A successful bond offering by SBI could be followed by at least two other banks, ICICI Bank and Indian Overseas Bank looking to raise funds through US dollar bonds
New Delhi: State-run lender State Bank of India (SBI) is planning to raise up to $2 billion in overseas borrowings through dollar-denominated bonds and has hired six investment banks, including Citigroup and UBS, for the issue, reports PTI.
Enthused by the recent steps to stem the falling rupee value and measures to encourage foreign debt inflows into the country, SBI plans to hit the market with its bond offering within couple of weeks, investment bankers working on the deal said.
SBI has hired six global giants -- Citigroup, UBS, Barclays Bank, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan -- for the sale of dollar-denominated bonds, they added.
A suceesful bond offering by SBI could be followed by at least two other banks, ICICI Bank and Indian Overseas Bank, among other corporate entities, looking to raise funds through US dollar bonds, bankers noted.
The bankers are hopeful that SBI would be able to garner up to $2 billion through the bonds as the rupee is estimated to have hit its bottom against the dollar and any fall in the value of US currency from current levels would make it attractive to borrow at current exchange rates.
At the same time, there are some concerns that the negative rating actions by global agencies like S&P, Moody's and Fitch in the recent months on India's sovereign rating and that of the financial sector entities might negatively impact the bond offering of SBI. Even so, the bank should be able to raise about $1 billion, the bankers said.
The sharp plunge in the value of rupee, which recently hit a low near 57 against the US dollar, has already affected the bond sale plans of at least two Indian banks -- ICICI Bank and Indian Overseas Bank -- in past few months.
Both the banks had initiated their respective dollar bond plans and had hired investment bankers for the same, but the sale plans were delayed amid tough market conditions. While Indian Overseas Bank was aiming to raise about $500 million, ICICI Bank was eyeing a $1 billion bond sale.
Bankers said that a successful bond offering by SBI was likely to enthuse these banks to revive their dollar bond offerings.
Earlier this year, Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has raised $1 billion through dollar bonds -- making it the first corporate bond sale by an Indian company of 2012 and the first after a gap of nearly nine months.
Besides RIL, just one dollar-bond sale has hit the market so far this year in form of Axis Bank's $500 million offering.
However, Indian companies had raised more than $8 billion through dollar bonds during 2011, including $1.5 billion raised by RIL.
Rainfall deficiency has affected sowing of coarse cereals, but situation in paddy is 'not worrisome' says the minister for agriculture
New Delhi: The deficient rainfall during last month has affected the sowing of coarse cereals but there is no cause for worry for the paddy crop, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said on Tuesday, reports PTI.
The monsoon rains have been 31% below average up to 2nd July, Pawar told reporters.
He said the rainfall deficiency has affected sowing of coarse cereals, but situation in paddy is 'not worrisome'.
Till 29th June of the current Kharif season, rice was sown in 30.72 lakh hectare, coarse cereals in 10.42 lakh hectare, oilseeds in 10.77 lakh hectare and pulses 3.99 lakh hectare.
Monsoon rains, crucial for the country's agriculture as only 40% cultivable area is irrigated. Besides, higher agri incomes on account of good crop push up economic growth.
On the back of good monsoon last year, the country had produced record 252.56 million tonnes of foodgrain in 2011-12 crop year (July to June).
A leading Mumbai-based surgeon (who prefers to be anonymous) tells the inside story about the nexus between hospitals, insurers, pharma majors and Third Party Administrators (TPAs). Excerpts of the interview:
Moneylife (ML): What are your views about health insurance in India?
A. The public does not understand health insurance at all. What usually happens is that a financial planner recommends that they buy Rs5 lakh health insurance cover and they do so without understanding the product or the fine print. They now think they are covered, only to end up being harassed by the third party administrator (TPA)/insurer. It amounts to clear mis-selling.
ML: Can you give us more specifics?
A. Government-run insurance companies tend to offer low cost package rates to hospitals covering 42 procedures. This money is paid by an insurer to the hospitals to cover the costs of the person insured undergoing these procedures. Insurers want the hospitals and doctors to contrive to fit costs within that pre-fixed sum. For a surgery of Rs30,000, the insurer/TPA would give a cashless approval of Rs20,000. We used to advise patients with an insurance policy to go for a reimbursement claim (rather than cashless), which used to ensure full payment. Then, insurance companies closed this option and began to pay the same amount for cashless facility or reimbursement. The actual cost of the surgery has no bearing with the medical issue of whether a person opts for cashless or reimbursement.
