The RBI finalized new guidelines for securitization and direct assignment transactions that prohibit credit enhancement for direct assignments, severely impacting their volumes. The guidelines also introduce minimum holding period requirements for asset pools and clarify rules around profit recognition and excess interest release for originators. Investing banks will need to conduct stronger due diligence on acquired loan pools under the new regulations.

1. 7
ICRA RATING FEATURE
May 2012
STRUCTURED FINANCE
RBI FINAL GUIDELINES ON SECURITISATION AND DIRECT
ASSIGNMENT TRANSACTIONS TO ADVERSELY IMPACT VOLUMES
IN THE NEAR TERM
Contacts Background
Structured Finance The RBI, on 7 May 2012, has put out the final guidelines on securitisation and direct
Ratings Group assignment of loan receivables. This is the first time the RBI has issued separate
guidelines for Direct Assignment transactions. These guidelines are largely similar to
Kalpesh Gada the draft guidelines released in September 2011, other than some differences – the
Head—Structured Finance key ones pertain to Minimum Holding Period (MHP) requirement and credit
(91) 22-3047 0013 enhancement reset.
kalpesh@icraindia.com
Impact Summary
Vibha Batra
Co-head—Financial Sector The biggest impact of the Guidelines is expected to be on Direct Assignment
(91) 124-4545 302 transactions that formed about 75% of the market in FY2012 (as per ICRA’s
vibha@icraindia.com estimates)). Under the Guidelines, no credit enhancement is permitted for these
transactions. Given the prohibition on credit enhancement, the investing banks will
Remika Agarwal be exposed to the entire credit risk on the assigned portfolio, which most banks may
Assistant Vice President not be comfortable with. Hence the volume of such assignment transactions is
(91) 80-4332 6418 expected to be severely affected.
remikaa@icraindia.com
One of the key objectives of the banks to acquire loan pools was to meet their Priority
Sector Lending (PSL) targets, particularly post RBI’s Master Circular of July 2011 on
Priority Sector Lending as per which loans by banks to NBFCs no longer qualify as PSL.
Given that the need to meet PSL targets would continue to be there, banks could
shift—at least partly—to the securitisation route to meet these targets. However, the
deterrents to such a shift to securitisation are two-fold—high capital charge for
Originators1 and impact of mark-to-market for the Investing Banks. Further, the
unresolved issue of the Income Tax authorities’ claim of taxing the Special Purpose
Rating Feature
Vehicle (SPV) involved in securitisation transactions as a separate entity is another
factor likely to constrain a wide-spread move towards securitisation.
Other key provisions of the Guidelines pertain to Minimum Holding Period (MHP) and
Minimum Retention Requirement (MRR). These requirements are not expected to
have any major impact on the securitisation or assignment of any underlying asset
class, as these are relatively easy to comply with.
Investing banks are expected to stress test their securitisation investments / acquired
portfolio and continuously monitor the same. Further, banks acquiring loan pools
Website directly are expected to meet strict own due diligence requirements and have skilled
www.icra.in manpower and systems to carry out the process. However, some banks may not have
adequate systems or processes in place to comply with these requirements.
1
Credit enhancement offered is to be reduced from capital as per Feb 2006 guidelines

2. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Key Highlights of the Guidelines and their impact
MHP and MRR Requirement– more standardised pool compositions likely
The final guidelines of May 2012 have essentially reviewed the Minimum Holding Period (MHP) and Minimum Retention
Requirement (MRR) prescribed in April 2010 and subsequently in September 2011; while the MHP requirement has been reduced
to an extent, the MRR remains largely unchanged. These guidelines are aimed at ensuring Originators do not compromise on due
diligence of the assets generated for the purpose of securitisation or Assignment, curbing the “originate-to-securitise” business
model, and bringing in greater alignment of interest between the Issuers of and Investors in securitised paper. The present MHP
requirements and MRR are discussed below.
