Money & Banking
Rs5 lakh claim against HSBC, Citibank dismissed

The Consumer Forum dismissed the claim of Rs5 lakh since the complaint was not filed within specified time limit

 
Thane: A claim of Rs5 lakh filed by a Belapur resident against HSBC and Citibank, for their alleged deficiency in services, was dismissed by the Thane Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, following expiry of claim period, reports PTI.
 
Consumer Forum President MG Rahatgaonkar and Member Jyoti Mandhale observed in their order that the complainant had not filed the complaint within the specified time frame (the case pertains to 2006), and hence, it was being disposed off.
 
Belapur Resident Manish N Sharma informed the Consumer Forum that he possessed two credit cards: one of HSBC and the other of Citibank. As he had to fly to Cochin, he tried to book flight tickets for three persons on the Mumbai-Cochin route, along with return tickets, by Kingfisher Airlines. He tried to do so through the online booking facility but the tickets could not be booked using both the cards.
 
He further said that HSBC had shown a sum of Rs10,050 as expenses on the tickets and the Citibank had shown Rs1,04,000 under the same head. In addition, ABN Amro card showed a sum of Rs20,100 and Standard Chartered Bank card showed a sum of Rs10,050 as expenses.
 
He told the forum that even when the tickets could not be booked, both the banks made the demand for the money from him. He also said that the entire confusion came to light from the statements of the banks for the period 14/06/2006 to 13/07/2006.
 
Later, Citibank refunded the amount of Rs60,000, he told the forum. However, both HSBC and City Bank started chasing him for the pending amount.
 
He further told the Forum that the banks informed the Credit Information Bureau India Ltd (CIBIL) about his outstanding, as a result of which, when he applied for a credit card with the Punjab National Bank (PNB), for business purpose, it was refused.
 
On account of the humiliation he had to face, he demanded Rs5 lakh as compensation from banks.
 
The complainant, following the refusal by PNB, took up the issue with both the banks on 24 January 2011. He wanted a resolution which did not come through, and hence filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum.
 
The Consumer Forum, while discussing the complaint, opined that the complainant was aware of the mess-up in 2006.  He had time up till 2008 to file a complaint, which he did not do.
 
However when CIBIL had reflected his outstanding it affected the issue of a new credit card to him. At that stage, he preferred to make the complaint, which cannot be entertained.
 
It is time-expired and hence needs to be dismissed, the Forum said.
 
The complainant argued that the date of occurrence be taken as 24 January 2011, when he had sent a notice to the banks. However, the Consumer Forum dismissed his suggestion and held that the complainant was well aware of the issue way back in 2006. Hence, the complaint is time-barred.
 
Kingfisher Airlines and CIBIL were also made respondents in the case.

User

RBI needs to come out clean on NPAs

If NPAs are not curbed effectively, it will not be long before we in India head the Greek route. The banks should not stop short of opting for strong coercive proceedings under the securitization laws rather than yield to the mirage of CDR

In the west, post-Lehman brothers has brought about new financial jargons like bailout for stressed assets in the USA, here in India they are termed non-performing assets (NPAs). Both simply stand for bad or irrecoverable loans/debts by whatever name they are called.

Moneylife has just carried a cover page report on Loans going bad by a veteran banking analyst and also a series by a former banker. I now add to them from another angle arising out of my over four decades as a central statutory auditor on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) panel auditing major banks both domestic and foreign.


It needs to be pointed out that no bank loan goes bad overnight. It takes place over a time. Some of them commence at the sanction and disbursement stages, to begin with the inadequately or badly appraised loans or lines of credits approved by the very top management and pushed up-down to the disbursing branches to proceed without proper documentation, securities and guarantees; just rushed through. When they do go sour initially and bad later, the entire inadequacies crop up but then it is too late to enforce recovery proceedings effectively. This gives the defaulting borrowers an upper hand.