Then, there are issues with the computer entries of different medical procedure codes and the associated pricing (insurance companies had coded different illnesses and the amounts payable for each medical treatment or procedure, but since this was badly done and it affected the patients' claim reimbursements). Total abdominal hysterectomy procedure used to be listed under five procedure codes, which was confusing. Also, there were glaring coding blunders like surgery of total abdominal hysterectomy along with ovaries being priced lower than the one not involving removal of ovaries.
For one year, doctors refused to take insurance cases for total thyroidectomy as insurers had coded it at a ridiculous price of Rs16,000. There were only two claims in a year. The problem was the computer data entry done by the insurer for this medical procedure. It took a long time to reverse the error, and this meant poor customer service for the insured person.
ML: Are these low prices for medical procedures acceptable to some doctors and hospitals but not for others?
A. There are some doctors with less experience or poor financial condition who will work at lower rates, since something is better than nothing. Nursing homes or hospitals accepting these rates will usually cut corners to fit costs into the package rates offered by the insurance company. They may get medicines from dubious sources, use generic medicines or reuse certain disposable medical items which are supposed to be used only a specific number of times. E.g. A shaver can be used only three times. A bigger hospital, which works within a certain ethical framework, will use it only three times and bill each patient only one-third the price. A smaller hospital may use it more than three times to cut costs. How does the patient know how many times the shaver was reused by the small hospital?
ML: What is your experience with private sector insurers?
A. The amount that an insurance company is willing to pay for certain medical procedures depends on class of the hospital and the city it is located. There is a subtle nudge towards bigger hospitals and for cashless insurance. The treatment at smaller nursing homes may be cheaper and beneficial for the insurer and the patient, but the insurer is happy to pay the higher procedure rates at bigger hospitals. It increases the cost for them which will get reflected in higher premium for the insured. Both the insurer and insured end up getting fleeced.
Doctors who have their own private nursing homes and are also attached to hospitals prefer to route patients with insurance to bigger hospitals for surgery. For private nursing homes, there could be delays in receiving payment from the insurer/TPA. It invariably needs follow-up and there are deductions, which nibble into the payments. Also, the TPA may want a cut. This puts a squeeze on smaller nursing homes. Gradually, the doctors stop operating on patients at small private hospitals and prefer to direct them to bigger hospitals, which have the processes set up to handle insured patients. Getting money from an insurer/TPA becomes the headache of the bigger hospital, not the doctor operating on the patient in that hospital.
ML: We hear that large hospitals often get things like stents and implants at a very low price and bill the patient/insurer at MRP. What is your experience?
A. Yes, insurance companies find it difficult to determine the opaque cost of the implant charged by big hospitals. These hospitals can buy implants as bulk purchases and are also sourced from different places to save on taxes; Maharashtra has 10.5% sales tax plus octroi, Hyderabad has 4.5% while Chennai does not have any tax. Bigger hospital can also sell implants to smaller hospitals at different rates. The MRP (maximum retail price) on the box has no relevance to the actual cost to the hospital. Medicines are purchased by bigger hospitals at an unfathomable discount. Hospitals makes money only from pharma items (implants, medicines), nothing else; otherwise it is a white elephant.
On the other hand, genuine billing for implant from a hospital may not be paid by the insurance company. Small hospitals cannot stock some implants due to their high cost. An insurance company may also question small hospitals on the necessity of buying implants from outside instead of the hospital inventory, etc.
I once operated a senior citizen at a co-operative hospital, which takes excellent care of poor patients and the rates are very low. We stock implants and charge the patient whatever we use. We get the implants at discounted rates and pass the price on to patients; I agree most other hospitals do not do it. Yet, even this claim had a deduction on the ground that the bill for the implant was not submitted. The insurance company had proof in the form of an x-ray and a bill from the hospital stating that one plate and seven screws were inserted and charged accordingly. It was also clear that the cost reflected in the bill was much lower than the standard rates of implants, but the amount was still rejected. Now if I order costly implants and give a bill for the patient to claim, do I justify costly implants just because the bill is needed by the insurance company?
(Read the second part of the interview tomorrow)