Table 1: Minimum Holding Period (MHP) Requirement for Securitisation and Direct Assignment by banks
Repayment Frequency
Type of Loan Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Quarterly More than quarterly
Original Maturity of less than 2 years 12 6 3 2 2
Original Maturity of 2-5 years 18 9 6 3 2
Original Maturity of more than 5 years - - 12 4 2
In the final guidelines, MHP has been defined as minimum number of instalments to be paid prior to securitisation rather than
minimum number of months on book of the Originator. For instance, for a loan with a monthly repayment frequency and an
original maturity between 2-5 years, the MHP prescribed is 6 months. The MHP requirement will be a credit positive; a minimum
payment track record establishes both ability and willingness to pay.
If we were to hypothetically apply the MHP criterion on all ABS pools rated by ICRA in FY2012, about 57% of the underlying loans
in the transactions would conform to the requirement. An asset wise analysis of the same is presented in the table below.
Table 2: Portion of ICRA-rated pools of FY2012 meeting the MHP requirement
Asset Class Share of
compliant pool %
Mortgage Loans 47%
CV 50%
Tractor 12%
Microfinance 29%
TWL/ SME 74%
Although the extent of compliant portion of the pools is not found to be very high; by and large, Originators should be able to
meet the MHP comfortably. Nevertheless, some of them might take time to build up compliant portfolio.
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 2

3. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Table 3: Minimum Retention Requirement (MRR) for Securitisation
Type of Loan MRR Description of MRR
Original 5% of book For transactions with no credit enhancement and no tranching, the MRR would be met by way of
Maturity of value of loans investing in 5% of the securities issued.
24 months securitised For transactions with no credit enhancement, the MRR would be met by way of investing in 5% of the
or less equity tranche.
For transactions with credit enhancement, the MRR would be met by way of investing in 5% of any of
the first-loss credit enhancements.
For other transactions, the MRR would be met through Originator taking an exposure to equity stake,
first-loss credit enhancements and pari passu tranche of 5% all taken together.
Original 10% of book For transactions with no credit enhancement and no tranching, the MRR would be met by way of
Maturity of value of loans investing in 10% of the securities issued.
more than securitised For transactions with credit enhancement, the MRR would be met by way of investing in 10% of the
24 months first-loss credit enhancements.
For transactions having no credit enhancement, the MRR would be met by taking up exposure to equity
stake or to the extent of 5%, and the balance 5% in the form of pari passu investment in all the tranches
of the securities
For other transactions, the MRR would be met through Originator taking up a minimum equity stake or
any of the first-loss credit enhancements of 5%, and the balance in the form of pari passu investment in
all the tranches of the securities.
Bullet 10% of book Similar to loans with Original Maturity of more than 24 months for transactions with no credit
Repayment value of loans enhancement and no tranching and for transactions with credit enhancement.
Loans/ securitised For transactions having no credit enhancement, the MRR would be met by taking up exposure to equity
Receivables stake or to the extent of 10%
For other transactions, the MRR would be met through Originator taking an exposure to equity stake,
first-loss credit enhancements and pari passu tranche of 10% all taken together.
The MRR continues to be largely in line with the draft guidelines. Importantly, from RBI guidelines’ perspective, Originator’s share
in the transaction, through MRR, is envisaged to be pari passu and not subordinated; although in the case of securitisation
transactions where credit enhancement is provided by Originator, the same would qualify as MRR, and to the extent the credit
enhancement in lower than the MRR, the balance would need to me met by investing in all the tranches issued. In the case of
Direct Assignment transactions, the amount to be retained is in line with those laid down for securitisation transactions for 24
month or less and more than 24 months maturity loans; however, the same can be retained on a pari- passu basis with the
assigned cashflows only. Overall, the MRR is not likely to be a big constraint for the Originators.
In addition to this, the total exposure of banks to loans securitised should not exceed more than 20% of total securitised
instruments issued that includes meeting MRR, all cash collateral and over-collateralisation but excludes EIS. Any excess exposure
initially will attract higher risk weight of 1111%.