 

Next are the laxities in monitoring at the branch level—the incipient bad borrowings arise more out of the officials not heeding and acting promptly on the red signals leading to irregularities like the borrowers exceeding drawing powers by not submitting inventory or debtors security statements in time, ultimately resulting in the advances exceeding the sanctioned limits to constant overdrawing, resorting to frequent TODs, bouncing of cheques for want of funds. If only the branch had reported to the controlling authorities the irregularity instead of seeking ratification of allowing it to happen could the warning signals of impending NPA have been resulted by nipping it in the bud by putting an effective brake. Branches tend to take operational irregularities lightly or act routinely only to wake up when the outstandings mount when it is too late.

The RBI panel under its executive director, B Mahapatra while observing that restructuring amounts to an “event of impairment” whether or not its asset classification undergoes a downgrade, has rightly recommended that all loans that are subjected to restructuring should necessarily be classified NPAs as they are in fact sub-standard and not standard which by any stretch of imagination they are not. More particularly when restructuring requires the banks to take a hit by granting concessions like substantial reductions in interest rates, moratorium or elongation of repayment schedule, part waiver of principal and/or interest or converting debt into equity at inflated values a la Kingfisher. There is absolutely no valid justification to make any such distinction that only obfuscates the underlying problem of mounting bad debts! When internationally accepted accounting standards treat restructured advances as impaired they is no reason for Indian banking to deviate from the prudential accounting practices primarily from the transparency perspective.


The RBI’s suggestion of a two-year “regulatory forbearance” for withdrawing the standard classification benefits needs an urgent recall. Notwithstanding this, the banks need to explicitly start recognizing these loans as NPAs as they have suffered considerable diminution in the realizable fair values of the securities assigned to cover them. They have necessarily to be recognized and also provided for entirely in the year of occurrence. It is certainly not correct to defer it to future years when the profits of subsequent years take the hit. The RBI shouldn’t venture into the realm of prudent and accepted international accounting practices by suggesting such deferrals.

The Bank Statutory Auditors, in helping out the bank managements to window-dress their annual accounts to overstate the profits for the year, have, in my considered opinion, wrongly misinterpreted the RBI guidance for deferrals. This is equally applicable to the RBI guidelines for recognizing and providing for the accrued gratuity and pension liability. The bank auditors are under wrong impression that they can get away by merely stating in their auditors’ report—“Without qualifying our opinion/report, we draw attention to Note...” This is no qualification as it does not explicitly state the liability did and does exist on the date of the balance sheet and the not providing for it impacts the profits for the current year. The RBI’s advisory in merely advising them to defer it over a period of time does not absolve them from providing for and disclosing the liability subsisting and also existing. The RBI as the banking regulator and the ICAI as the accounting regulator ought to review this unhealthy practice of window-dressing that only result in overstating the profits. The regulatory forbearance certainly cannot exceed its brief!               

In the two years between March 2009 and March 2011, gross NPAs of our banks shot up from around Rs68,000 crore to Rs94,000 crore. By bringing in the so-called restructuring they have not been wrongly classified as standard—they would have soared from just over Rs60,000 crore to almost Rs1,07,000 crore. The numbers for end-March 2012 are expected to touch a whopping Rs 2,06,500 crore by the banking industry’s restructuring cell.


The Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) has been on the statute books for long.  Companies are invariably rendered sick by the promoters who are always hale and hearty. The bankers deal with them with kid gloves by hesitating to make demands on large industrial chronic defaulters. The Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2005 (SARAESI), empowers lending banks to seize mortgaged assets of recalcitrant borrowers to realise the best prices without having to resort to court sanction. It is found that it is most commonly applied to small time borrowers like those who have defaulted on EMIs for home loans, vehicles loans, small  time traders that it tantamounts to using a sledge hammer to swat a fly and not recover from the large chronic defaulters.


The big ticket defaulters manage to keep out bank attachment orders by obtaining court stay orders. High profile borrowers like Kingfisher just apply any tactics to keep lending banks at bay. This is simply because the banks and the RBI are found to be speaking with forked tongues. They blow hot and cold at the same time, all the time they are caught pussyfooting—a case of willing-to-push-but-afraid-to-hurt attitude of not touching the big guns, but attaching small owners or traders. Proving right the good old Hindi adage—Hathi janey dega, magar doom pakadke ke baitega—translated letting the elephant pass through only to cling on to its tail.

