settled between the parties invoking as per Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The sale of properties by private treaty is also permissible in law. The only condition is that it shall be on such terms as settled between all the parties in writing. From this, it is clear that the presence of debtor and his willingness in writing are essential.”

New Sarfaesi to break loan pricing deadlock

Published: Friday, Dec 14, 2012, 1:58 IST 
By Megha Mandavia & Aswathy Varughese | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

Revival of financially sick businesses has just become easier. For, the long-standing deadlock between banks with bad loans to sell and asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) over pricing issues may end finally.

This week’s amendments to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (Sarfaesi) now allow ARCs to convert defaulting company’s debt into equity.

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd or Arcil, India’s biggest ARC, said it may now be able to offer better deals to banks for bad loans. 
R K Bansal (pictured), executive director of IDBI Bank, said other ARCs may follow suit. “They can now pay a better price to banks to buy ailing assets as they will now have more wherewithal to recover their dues.”
The ARC sector has been asset-starved for the past two years. Banks had been expecting higher prices for their bad loans than what ARCs were ready to offer. 
Arcil’s MD and CEO P Rudran said, “At the due diligence stage, we won’t decide on pricing. But, if we are able to assess the value (of the non-performing asset or bad loan concerned), then, perhaps, we would be able to pay a little more. We may reduce the discount. Revivals will focus onbusiness viability. We will help as per the requirements of the ailing company concerned. We will resell the stake the moment such a company recovers.”
But some doubt if everything would be hunky dory for ARCs now. P H Ravikumar, MD and CEO of Invent Assets Securitisation and Reconstruction, for one, said acquisition of bad loans from banks still remains a challenge. 
“More than the pricing issue, the deadlock lies in banks’ under-provisioning for bad loans. If a non-performing asset is under-provided, it will reflect in the price at which banks are willing to give ARCs the bad loans,” said Ravikumar. 
megha.mandavia@dnaindia.net , aswathy.rachel@dnaindia.net

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_new-sarfaesi-to-break-loan-pricing-deadlock_1777355

NPA recovery Bill won’t shake things up

Published: Friday, Dec 14, 2012, 2:08 IST 
By Megha Mandavia | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

The pain of bad loans does not seem to be going away anytime soon. A new amendment passed by the Lok Sabha on Monday making auctioning of borrower security easier may not actually translate into any substantial or even immediate reduction in these loans for public sector banks.

The key provision in the new Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (Sarfaesi) now allows banks to bid for the unrealised security against the value of non-performing assets (NPA) if it is unable to secure a decent value of the assets at the auction. This will help banks offset outstanding NPAs against the ‘realisation’ and sell them later at a better price.

“It certainly helps because many auctions don’t go through due to cartelisation by bidders and legal issues. But the impact will not be substantial on non-performing assets because every time we don’t have that much collateral to sell,” pointed out BA Prabhakar, chairman and managing director at Andhra Bank.

PSU banks are plagued by rising levels of non-performing assets with a slowing economy and loose lending norms. Gross NPA levels at all listed banks in the quarter ended September on an average stood close to 3%, which are expected to go up to as much as 4.5% in the next one year.

The recent changes will no doubt hasten the recovery process, but a substantial impact on bad loans will not be visible, bankers and analysts said. “We don’t see this as a material change – the difference is largely optical and it is likely that the market will see through these cosmetic accounting changes,” said Seshadri Sen, an analyst with JP Morgan. “Our negative view on PSU banks is underpinned by expectations of continued momentum in incremental delinquency, a view that remains unchanged.”

Large public sector banks are continuing to lend aggressively to stressed sectors such as real estate, iron and steel, textiles, infra and agriculture, thus increasing the risk factor in the banking system, even though bankers are tracking recoveries on a daily basis now.

“The amendment will definitely help increase recoveries, but won’t reduce the NPAs immediately. The change will happen only over a period of time. All these changes are just enablers which help us put more pressure on willful defaulters,” said RK Bansal, executive director with IDBI Bank.

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_npa-recovery-bill-wont-shake-things-up_1777362