Higher recognition of cash profits – positive for securitisation transactions
As per RBI guidelines of February-2006, the originators (Banks/FIs/NBFCs) in a securitisation transaction were required to
amortise any profit/premium arising on securitisation transaction over the life of the securities issued. While these guidelines
were applicable to securitisation transactions, there were no specific guidelines for income arising on direct assignment
transactions. As a result many NBFCs were up-fronting the income on premium direct assignment transactions.
RBI, in its final guidelines on securitisation and direct assignment of May-2012 has for the first time introduced a specific formula
for amortization of cash profits for both types of transactions- securitisation as well as assignment.
The new guidelines allow higher recognition of cash profits vis-à-vis February-2006 guidelines. According to the new guidelines,
unrecognised cash profits of securitisation/assignment transactions can be drawn down to cover up marked to market losses and
any specific provision/ write-off to the transaction during a year. Further, higher profit can also be recognised in case of higher
than expected amortization of principal during the year.
Release of residual EIS a positive but final view on reset of credit enhancement critical
The guidelines clarify that periodic release of residual unutilised Excess Interest Spread (EIS) to the Originator is permissible,
which is a positive. However, the issue of reset of credit enhancement for securitisation transactions is expected to be covered
through a separate circular subsequently. The draft guidelines had provided for reset of credit enhancement subject to various
conditions. The RBI’s final position on this issue would also be one of the important factors determining Originator’s motivation to
securitise its assets. The credit enhancement provided by the Originator for securitisation transactions needs to be reduced from
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 3

4. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
its capital. Over the tenure of the pool, the underlying pool would amortise, and in the absence of downward reset, the credit
enhancement, in % terms, would keep increasing. Thus, the annual cost of capital associated with the transaction would rise
significantly in the subsequent years, which is one of the deterrents to securitisation.
Direct Assignment transactions likely to be severely affected
While the MHP requirement and the broad stipulation under MRR and monitoring by investing banks is similar for Direct
Assignment and securitisation transactions, some key areas of difference from the provisions for ‘securitisation’ are summarised
below-
The guidelines prohibit any credit enhancement for direct assignment transactions, based on the premise that the
investors in such cases are generally institutional investors who should have the necessary expertise to appraise and
assume the exposure based on their own due diligence. Thus, although the commercial nature of both transaction
structures is similar—barring the fact that tradable instruments are issued in ‘securitisation’, but not in the case of
bilateral assignment—the RBI guidelines view the two differently.
o In the absence of credit enhancement, in bilateral assignment transactions, the acquiring bank will be exposed
to an open-ended credit risk on the Originator’s portfolio. In such a case, either the yield expected by the
Assignee would be higher (this would affect one of the key motives from Originator’s perspective, viz. finer
funding cost relative to normal borrowing) or the Originator may have to sell the pool at a discount (this would
mean booking a loss up-front which again Originators may not be too keen to do).
o Typically credit enhancement is sized such as to protect the acquirer from collections shortfalls even under
significantly stressed assumptions. In the absence of credit enhancement, bilateral assignment transactions
would require a precise valuation or an accurate estimation of the cashflows actually likely to materialise
would be required. Given the nature of the underlying loan pools, such a precise valuation would be a huge
challenge. There may be no meeting ground between the buyer and seller on the expected losses in the pool.
o However, in case such transactions happen, it would improve the capitalization as well as the income profile of
the Originator as the Originator would earn some servicing fee on the assigned pool while restricting its
exposure to MRR (that too pari passu with the Purchaser). At the same time, lack of any credit enhancement
by the originator would reduce the penalty for poor asset quality for the Originator vis-a-vis the earlier position
whereby the Originators were providing the first loss piece.
The capital adequacy treatment for direct purchase of retail loans, will be as per the rules applicable to retail portfolios
directly originated by banks2. No benefit in terms of reduced risk weights will be available to purchased retail loans
portfolios based on rating. Nevertheless, in the absence of credit enhancements, the rating of a typical retail loan pools
is anyway expected to reflect’s the pool’s own inherent credit quality, thus the prospect of reduced risk weight is
minimal.
Moreover, the Originators in the case of Assignment transactions are also prohibited from re-purchasing any assets
through exercise of clean-up call options.
These regulations are expected to significantly reduce the volume of direct assignment transactions—that formed about 75% of
the market in FY2012 (as per ICRA’s estimates)—going forward. Albeit, some portion of the issuances could be expected to be
routed through the conventional securitisation—or PTC issuance—route. However, the deterrents to a widespread shift to
securitisation are two-fold—
Impact of mark-to-market for the Investing Banks: PTCs—which are tradable instruments—would be classified under
‘investments’ book of the investing banks, and thus attract mark-to-market provisions; unlike the loan pools acquired
bilaterally which get classified under ‘loans and advances’. Traditionally, the mark-to-market requirement was one of
the reasons why investors (read banks) were not keen on this route. Incrementally, for reasons discussed above,
issuance is likely to shift to the PTC route, thus exposing the banks to a potential provisioning requirement.
Nevertheless, the alternative—of not meeting PSL targets—would have bigger financial consequence (the shortfall
would have to be met through lower-yielding avenues like contribution to Rural Infrastructure development Fund of
NABARD and such other Funds specified by RBI 3). We expect that the banks would weigh mark-to-market provisioning
requirement in case of PTC investments against the potential yield loss arising from investment in the alternative
avenues. Further, given relatively short duration of Asset-Backed Securities (typically 2-3 years) market to market (MTM)
2
except in cases where the individual accounts have been classified as NPA, in which case usual capital adequacy norms as applicable to retail NPAs will
apply
3
The prevailing yield on these deposits is between Bank Rate minus 2% to Bank Rate minus 5%, depending on the extent of shortfall in meeting the PSL
target
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 4

5. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
losses may not be very high.. In the case of Mortgage-Backed Securities, the tenure is much longer, but the PTC yield is
usually floating and typically linked to either the pool interest rate or to an external benchmark rate, reducing the MTM
losses.
High capital charge for Originators and potential rise in role of third-party credit enhancement providers 4 : In the past,
given that there was no prescribed regulatory requirement regarding treatment of credit enhancement for direct
assignment transactions, the most common treatment among Originators was to treat the credit enhancement at par
with other risk-weighted asset, which resulted in significant capital relief post such transactions. However, for
securitisation transactions, 50% of the credit enhancement is to be reduced from Tier I Capital and another 50% from
Tier II Capital. Thus, the capital relief
under ‘securitisation transactions’ Box 1: Capital relief : securitization & pre-guidelines bilateral assignments compared
will be significantly lower than that Direct assignment
(pre-May 2012 guidelines) Securitisation
under ‘bilateral transactions’. We
Pool size 100 100
also expect a potential rise in third- Credit enhancement (assumption) 12 12
party credit enhancement providers. Impact on RWA -100 -100
In the case of home loans, mortgage Capital required for the cr. enh.# 1.8 12
Capital relief on pool securitised -15 -15
guarantee on the underlying loans
Net capital relief -13.2 -3
may get used by Originators as a # 100% risk weight and 15% capital requirement in the case of pre-guidelines direct
proxy for third party credit assignment; for securitisation, cr. enh. reduced from capital
enhancement5. Please see box 1.
However, notwithstanding the higher capital charge—relative to that under the erstwhile bilateral assignment transactions—
the Originators could benefit from potentially lower investor yield, since in the case of securitisation—unlike term loan or
assignment transactions—the yield need not be linked to the base rate of the investing/ lending banks but could be even
lower.
Given the provision of the May 2012 guidelines as discussed above, we may expect some shift in preference from Direct
Assignment transactions to securitisation transactions. Hence, we have compared the benefits under Direct Assignment
transactions before the May 2012 Guidelines and the provisions for securitisation transactions under these Guidelines to evaluate
the out effect of such a shift on Originators and investors. The same has been summarised in the table below.
Table 4: Comparison between Direct Assignment transactions (pre-May 2012 guidelines) and current norms for
securitisation transactions
Key Considerations Direct Assignment Securitisation
(pre- May 2012 guidelines)
Originator’s perspective
Capital Adequacy No regulatory prescription; 100% risk Entire credit enhancement needs to be
weightage on credit enhancement deducted from capital funds
provided by Originator
Credit Enhancement reset No regulatory prohibition on reset of Not permitted at present; final
credit enhancement guidelines on the same expected to be
issued separately
Pricing Benefit Restricted on account of base rate of the PTC pricing not linked with base rate of
purchasing bank acting as a floor investing bank; fine pricing possible
Investors’ perspective
Mark to Market concerns No such concerns Mark to Market provision needs to be
made
For an Originator, the key considerations would be capitalisation and pricing benefit. For Originators with very high stand-alone
credit quality, the bigger benefit could be capital relief (assuming that the credit enhancement requirement in their case will be
lower than the regulatory capital requirement, which is a likely scenario). However, as reset of credit enhancement is not allowed
so far, there may not be a significant capital relief in securitization vis-a-vis conventional funding. On the other hand, Originators
with low stand-alone credit quality, better pricing could be the bigger motive (PTC pricing likely to be much finer compared to
Originator’s on-balance sheet funding cost given the significant difference in credit quality between the two).
An illustration of the additional cost for securitization, based on assumptions of pool interest rate, tenure, investor yield, interest
on cash collateral etc, for a hypothetical pool, is presented in table 7 below.
4
Credit enhancement offered is to be reduced from capital
5
RBI guidelines on mortgage guarantee product have been issued, the first such company expected to be operational soon
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 5

6. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Table 5: Additional costs for securitization at the beginning of transaction (negative carry6 + other costs) at various
levels of credit enhancement
Cost for on balance sheet funding for NBFC
10% 10.50% 11% 11.50% 12% 13% 13.00%
8% -0.41% -0.45% -0.49% -0.53% -0.57% -0.61% -0.65%
Credit enhancement
10% -0.45% -0.50% -0.55% -0.60% -0.65% -0.70% -0.75%
12% -0.49% -0.55% -0.61% -0.67% -0.73% -0.79% -0.85%
level
14% -0.53% -0.60% -0.67% -0.74% -0.81% -0.88% -0.95%
16% -0.57% -0.65% -0.73% -0.81% -0.89% -0.97% -1.05%
18% -0.61% -0.70% -0.79% -0.88% -0.97% -1.06% -1.15%
20% -0.65% -0.75% -0.85% -0.95% -1.05% -1.15% -1.25%
As seen from the table, negative carry for securitization transaction increases with the cost of ‘on balance sheet funding’ as well
as the level of credit enhancements. Therefore, negative carry is likely to be the least for a better rated NBFC with lowest cost of
funds. Overall, for securitization to make economic sense, NBFC should be able to place the securitized pool at significantly lower
coupon than its funding costs to cover the additional costs associated with securitization. For instance in case credit
enhancement levels are 10% and cost of ‘on balance sheet funding’ for an NBFC is 11.5%, it would make economic sense to
securitize only if the NBFC is able to place the securitized paper at coupon lower than 10.9%. As CC reset is not allowed, negative
carry is likely to increase as the pool amortizes.
The following table illustrates the impact of securitization on PBT (for the pool) at various levels of cost differentials.
Table 6: Impact on PBT at the beginning of the transaction
Cost differential = Yield on PTC - on balance sheet cost of funds for NBFCs
0.50% 0.00% -0.50% -1.00% -1.50% -2.00% -2.50%
Credit enhancement level
8% -0.91% -0.45% 0.01% 0.47% 0.93% 1.39% 1.85%
10% -0.95% -0.50% -0.05% 0.40% 0.85% 1.30% 1.75%
12% -0.99% -0.55% -0.11% 0.33% 0.77% 1.21% 1.65%
14% -1.03% -0.60% -0.17% 0.26% 0.69% 1.12% 1.55%
16% -1.07% -0.65% -0.23% 0.19% 0.61% 1.03% 1.45%
18% -1.11% -0.70% -0.29% 0.12% 0.53% 0.94% 1.35%
20% -1.15% -0.75% -0.35% 0.05% 0.45% 0.85% 1.25%
As seen from the table, if the PTC are placed at significantly lower rate than the conventional funding, it could impact the PBT
positively. For instance, at a given level of credit enhancement ( say 12%) if PTC yields are lower ( than the cost of conventional
funds) by 1.5%, there could be significant positive impact on PBT (0.77%) even after accounting for additional costs associated
with securitization. Again the benefit is likely to reduce as the pool amortizes as the proportion of cash collateral( in relation to
outstanding pool) will go up as CC reset is not allowed.
Given the present guidelines, the motives behind doing an off balance sheet transaction through the securitisation or assignment
route when compared to on balance sheet funding is summarised below-
6
Assuming interest on fixed deposits at 8%
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 6

7. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Table 7: Motive behind Securitisation transaction and Direct Assignment transactions under May-12 Guidelines
Key potential motives Securitisation transactions Direct Assignment transactions
Profit Booking Some recognition of cash profits allowed Some recognition of cash profits allowed
Capital Relief Low, Entire credit enhancement needs to High, no capital to be maintained against the
be deducted from capital assigned pool; since no risk retained. But if
credit enhancement is provided, assets need
to be treated as if they are on book
Pricing Benefit vis-a-vis on- Likely; specially for Originators rated low Unlikely; in the absence of credit
balance sheet funding enhancement, pricing likely to be closely
aligned with the yield on the underlying
loans, i.e., higher than the on-balance sheet
funding cost for most Originators
Tenure matched funding Yes Yes
Alternate Source of Yes Yes
funding
Access to alternative Yes, access to wider investor base – there Not very likely, investors who have no
investor base vis-a-vis on could be a set of investors unwilling to relationship with the Originator unlikely to
balance sheet funding lend to low rated entities, but willing to take on open-ended credit risk on its loan
invest in higher rated ABS issuances of pools
that entity
Asset class wise exposure Possible Possible
management
Nevertheless, the most immediate and severe obstacle to a wide-spread move to securitization is the unresolved issue of the
Income Tax authorities’ claim of taxing the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) involved in securitisation transactions as a separate
entity. This is discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section.
Guidelines negative for NBFCs
The likely dip in volumes of off-book funding is a negative for NBFCs, especially those for whom securitisation / bilateral
assignments were an important funding source. As per ICRA’s analysis of the balance sheets of over 20 top NBFCs, with Assets
Under Management (AUM) aggregating to over Rs. 2,00,000 crore, in the case of 3 NBFCs—with AUM of around Rs. 50,000
crore—the share of off balance sheet funding exceeds 35%, while for most of the others, it is less than 15%. The Top 9 NBFC’s
with high reliance on assignment/securitization have aggregated assets under management of Rs. 1,60,000 crore(approx)
including assigned/securitised book of Rs 31,000 crore (approx) as on December 31, 2011, which are primarily in the form of
assignment transactions. In case we treat these as securitization transactions and apply the capital treatment as prescribed by the
revised guidelines ICRA estimates the aggregate CRAR would drop by approximately 2.23% (0.93% in Tier 1 CRAR and 1.30% in
Tier 2 CRAR) from 19.49% to 17.26% (Tier 1 from 14.53% to 13.60%), which would be well above the RBI guidelines of 15% for
Total CRAR and 10% for Tier 1 CRAR. At an individual level as well, ICRA does not envisage capital adequacy to below the
prescribed minimum regulatory requirement for these players. Further most of the NBFCs were amortizing the income on
premium assignment transactions, therefore ICRA does not envisage the change in income booking policy to have an impact on
profitability indicators and ROE of these players.
Requirements to be met by investing banks
Banks investing in securitisation transactions are expected to be able to demonstrate a comprehensive and thorough
understanding of the risk profile of their investments. They are expected to meet strict own due diligence requirements and have
skilled manpower and systems to carry out the process. Also they are expected to perform appropriate stress testing pertaining
to their positions and monitor the performance of the underlying exposures on a regular basis.
Though some banks have started conducting their own due diligence on the portfolio they are investing in, however, given that
many banks may not have the adequate systems in place to comply with the stipulated requirements, they have been given a
time frame till 30 September 2012 to put necessary systems and procedures in place to be able to comply with the requirements
of the guidelines (however, the guidelines leave scope for some subjectivity in this direction). Failure to meet the norms would
attract a risk weight of 1111% to the securitisation exposures from 1 October 2012 onwards.
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 7

8. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Securitisation Activities not permitted
Banks are not permitted to undertake securitisation activities or assume securitisation exposures pertaining to re-securitisation of
assets, synthetic securitisation and securitisation with revolving structures. However, such transactions are not popular in the
Indian market in any case.
Nair Committee report on re-examining and suggesting revision with respect to Priority Sector classification
and related issues (February 2012)
As discussed earlier, meeting the shortfall in PSL targets is one of the key motives—from investors’ perspective—that drives
securitisation / loan pool assignment activity in India. In this regard, another develo0pment likely to shape the volumes going
forward is the extent to which the recommendations of the M.V. Nair Committee—set up by RBI to re-examine and suggest
revision with respect to Priority Sector classification and related issues—are adopted. The Committee, in its report submitted in
February 2012, recommended that bilateral assignment of loans and securitisation should continue to be allowed to be classified
as priority sector provided the underlying asset is eligible for classification under priority sector advances. Also, it talks of clear
due diligence criteria for assets acquired through NBFCs, which is a positive. Moreover, increasing the priority sector targets for
foreign banks from 32% to 40% would increase the funding avenues for various entities that want to avail priority sector benefits.
Nevertheless, these benefits have to be seen in the light of—
Overall cap of 5% of Adjusted net bank credit (ANBC) on priority sector bank lending through non bank financial
intermediaries—which includes portfolio buy-outs and investment in securitization instruments
o Given that several banks, particularly private sector banks have been investing in securitisation or Direct
Assignment transactions to meet their PSL targets, this move would have an adverse impact on the buying
appetite of banks that were exceeding the 5% cap. This is turn could adversely affect the ability of the
Originating NBFCs to securitise their portfolios.
Proposed interest spread cap of 6% for NBFC-AFCs and 3.5% for HFCs
o This recommendation is likely to have an impact on securitisation of certain asset classes like Microfinance
loans and SME Loans, where the interest spread has been observed to be higher than 6%. Barring a handful of
transactions, most microfinance transactions have an interest spread greater than 6% and in some cases the
spread has been observed to be higher than 10% also- this is primarily due to high interest rate on the
underlying loans, which is typically in the range of 22%-26%.
Capping of off-balance sheet exposure (of NBFCs) at 35%
o This is likely to have an immediate bearing on the portfolio of 3-4 large NBFCs that have off balance sheet
exposure exceeding 35%.
Also, the committee’s recommendation is to continue to exclude loans against gold jewellery from priority sector
advances
o Hence the attractiveness of this asset class for securitisation is expected to remain low.
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 8

9. ICRA Rating Feature RBI Guidelines on Securitisation
Annexure: Asset class-wise impact of RBI guidelines and other legal issues
Table 8: Asset class-wise impact RBI guidelines and other legal issues #
Criteria Mortgage Car/ CV/ CE Tractor Micro TW Loans SME/ Personal
Loan Loans Loans Loans Loans
MHP 1 2 2 3 2 2
RBI Guidelines
MRR 2 2 2 1 2 2
20% cap on total retained exposure to 1 1 2 3 2 2
securitisation transactions by Originating
Banks
Stress Testing/Credit Monitoring/Due diligence 1 1 1 2 2 2
requirements
Cap on Spread for PSL classification (as per 1 2 3 4 4 4
Committee
Nair Committee report)
Nair
Cap on bank exposure at 5% of ANBC for PSL 4 4 4 4 4 4
classification (as per Nair Committee report)
Taxation of Trust interest income 5 5 5 5 5 5
Others
MTM requirement for PTCs 1 2 2 2 2 2
# 1: Marginal/ No Impact; 2: Low Impact; 3: Medium Impact; 4: High Impact; 5: Very High Impact
As can be seen from the table above, the greatest impact of the May 2012 Guidelines along with recommendations of the Nair committee if accepted, is likely to be on unsecured loans like
Micro Loans, SME/ Personal Loans and also on TW Loans- particularly on account of shorter tenure of the underlying loans, making the MHP criteria relatively difficult to comply with; high
interest rate on underlying loans, thus leading to greater than 6% interest spread (which is not permissible as per Nair Committee recommendations); and relatively lower ticket size thus
increasing the due diligence requirement by investing banks and making monitoring more cumbersome. Moreover, the credit enhancement by way of cash collateral and subordination
required for such transactions is also relatively higher, leading to possibility of breach of the20% cap on total retained exposure to securitisation transactions, if these asset classes were
originated by banks.
The least impact is expected on Mortgage loans, which have a relatively long tenure (thus MHP requirement may not be difficult to comply with), credit enhancement requirement being
relatively lower (thus possibility of breaching 20% exposure cap is low) and lower interest spread given that the PTC yield is usually floating and typically linked to either the pool interest
rate or to an external benchmark rate. The 5% cap on bank exposure of ANBC (as per Nair Committee recommendation) for PSL classification and the unresolved stance on the taxation of
PTCs are both expected to have a significant impact on the securitisation of all asset classes equally.
May 2012 www.icra.in Page 9

10. ICRA Limited
An Associate of Moody’s Investors Service
CORPORATE OFFICE
nd
Building No. 8, 2 Floor, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, Phase II, Gurgaon 122 002
Tel: +91 124 4545300 Fax: +91 124 4545350
Email: info@icraindia.com, Website: www.icra.in
REGISTERED OFFICE
1105, Kailash Building, 11th Floor, 26 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001
Tel: +91 11 23357940-50 Fax: +91 11 23357014
Branches: Mumbai: Tel.: + (91 22) 30470000/24331046/53/62/74/86/87, Fax: + (91 22) 2433 1390 Chennai: Tel + (91 44)
45964300, Fax + (91 44) 2434 3663 Kolkata: Tel + (91 33) 2287 8839 /2287 6617/ 2283 1411/ 2280 0008, Fax + (91 33)
2287 0728 Bangalore: Tel + (91 80) 43326400 Fax + (91 80) 43326409 Ahmedabad: Tel + (91 79) 2658 4924/5049/2008,
Fax + (91 79) 2658 4924 Hyderabad: Tel +(91 40) 2373 5061/7251, Fax + (91 40) 2373 5152 Pune: Tel + (91 20) 2556
1194/0195/0196, Fax + (91 20) 2556 1231
© Copyright, 2012, ICRA Limited. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may be used freely with due acknowledgement to ICRA.
All information contained herein has been obtained by ICRA from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Although reasonable
care has been taken to ensure that the information herein is true, such information is provided ‘as is’ without any warranty of any kind,
and ICRA in particular, makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any
such information. All information contained herein must be construed solely as statements of opinion, and ICRA shall not be liable for any
losses incurred by users from any use of this publication or its contents.