The standard of toughness of recovery proceedings are strong with small retail borrowers where the flat and vehicle are attached with ease. The bank attitude generally is in keeping with the refrain that when one small entity borrows a couple of lakhs from a bank, the borrower will be in trouble, but when one big ticket borrows crores, it is the bank which is in trouble as the banks  resort to molly coddle the big time borrowers to collect their dues.

To minimize NPAs the RBI to direct the banks to put in place real tough measures of going for the defaulters’ jugular. Insist on personal guarantees and call upon the promoter-directors of public companies also to sign personal guarantees, as is done with private unlisted entities. This is because the promoter clan takes the company’s stakeholders and bankers for a ride after collecting money from initial public offers (IPOs). They should be required to bring in margin money for the lines of credit in hard cash and not by pledging shares of group companies and/or providing their corporate guarantees that are equally dud. They should be asked to cough up not less than 25% of the value of the diminution in the value of securities and/or 10% of the sanctioned limits before even considering any reschedulement in the rescue act. The end use of the borrowed money has to be strictly monitored to ensure there is no misuse thereafter.

The rising NPAs call for drastic strong arm twisting corrective action. The RBI should do well to call upon all banks to furnish a listing of their Top 100 defaulters with a brief on the ages, causes and steps initiated to effect recoveries. The banks and the RBI should make available the listing on their websites along with the progress report on the reduction or otherwise. Most of the defaulters will be found to be big names with strong pull right up to the ministry of finance (MOF) and capable of pulling all strings to keep action at bay. The banks should not stop short of opting for strong coercive proceedings under the securitization laws rather than yield to the mirage of CDR.


If NPAs are not curbed effectively, it will not be long before we in India head the Greek route. The MOF, now under the PM has necessarily to leave the micromanagement of the banking sector to the RBI.
 

Best assign this task to Dr YV Reddy—the tough acting former RBI governor!


(Nagesh Kini is a Mumbai-based chartered accountant turned activist.)

User

COMMENTS

Girish Pai

5 years ago

Fabulous article.Right into the details.

We need YV Reddy back. All the spineless folks around are just ruining the economy.

Reddy saved us during 2008 crisis and post his tenure, its all for us to see.

Huge Fiscal Deficit and low growth coupled with lack of governance.

DEEPAK JOSHI

5 years ago

Excellent article. The top 100 defaulters list should be published in public domain as this defaulters have taken away public money

Ramesh Poapt

5 years ago

Excellent!Banks adopt window dressing of deposits and under reporting NPAs in a big way,is open secret now!RBI has not free hand.YV Reddy deserves credit for saving India from adverse global meltdown shocks!Though he was also not fully allowed by ex FM...hence Guv had to quit.RBI is always under pressure from Govt/industry lobby/chambers to frame the rate/policy which is short term ineffectvie medicine aka rate cut and reserve requirements of the banks.CMD of SBI openly pursues that.Such things are like uncurable cancer!!May God save banks, PSUs in particular.Pvt banks are far smarter...

polyvin

5 years ago

You are absolutely correct. Only one thing I would like to add is that Dr Y V Reddy should be made the finance minister.

REPLY

nagesh kini

In Reply to polyvin 5 years ago

It'll surely be a great day for India if Dr. Reddy is assigned the MOF. But up there the one who is no-nonsense has no say only yes-men!
We are in dire need of someone radical to pull us out of the mess that Pranobda under the benign eye of Man Mohan has landed India into.Sooner the better.
Before we go the PIGS - Portugese, Italy, Greece and Spanish way! God help us!

Regulation and supervision of MIVs: An urgent task for central banks and regulators globally

The microfinance crisis of 2010 underlines the urgent need for balanced but effective regulation/supervision in India with regard to microfinance investment vehicles (MIVs). The powers that be in home and host countries should attend to these issues in an expeditious manner

Hugh Sinclair’s recent book has been controversial for many reasons but as I have said in my previous articles (Why blame the MFIs alone?; Should not microfinance investment vehicles be judged by the same standards set for retail MFIs?; and Does Sinclair’s Open Challenge (to the Global Micro-Finance Industry) Make His Claims True?), many of his assertions (concerning the microfinance investment vehicles or MIVs) have solid irrefutable evidence in the public domain. Thanks to Hugh Sinclair for alerting us on how MIVs actually operate in real time!

