<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[Cash Crunch: With few financial options available, boosting economic growth
through investment in infrastructure seems a distant proposition
(Pic by Satheesh Nair)
The best-laid plans, to paraphrase the poem, often go nowhere. The government’s plans to propel infrastructure spending from the current 5 per cent of GDP to 9 per cent by 2011, is hitting one such dead-end. An estimated Rs 9,84,500 crore ($203 billion) of debt funds alone is needed to finance that.
Given the liquidity crunch, where will funds of such proportion come from? The answer is more complicated than it appears. Apart from the Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) — that specialises in infrastructure lending (debt and equity) — commercial banks, non-banking finance companies (NBFCs), insurance firms, and external commercial borrowings (ECBs) are other sources of funds for infrastructure projects. Also, the India Infrastructure Finance Company (IIFCL) was set up in 2005 to extend long-term finance.
While that seems like a long list of lenders, in reality, banks hit their group exposure (see box) limits very fast as far as infrastructure projects are concerned, insurance and pension companies are stymied by rating requirements, and the government’s IIFCL-routed interim measure is just that — a stopgap in a long haul.
Meanwhile, on 23 December last year, IDFC’s managing director Rajiv Lal made a presentation to the government, highlighting serious problems in infrastructure finance, which involve asset-liability mismatches, exposure limitations, and prudential norms. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told Parliament last year that sources of funds such as ECBs, and also working capital funds, had dried up. With most financial doors closed, boosting economic growth through investment in infrastructure, in the current slowdown, seems distant.
Small Banks, Big Problem
Lal notes that “Indian banks are relatively small. Only 11 banks had equity above $ 1 billion (Rs 4,900 crore) in March 2007 — of which two were private sector banks. State Bank of India (SBI) had just over $7 billion of capital in March 2007.” The total equity of the 82 scheduled commercial banks (including 29 foreign banks) was $ 49.8 billion.
“Thus, there are many small banks, most of which do not engage in infrastructure lending, and the handful of banks that are actively lending to infrastructure are likely to reach exposure limits if they continue lending at this pace.”
Meanwhile, group exposure guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) also limits a bank’s exposure to any group, to 50 per cent of its capital funds. This ceiling can be breached very quickly for companies specialising in infrastructure projects. For instance, a group company with two ultra mega power projects (of Rs 20,000 crore each), and a Rs 1,000-crore road project executed through separate special purpose vehicles (SPVs) can require debt funds to the tune of Rs 29,000 crore. So, RBI’s group exposure cap limits developers to their bank’s exposure ceiling.
In fact, although remaining within the RBI’s domain, in December last year, the Prime Minister’s special committee on the stimulus package considered a possible relaxation of the group exposure requirement of banks, for the next 18 months. But given the sensitive nature of the matter, sources in RBI say, there is status quo on the norms for infrastructure.{mospagebreak}
VISIBLE CONSTRAINTS
(Pic by Subhabrata Das)
DEEPAK PAREKH COMMITTEE:
Stepdown subsidiaries — created to execute
a particular infrastructure project without any dependency on the parent whatsoever — do not involve cross holdings… banks’ lending to these subsidiaries is not vulnerable to the bankruptcy of the parent… there is thus a strong case for removal of exposure to such subsidiaries from group exposure
limits.
&nb