 

That said, ever since I read Hugh Sinclair’s book, I have been intrigued by the MIV phenomenon. And true to my nature, I started some research on MIVs using the Luminisi database (https://www.luminismicrofinance.com). While the database is a good start to having information on MIVs, however, even there, I found little information on specifics regarding regulation/supervision of these MIVs. In fact, as I searched around, I realized that there is very little credible information on how (many of these) MIVs are regulated and supervised in real-time. And this indeed becomes a matter of concern when you consider the fact that a significant number of MIVs (as many as 43 of the 100) are incorporated either in Luxemburg, Mauritius and/or Cayman Islands (as is evident from the data given in Table 1 below).

 

It must also be noted with interest that there are very few MIVs incorporated in large microfinance markets like India. What needs to be appreciated here is the fact that most of the MIVs have registered domicile in countries that offer little potential for microfinance—in very broad terms, over 75% of the MIVs are registered in (home) countries that have very little micro-financing in the first place. Whether or not, this is a case of regulatory arbitrage is a question that begs an answer indeed.

 

This apart, it should be noted that MIVs have been incorporated as very diverse legal entities and this again raises the aspect of regulatory arbitrage. Therefore, without any doubt, the onus is perhaps on the regulators in the recipient countries to understand from where exactly is the (foreign) money flowing into the microfinance sector (in their respective countries) along with the motivations for such investment.

In fact, during the Indian microfinance crisis, I realized that India’s central bank (Reserve Bank of India) perhaps did not have (in one place) all the requisite information with regard to foreign equity and debt flow into the Indian microfinance sector. And as I have previously mentioned, (and as Mix Market has so eloquently put it), it is the unique combination of significant equity flows (and debt funds) from abroad with local banking funds and their subsequent and continuous investment as “microfinance loan assets” that created the perfect storm for the Indian microfinance crisis. It is precisely this that regulators have to guard against globally.

 

So, what needs to be done in tangible terms by regulators in host (recipient) and home countries?

 

First, the central banks in the recipient (host) countries must become the focal point for foreign investment (debt and equity) flows into microfinance. When this information is dispersed and scattered, it becomes rather difficult to gauge what is happening, what the key trends are in terms of MIVs who are investing, which MFIs attract significant investments and why and so on. Therefore, it is imperative that the central bank in every recipient country becomes fully aware of foreign debt and equity investment into their MFIs. And for this to happen in real-time, the central bank must allocate specific staff (team or unit) within a department to focus on this (perhaps, even exclusively in countries like India that have a huge untapped microfinance market).

 

Second, the primary work of this team (or unit) should be to help create a reliable and valid database with regard to foreign investments (equity and debt) in microfinance.  Such a database, apart from providing statistical information on foreign fund flows, should also help to answer questions such as (but not limited to) the following:

  1. Which MIVs (or investors) are putting money into the (local) microfinance sector? Why?
  2. What are the MIV’s antecedents in terms of ownership, governance and management? What is their primary motivation for operating in microfinance? What is the reason for registering the MIV in a specific place (home country)? What are the implications for microfinance in both home and host (recipient) countries?
  3. Which MFIs have received the maximum inflow and why? Is there anything with regard to their model that attracts foreign investment?
  4. What impact will these investments have on the microfinance in the host country—in terms of over-indebtedness and related client protection issues?

Third, whenever the potential for regulatory arbitrage exists, balanced coordination among regulators is necessary and this needs to be achieved across home and host countries. Together, the regulators would need to look at issues such as (but not limited to) the following:

  1. Who (in the home country) regulates and supervises the various MIVs that have significant investments in the various host (receipient) countries?
  2. What does regulation of these MIVs mean? Is it effective in terms of ensuring safety of investor funds and/or good governance and prudent management at the MIVs?
  3. Does regulation subject MIVs to minimum standards in governance, management, systems, etc and are these adhered to and followed in practice? Are there key issues with regard to ownership, governance and management at MIVs that need attention?
  4. What about minimum requirements for reporting and disclosure by MIVs to their regulators?
  5. What about supervision of MIVs? Are there on-site and off-site mechanisms? How effective are these?
  6. Plus other questions

The Bank for International Settlement (BIS) could perhaps be entrusted with this enormous task—of helping to create a coordination mechanism among central banks as well as facilitating the establishment and implementation of regulatory and supervisory standards for MIVs globally—as they have the ability, expertise and perhaps objectivity to get involved in something like this.

 

Colleagues and friends, we simply cannot afford another microfinance crisis anywhere else in the world. Or put differently, we should neither allow MIVs to behave as irresponsibly as they did in India (in the years preceding the 2010 microfinance crisis) nor permit them to be as indifferent as they have been in the case of LAPO, Nigeria. That they have not learnt from the past is very evident from the following news item (19 July 2012):

 

“NIGERIAN microfinance banks may soon be recapitalised to the tune of $30 billion about (N4.7 trillion), as nine investors have announced their willingness to inject more fund into the sector. The $30 billion fund that may come in the form of grants to the banks would be provided by Blue Orchard; Alietheia Capita, Bank of Agriculture (BOA); Patners for Development, Nigeria Capital Development fund, French Development Agency, Proparco, PlaNet Finance, and African Development Bank (AfDB).ii

 

And the moment I saw this news item, I said it is about time that we start to seriously look into how MIVs operate with the objective of bringing in balanced and transparent regulation and supervision for these MIVs. While not an easy task, it is something that needs to be attended to with speed, efficiency and significant coordination among regulators across home and host countries! Otherwise, we will continue to debate issues with regard to microfinance crisis situations in terms of MFIs alone—something that would be tantamount to treating the symptom rather than the real cause of the disease. Let us make no mistake about that!

 

To summarize, some may argue that regulation/supervision of MIVs is not important but take a look at what happened in India in 2010 (Andhra Pradesh Micro-finance Crisis; and Lessons from the commercial micro-finance model in India). Without any doubt, the 2010 Indian microfinance crisis provides a good basis for why there is an urgent need for balanced but effective regulation/supervision with regard to MIVs. And Hugh Sinclair’s (brave) book again clearly demonstrates a (serious) regulatory gap vis-à-vis MIVs. Therefore, given the above and also given the regulatory arbitrage aspects discussed here in this article, there is no doubt that MIVs require minimum (standards of) governance, management, systems and disclosure—through balanced regulation and effective supervision. This will ensure that they are not only accountable to end-user clients (like low income people in host countries) but also to the primary investors (in their home countries), whose hard earned money certainly needs to be safeguarded (and not frittered away).

 

I sincerely hope that the powers that be in home and host countries start to attend to these issues mentioned in an expeditious manner…

 

(Ramesh Arunachalam has over two decades of strong grass-roots and institutional experience in rural finance, MSME development, agriculture and rural livelihood systems, rural and urban development and urban poverty alleviation across Asia, Africa, North America and Europe. He has worked with national and state governments and multilateral agencies. His book—“Indian Microfinance, The Way Forward”—is the first authentic compendium on the history of microfinance in India and its possible future.)



iI do believe that there are more MIVs than those listed in the Luminis database.

ii Source: Quoted from Microfinance banks may receive N4.7tr grant from nine investors, by Joke Akanmu, Abuja, 19 July 2012 (http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92748:microfinance-banks-may-receive-n47tr-grant-from-nine-investors&catid=31:business&Itemid=562)

 

 

User

COMMENTS

M G WARRIER

5 years ago

Somewhere we should draw a line as to what extent and for what purposes we should depend on foreign funding. Countries which have up to Rs25 lakh per capita public debt(Government borrowing) are offering 'soft' loans for various purposes to India. High time we had a re-look at our priorities. Where possible we should try and use our internal resources. This applies to gold, this also applies to borrowing for lending under Microfinance initiative. For the later, there is no better way than revitalising Indian Cooperative Movement.Immediate response would be, cooperatives are contaminated by political interference. Space allows me only to mention that inside politics should be seen as a better option than interference in every policy by foreign lender.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine)