Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Of Master of Business Administration
(2011-13)
Under the guidance of: Ms. Meenakshi Designation :-Assistant Professor Department:- CGC
STUDENT DECLARATION
This is to certify that I have completed the Project titled CREDIT GUARANTEE TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL SCALE ENTERPRISES under the guidance of Mr. NITIN KUMAR BANKA in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Masters in Business Administration from CHANDIGARH GROUP OF COLLEGES, GHARUAN. This is an original work and I have not submitted it earlier elsewhere.
This is to certify that the project titled CREDIT GUARANTEE TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL SCALE ENTERPRISES is an academic work done by BIBHA KUMARI submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Masters in Business Administration from CHANDIGARH GROUP OF COLLEGES, GHARUAN under my guidance and direction. To the best of my knowledge and belief the data and information presented by her in the project has not been submitted earlier elsewhere.
Acknowledgement
"Gratitude is not a thing of expression; it is more matter of feeling." There is always a sense of gratitude which one express towards others for their help and supervision in achieving the goals. This formal piece of acknowledgement is an attempt to express the feeling of gratitude towards people who helped me in successful completion of my training. I present my high gratitude to Punjab National Bank for giving me the opportunity to work on this project which helped me to learn new things about the same. I would like to thanks to Mr. Nitin kumar Banka (Credit Manager)
I would also like to thanks my Finance professors Ms. Meenakshi Malhotra for guiding me throughout the project.
I would also like to thanks my parents, my sibling and all my peers for helping me complete this project.
Last but not least I would like to thank everyone who is directly or indirectly related to this project.
BIBHA KUMARI
Table of Contents
Chapter No. Title Page no.
Chapter-1
Introduction
7-21
Chapter-2
Review of literature
22-26
Chapter-3
Research Methodology
27-42
Chapter-4
43-50
Chapter- 5
51-64
65
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Medium & Small Enterprises (MSE) sector has been a major contributor to the Indian Industrial Output, exports and employment in the country. One of the major challenges faced by the MSE sector is the availability of funds. Banks and other financial institutions were not easily providing loans to MSEs since they considered them as high risk. To address this situation and to help MSEs, the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) was set up by Govt. of India and SIDBI in the year of 2000-01 My project title is CREDIT GUARANTEE TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL SCALE ENTERPRISES. I selected this topic because the critical role and place of the MSE sector in the Indian economy cannot be overemphasised in employment generation, exports and economic empowerment of a vast section of the population. As per data released by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), there are about 2.6 crore enterprises in this sector. The sector accounts for 45 per cent of manufactured output and 8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).MSMEs contributed close to 40 per cent of all exports from the country and employed nearly 6 crore people which is next only to the agricultural sector The basic objective of the CGTMSE scheme is that the lender should give importance to viability of the project and extend credit facility purely on the primary security of the assets financed.
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
INDUSTRY
Commercial banks form a major part of the Indian financial structure and thus have a controlling power on the economy as a whole. Keeping in view the key role that the commercial banks play in the economy,public sector commercial banks are further subdivided into three categories:-
State Bank Group- This includes SBI and seven associated banks,majority shares of which are owned by RBI.
Regional Rural Banks( RRBs)-These banks came into existence with a partnership between SBGs and NBs to provide low cost financing in the rural areas.
Bank is the main confluence that maintains and controls the flow of money to make commerce of lending possible. Government uses it to control the flow of money by managing cash reserve ratio (CRR) and thereby influencing the inflation level. The functions of the bank include accepting deposits from the public and private institutions and then to direct them as loans and advances to various companies for growth and development of industries. The banks take the deposits at lower rate of interest and gives loan at higher rate, thus constituting the only source of income for banks.
Organizational Structure
The bank has its corporate office at New Delhi and 58 circle office. The delegation of power is decentralized up to the branch level for quick decision making. The top-down approach at PNB can be classified as follows:-
10
Products
Home loan. Credit card. Mutual fund. Auto loan. Fixed Deposit Scheme. Insurance. Gold (PNB Gold Coins). Saving Funds. Credit Scheme.
11
Services General
Locker facilities. Depository services. Senior citizen services. RTGS/NEFT/SFMS. Merchant banking. Electronic Funds Transfer.
Areas of Operation
Priority sector o Credit to agriculture o Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. o Micro Credit. o Small and Medium Enterprises.
12
o o o o o o o o
Collateral Free Lending. MSME specialized and MSME Focus Branches. Credit to weaker section. Credit to women Beneficiaries. Promoting Financial Inclusion. Opening No Frill Account. Opening of Banking KIOSKS. Financial Literacy and Credit Counselling (FLCC).
Retail Credit. Forex Business. Treasury Operations. Business Diversification. o Mutual Fund Business. o Gold Coin Business. o Depository Services. o Online Trading Facility. o Insurance Business. o Merchant Banking. o Cash Management Services o Door Step Banking. o Credit Card Venture. Transaction Banking. Corporate Banking International Banking/NRI
13
The Bank was declared the winner of the Gold trophy of SCOPE Meritorious Award for Excellence in Corporate Governance 2009 by Standing Conference of Public Enterprises amongst the Public Sector Enterprises, a coveted award received by the Bank from the hands of the honourable President of India. The Bank also received the Golden Peacock Award for Excellence in Corporate governance for 2009 from the Institute of Directors.
The Dainik Bhaskar in association with Daily News and Analysis presented PNB with India Pride Awards for excellence in PSU category in the year 2009, while Dun & Bradstreet Award for Priority Sector Lending including Financial Inclusion was also bagged by the Bank
14
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Since its humble beginning in 1895 with the distinction of being the first Swadeshi Bank to have been started with Indian capital, PNB has achieved significant growth in business which at the end of March 2011 amounted to Rs 5,55,005 crore. PNB is ranked as the 2nd largest bank in the country after SBI in terms of branch network, business and many other parameters. During the FY 2010-11, with 39.16% share of CASA to domestic deposits, the Bank achieved a net profit of Rs 4433 crore. Bank has a strong capital base with capital adequacy ratio of 12.42%. as on March11, the Bank has the Gross and Net NPA ratio of 1.79% and 0.85% respectively. During the FY 2010-11, its ratio of priority sector credit to Adjusted Net Bank Credit at 40.67% & 18% respectively. The bank has been able to maintain its stakeholders interest by posting an improved NIM of 3.96% in Mar11 (3.57% Mar10). The Earning per Share improved to Rs 140.60 (Rs 123.86 Mar10) while the Book value per share improved to Rs 661.20 (Rs 514.77 Mar10). Punjab National Bank continues to maintain its frontline position in the Indian banking industry. In particular, the bank has retained its NUMBER ONE position among the nationalized banks in terms of number of branches, Deposit, Advances, total Business, Assets, Operating and Net profit in the year 2010-11. The impressive operational and financial performance has been brought about by Banks focus on customer based business with thrust on CASA deposits, Retail, SME & Agri Advances and with more inclusive approach to banking; better asset liability management; improved margin management, thrust on recovery and increased efficiency in core operations of the Bank. The performance highlights of the bank in terms of business and profit are shown below:
Rs. In Crore
15
16
17
Japans 52 institutions have the highest (varying between 35 and 60), and Korean, Taiwan and German institutions have designated a maximum multiplier of 20. The Philippines and Thailand, both small programs with weak management, have imposed levels as low as 3 and 5 respectively (ADB, 2007). The loss-sharing ratio is generally in the range of 70-90 per cent and the remaining 10-30 per cent risk is borne by the lending institution. However, in certain programs, 100 per cent risk sharing is undertaken as in the case of Taiwan and Thailand. On the other end of the spectrum, risk sharing can also be as low as 20-50% as in Italy, and 45-70% as in France. In a recent survey by Beck et. al. (2009) of 76 Partial Credit Guarantee Schemes (PCGs) globally, the main findings were:
40% of the schemes are for-profit, while the remaining 60% are non-profit; 52% are subject to corporate income tax, while 48% have tax-exempt status. 72% of PCGs use a loan or selective basis, while 14% use a portfolio or lump screening approach and 9% use a combination of the two approaches. Around 40% of all schemes in the sample offer guarantees of up to 100%. Most PCGs guarantee at least the loan principal (74%), while fewer guarantee only interest (34%) or other costs (13%); almost 30% guarantee both principal and interest. In 56% of the sample, the fees are paid directly by the borrower and in 21% by the financial institution receiving the guarantee (although this cost might be passed on to the customer). 63% of schemes in the sample (48) have a per-loan fee, while 30% of the schemes levy an annual fee; 15% charge a membership fee. There is also variation in the basis that schemes use to compute fees: 57% base the fee on the amount guaranteed, while 26% base it on the loan amount. Further, 25% of the schemes that charge on a per-loan basis take into account the maturity of the guaranteed loan when computing the fee, while 25% adapt the fee according to the risk of the loan or the borrower. Only 7% of the PCGs use a risk-based pricing structure and only 10% impose penalty rates for fi nancial institutions with below-average loan performance. In 34% of the schemes in the sample, payouts are made after the borrower defaults. In 42% of the schemes, payout happens after the bank initiates recovery, while in 3% it happens after the PCG initiates recovery. In only 14% of all cases, payout has to wait until the bank writes off the loan. Schemes in more developed countries are more likely to pay out after default or after write-off, while schemes in developing countries are more likely to pay out after the bank initiates legal action.
18
19
WEAKNESSES
High interest rates as compared to other finance institutions. Top management takes large amount of time to approve high value seeking loan borrowers. No marketing managers work, only through DSAs (Direct Sales Agent). People are not aware of wide variety of schemes offered by the company. There is the shortage of staff at almost all branches which does not ensure easy addressable of the customers problems.Delegation of authority and responsibility is not proper. Less penetration in the urban areas.
OPPORTUNITIES
Special rate of interest are offered during exhibitions. Special rates of interest can be introduced for employees of PSUs and reputed national or multinational companies'. Product life cycle is to be reviewed. The growing category of the builders ensure that good, high value and qualitative projects, providing them loans with the new and innovative schemes can lead to over all development of the company. Small scale business banking across India.
THREATS.
The competition in market is very high due to the private players. The rate of interest of other players are quite low. Innovative schemes from other players. The processing process is quite slow which leads to low finance. Stringent Banking Norms by the RBI and the Govts. Economic crisis and economic fluctuations.
20
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
To study the working of the Credit Guarantee Scheme of Punjab National Bank. To study the reforms introduced in Credit Guarantee Trust For Micro and Small Enterprises. To study the perception of MSEs regarding the Credit Guarantee Scheme of Punjab National Bank. To find out the satisfaction level of MSEs for Credit Guarantee Scheme provided by Punjab National Bank.
21
22
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. BRAHMANADAM, G, N., RAI, H.L., DAKSHINA MURTHY, D, Financing Small Scale Sector. The Role of Banks, INDIAN BANKING TODAY AND TOMORROW, MAY, 1981- the above article was prepared on the role of banks in financing the SMEs in the year 1981. At those times the Indian banking was not at all interested in financing the SMEs , because of their credit worthiness. Later due to changes in the industrial policy of India, the commercial banks came forward and made immense help to the growth of SMEs. This article was written before the economic reforms taken place. Here is a gap for more analysis about the role of the banks in the post economic reforms. My study on this topic totally focused on the credit facilities available to the SMEs in the wake of MSME act 2006. Due the presence of the gap between the studies of two time periods, the present day activities are different to those of 1980s. I made in-depth study of the bankers role in providing the credit to promote the SMEs.
2. CHOPRA, K . C . , Financing for The Decentralized Sector- Small and Medium Industries THE BANKER, AUGUST, 2006 The above article prepared on the thesis, reveals the financing for the SMEs in the decentralized sector. This article helped me in selecting the path for my study on credit facilities for SMEs.The article vividly discussed about possible ways to finance the SMEs in the decentralized sector like Agricultural based and Artisan based SMEs. Really there is a gap between the centralized and decentralized sectors in getting the finance from the banks. The banks are very much lenient in providing loan facilities to the centralized sector.
23
INDUSTRY AND TRADE, April 2005- The growth of small and medium industries in India was discussed in the above article. The expected growth was not there because of lot of root causes to sickness and under development in the SME sector. This article discussed about the slow growth rate of SMEs, due to several problems.Through my study I focused on the one problem that is financial problems faced by the SME segment. I concentrated on the credit facilities offered by the governmental agencies as well as the commercial banks.
4. JAYA PRAKASH REDDY, R., BRAHMANADAM, G.N., Small Scale Sector: Problems And Prospects YOJANA 1-15, JAN, 1987 - the above article deals with the various problems like ,marketing, raw material, labor, technical and financial problems. The focus on the finance related issue is very limited. They have given more importance to raw material and marketing and labor problems in segment. But not discussed about the credit facilities for the SMEs.
5. KAURA, M.V., SHARMA, G.L., Financing Small Industries Institution Should Change their Attitudes, Procedures JOURNAL OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE, MARCH, 1999, - the above article discussed very vividly the attitudes of the financial institutions whether belong to Central Government or state Government or the Governmental Agencies promoted for this purpose. In the wake of the MSME Act, 2006 passed in the interest of the small scale sector by the Government of India, the attitude of the financial institutions towards SME sector was totally changing. The Employees of above said financial institutions are very much helpful and friendly with the promoters of the SMEs.
24
6. NAMBIAR, P.C.D., FINANCING for PRIORITY SECTORS S.B.I MONTHLY REVIEW DEC16, 2007 The article on the above topic paved the way for the thinking strategy for financing the small scale and medium scale industries by the bank officers. The government of Indiathrough its industrial policy clearly stated that the commercial banks should give priority treatment to the SMEs. The nature of the banking officials also discussed in the article. But that is not sufficient to promote the SME sector because the sector was totally neglected for the last several decades due to invention of the MNCs. By enacting the MSME Act, 2006, the government of India clearly indicated the signal to the banking
7. PATNAIK,S.M., COMPREHENSIVE LEGISTATION NEEDED ECONOMIC TIMES DEC 2004 in the year 2004 the author of this article expressed his grief for an enactment to safe guard the SME sector. The Government of India in the year 2006 came with the special law for the protection of SME sector. Really it is a welcome gesture for safe keeping the SMEs. In m y report I discussed the intricacies and the implementation of the act by the nodal agencies for the promotion of the SMEs.
8. RAMACHANDRA, K.S., REVIVING SICK UNITS, FINANCIAL EXPRESS OCT 9, 2001 the above article discussed the reviving of the sick SMEs in various aspects, like providing technology, management training, skilled labor, export promotion and giving finance. The root cause for all the above problems is the financial problem. The financial institution should provide sufficient amount at an easy disbursal system to promote the SMEs. The topic which I am preparing focused more on the credit facility awareness and availability of scheme for SMEs.
25
9. SAHNEY, M., BANKS ASKED TO STEM INDUSTRIAL SICKNESS INDUSTRIAL INDIA VOL 36, 12 DEC 2005. Through this article the author tries to express the need for banks intervention in the promotion of the SMEs. the officials of the banks in India are belong to middle class families and unaware of the industrial promotion and its need. Mere advice to the bankers is helpful. So for that reason Srimathi Indira Gandhi Nationalized all private banks for the development of agricultural sector in 1 9 7 1 . The MSME Act 2006, instigates the banks to provide the credit facilities without any hesitation to the SMEs.
10. SOUNDARRAJ, FINACING SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES, A PROFIT,RESERV E BANK OF INDIA BULLETIN 1980 APR - the reserve bank as a central bank and bankers bank and the prime lending bank to the government should take initiatives to promote the SME sector. The author is very much interested in financing the small and medium scale industries in India, because it is providing more employment than any other sector. It arrests the migration to the cities from the villages in search of better jobs and better facilities.This topic has given me the encouragement to think in this way for the betterment of village and cottage industry development
26
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
27
Research Methodology
This study about Credit Guarantee Scheme is an exploratory as well as descriptive study which requires field work. Survey is done on the basis of a set of questionnaire having both some open ended and some closed ended questions related to the topic. In order to build an effective questionnaire, it has been pretested on the basis of interviews and discussions over the objectives of study with my peer groups and project guide. Data collection through questionnaire resulted in availability of desired information. Various steps required for this purpose were editing, and tabulating. Tabulating refers to bringing together similar data and compiling them in meaningful and accurate manner. The data so collected was analyzed, interpreted with the help of table, bar and pie charts.
Research Problem
One of the major challenges faced by the MSE sector is the availability of funds. Banks and other financial institutions were not easily providing loans to MSEs since they considered them at high risk. To address this situation and to help MSEs, the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) was set up by Govt. of India and SIDBI in the year of 2000-01. The existing procedures and requirements for obtaining cover and lodging/invoking guarantee claims under CGTMSE Scheme is very complex.
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
To study the working of the Credit Guarantee Scheme of Punjab National Bank. To study the reforms introduced in Credit Guarantee Trust For Micro and Small Enterprises. To study the perception of MSEs regarding the Credit Guarantee Scheme of Punjab National Bank. To find out the satisfaction level of MSEs for Credit Guarantee Scheme provided by Punjab National Bank.
28
Research Methodology a) Type of Study: Study is empirical in nature as it is based upon the facts and figures. b) Data Collection: Sources of Data
The present study has been carried out on the basis of both the primary and secondary data. Secondary data is the data which is collected from some already existing sources like various internet sites, books, magazines etc. and as per requirements the data is taken from them. The primary data is collected for study through questionnaire method. For primary data I have to conducted survey in various banks and MSEs in ranchi zone (Jharkhand). Two types of data sources are taken into consideration Primary Data Secondary Data
Primary Data:
The primary data are those which are collected a fresh and for the first time and thus happen to be original in character. Under this project direct collection of data from source of information & techniques such as personal interviewing and survey through questionnaire has been considered.
Secondary Data:
Secondary data is one which has already been collected by someone else and which has already been passed through statistical processing. Under this project secondary data has been collected from journals, magazines, web site of CGTMSE, study of working committee set up by Government of India.
29
Sample Design:
Type of universe: Under this project type of universe include Micro and Small enterprises and banks. Size of Sample: The sample Consist of 20 respondents. Sampling Procedure: Under this project selection of respondents is on the basis of convenience sampling. Tools and Techniques: In this study tools and techniques used are tables, graphs & percentage techniques
30
Scope of Research:
I have conducted the survey on flow of credit to MSEs under my topic Credit Guarantee Trust For Micro and Small Enterprises, for my project report, which had been allotted to me by my trainer Mr. NITIN BANKA (Credit Manager) from PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK . Survey which I have conducted is totally based on relationship between the growth of MSEs and flow of credit to this sector. My area for survey was Ranchi zone in Jharkhand state. My timing for conducting survey was from morning 9:30am to 5pm. The purpose for my survey was to know that whether the Enterpreneurs are aware about CGTMSE? Reasons responsible for poor growth of MSEs? Perception of Bankers regarding the existing procedures and requirement for obtaining cover and lodging/invoking guarantee claims under CGTMSE Scheme.
31
Table 3 - Trend in availment of cover under CGS since inception Period No.of Active No.of Credit MLIs Facilities Approved Amount of Guarantees Approved (Rs. Crore) FY 2000-01
9
951
6.06
FY 2001-02
16
2,296
29.52
35.00
22
29
32
36
40
47
57
FY2009-10* 82
Data Source: CGTMSE
Data Source: CGTMSE (Status as of January 31, 2010) The Scheme was slow in taking off in the initial years and the cover availed of remained below 10,000 proposals during the first five years. However, since 2005-06, there has been a steady growth in the issue of guarantees and the same has increased exponentially from 16,284 proposals involving Rs.461.91 crore in the year 2005-06 to 53,708 proposals involving Rs.2,199.40 crore in
33
the year 2008-09. During the ten month period ending on January 31, 2010, 1,13,029 guarantee proposals for Rs. 5,110.09 crore were approved. Cumulatively, as of January 31, 2010, 2,61,987 guarantee proposals have been approved involving an aggregate amount of Rs.9,822.50 crore
34
State-wise classification
the cumulative cover under CGS as of January 31, 2010 indicates that Uttar Pradesh was the leading benefi ciary with guarantee cover for 36,583 proposals involving an aggregate credit of Rs. 877.66 crore, followed by Kerala (30,250 proposals involving Rs. 577.52 crore), West Bengal(24,272 proposals involving Rs.898.93 crore), Tamilnadu (22,832 proposals involving Rs.917.20 crore) and Karnataka (17,642 proposals involving Rs. 969.70 crore) as shown in Chart III below. Chart III State-wise number of Guarantees approved (%)
35
36
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CREDIT GUARANTEE SCHEMES (CGS) AND PROCEDURE FOR INVOCATION OF GUARANTEE & PREFERMENT OF CLAIM
S.No. Existing Provision 1 Definition of "Amount in Default" means the principal and interest amount outstanding in the account(s) of the borrower in respect of term loan and amount of outstanding working capital facilities (including interest), subject to a maximum of fund based & nonfund based working capital limits sanctioned and guaranteed as on the date of the account becoming NPA, or such of the date as may be specified by CGTMSE, for preferring any claim against the guarantee cover.
Definition of "Primary Security" in respect of a credit facility shall mean the assets created out of the credit facility so extended and/or which are directly associated with the project or business for which the credit facility has been extended.
Definition of "Tenure of Guarantee Cover" means the maximum period of guarantee cover which shall run through the agreed tenure of the term credit and for a period of 5 years or block of a 5 years where working capital facilities alone are extended, or for such period as may be specified by the Trust
Credit facilities eligible under the Scheme: The Trust shall cover credit facilities (Fund based and/or Non fund based) extended by Member Lending Institution(s) to a single eligible borrower in the Micro and Small
Modified Provision Definition of "Amount in Default" means the principal and interest amount outstanding in the account(s) of the borrower in respect of term loan and amount of outstanding working capital facilities (including interest) as on the date of the account becoming NPA or the date of lodgment of claim application whichever is lower or such of the date as may be specified by CGTMSE for preferring any claim against the guarantee cover subject to a maximum of amount Guaranteed. Definition of "Primary Security" in respect of a credit facility shall mean the assets created out of the credit facility so extended and/or existing unencumbered assets which are directly associated with the project or business for which the credit facility has been extended. Definition of "Tenure of Guarantee Cover" means the maximum period of guarantee cover from Guarantee start date which shall run through the agreed tenure of the term credit and for a period of 5 years or block of a 5 years where working capital facilities alone are extended or loan termination date,whichever is earlier or such period as may be specified by the Trust. Credit facilities eligible under the Scheme: The Trust shall cover credit facilities (Fund based and/or Non fund based) extended by Member Lending
37
Enterprises sector for credit facility (i) not exceeding 50lakh (Regional Rural Banks/Financial Institutions) and (ii) not exceeding 100 lakh (Scheduled Commercial Banks and select Financial Institutions) by way of term loan and/or working capital facilities on or after entering into an agreement with the Trust, without any collateral security and / or third party guarantees.
Institution(s) to a single eligible borrower in the Micro and Small Enterprises sector for credit facility (i) not exceeding 50 lakh (RegionalRural Banks/Financial Institutions) and (ii) not exceeding 100 lakh (Scheduled Commercial Banks and select Financial Institutions) by way of term loan and/orworking capital facilities on or after entering into an agreement with the Trust, without any collateral security and\or third party guarantees or such amount as may be decided by the Trust from time to time Credit facilities extended by more than one bank and/or financial institution jointly and/or separately to eligible borrower upto a maximum upto `100 lakh per borrower subject to ceiling amount of individual MLI or such amount as may be specified by the Trust.
Point No.5. VII of Chapter 2- (vii) Credit facilities extended jointly by two or more banks to a single borrower or credit facilities extended jointly by two or more institutions to a single borrower, shall not be eligible for guarantee cover. However, CGTMSE shall provide guarantee cover in respect of the credit facility financed jointly by a bank with SIDBI, out of the Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) Fund for North Eastern Region (NER) created by SIDBI, subject to the following conditions: The point is deleted 1. The modification of CGS would be applicable to units covered under SIDBI's "Micro and Small Enterprises Fund for North East Region (NER)" of 10 crore under cofinancing arrangement with banks for a maximum term credit facility of 50 lakh. 2. The co-financed cases shall be lodged for
38
guarantee cover by the cofinancing bank for the entire credit facility extended by both the cofinancing bank and SIDBI 3. The co-financing bank shall ensure that all other norms of CGS have been complied with by SIDBI and the cofinancing bank before lodging the application for guarantee cover with CGTMSE. 4. The maintenance of guarantee cover i.e, payment of guarantee fee / service fee / lodgment of claim application, etc. shall be the responsibility of the cofinancing bank. The eligible claim amount shall be paid to the co-financing bank and it shall be the responsibility of the co-financing bank to share the claim proceeds with SIDBI. Para 1, point No.8 of Chapter 3:- "one time guarantee fee at specified rate ((a)currently 1.00% in the case of credit facility upto 5 Lakh and 1.5% in the case of credit facility above 5 Lakh (b) 0.75%,in case of credit facilities upto `50 lakh sanctioned to units in North Eastern Region including State of Sikkim) of the credit facility sanctioned (comprising term loan and / or working capital facility) shall be paid upfront to the Trust by the institution availing of the guarantee within 30 days from the date of first disbursement of credit facility or 30 days from the date of Demand Advice (CGDAN) of guarantee fee whichever is later."
Para II, point No.8 of Chapter 3 :- The annual service fee at specified rate (currently 0.50% in the case of credit facility upto ` 5 Lakh and 0.75% in the case of credit facility above ` 5 Lakh) of the credit facility sanctioned (comprising term loan and / or working capital facility) shall be paid by the lending institution within 60 days ie. on or before May 31, of every year. In the event of non-payment of
"One-time guarantee fee at specified rate ((a)currently 1.00% in the case of credit facility upto ` 5 Lakh and 1.5% in the case of credit facility above 5 Lakh (b) 0.75%, in case of credit facilities upto `50 lakh sanctioned to units in North Eastern Region including State of Sikkim) of the credit facility sanctioned (comprising term loan and / or working capital facility) shall be paid upfront to the Trust by the institution availing of the guarantee within 30 days from the date of first disbursement of credit facility (not applicable for Working capital) or 30 days from the date of Demand Advice (CGDAN) of guarantee fee whichever is later or such date as specified by the Trust . The annual service fee at specified rate (currently 0.50% in the case of credit facility upto ` 5 Lakh and 0.75% in the case of credit facility above ` 5 Lakh) on pro-rata basis for the first and last year and in full for the intervening years on the credit facility sanctioned (comprising term loan and / or working capital facility) shall be paid
39
annual service fee by May 31 of that year or any other specified date,the guarantee under the scheme shall not be available to the lending institution unless the Trust agrees for continuance of guarantee and the lending institution pays penal interest on the service fee due and unpaid, with effect from the subsequent June 01, at four per cent over Bank Rate,per annum, or at such rates specified by the Trust from time to time, for the period of delay
Para I, point No.10 of Chapter 5 :- The lending institution may invoke the guarantee in respect of eligible credit facility if thefollowing conditions are satisfied: -
10
Point. a of para I , point No.10 of Chapter 5 :- The guarantee in respect of that credit facility is in force
by the lending institution within 60 days ie. on or before May 31, of every year. In the event of non-payment of annual service fee by May 31 of that year or any other specified date, the guarantee under the scheme shall not be available to the lending institution unless the Trust agrees for continuance of guarantee and the lending institution pays penal interest on the service fee due and unpaid, with effect from the subsequent June 01, at four per cent over Bank Rate, per annum, or at such rates specified by the Trust from time to time, for the period of delay. The lending institution may invoke the guarantee in respect of credit facility within a maximum period of one year from date of NPA, if NPA is after lock-in period or within one year of lock-in period, if NPA is within lockin period, if the following conditions are satisfied: The guarantee in respect of that credit facility was in force at the time of account turning NPA
40
CREDIT GUARANTEE SCHEME (CGS) MODIFICATION IN PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT OF ANNUAL SERVICE FEE (ASF)
In addition to above important modifications/ amendments made by Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) in the Credit Guarantee Scheme,CGTMSE has also made some other modifications in the scheme. The following important changes have been made:
1. CLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS:
Banks/MLIs to immediately inform the date of closure of guaranteed accounts to CGTMSE for generating Annual Service Fee (ASF) on pro-rata basis up to the date of closure of accounts to avoid generation of ASF for the full year. To avoid such situations, it has been decided by the CGTMSE that all requests for closure of accounts may be made only through the new "Closure Module" in the CGTMSE system. No request by fax / letter etc. for closure of account will be considered henceforth. Using the following option, MLIs can enter the request for closure. [Member Login area Guarantee Maintenance Request for Closure]
For requesting the closure, users should enter the CGPAN, Closure Date and Reason for closure of the individual account and save the same in the system. Once the request for closure is entered in the system, the closure DAN will be generated after approval by the Trust. After receipt of DAN amount, the case will be marked as 'CLOSED' in the system.
41
4. MODIFICATION IN THE EXISTING PROCEDURE FOR PAYMENT OF ANNUAL SERVICE FEE (ASF):
The Modification in the existing procedure for payment of Annual Service Fee (ASF) has been made by the CGTMSE. It has been decided that all Member Lending Institutions to make payment of Annual Service Fee of 2010 through single payment from the Head Office instead of payment by their respective Circle/nodal Offices. This will avoid lapse of the guarantee.
42
And Interpretation
43
1. Extent of Cover
As mentioned , any secondary collateral/ third party guarantee free credit facility extended by MLIs to MSEs upto the credit limit of Rs.1 crore are eligible for guarantee cover by CGTMSE. An analysis of the data on collateral free loans upto credit limit of Rs. 25 lakh each extended by all public sector banks as indicated in the Table 4 below was carried out as a sample and the data revealed that only 8.46% of such accounts were covered under the CGS as at the end of March 2008. In terms of the amount outstanding, 13.95% of the total loans were covered under the CGS. The position improved in the year 2008-09 and as at the end of March 2009, 9.77% of such accounts and 21.97 % of the total amount was covered under CGS as shown in Table 4 and Charts V and VI below:
Table 4 - Extent of cover of collateral free loans of Public Sector Banks under CGTMSE
As on March 31,
No. of accounts
No. of accounts
2010
12,04,478
17,336.97
1,01,902 (8.46%)
2,419.21 (13.95%)
2011
13,13,247
18,136.30
1,28,305 (9.77%)
3,985.57 (21.97%)
Note: Figs. in parenthesis show percentage of cover under CGTMSE of the total collateral free loans upto Rs. 25 lakh. The collateral free loan accounts increased by 1,08,769 in number from the year 2009-10 to 201011 for credit limits upto Rs. 25 lakh extended by public sector banks. Significantly, of these incremental accounts, 26,403 (24.7%) were covered under the CGS.
44
Chart V The share of cover of collateral free loans of Public Sector Banks upto Rs. 25 lakhs under CGS by amount (%)
45
Chart VI The share of cover of collateral free loans of Public Sector Banks upto Rs. 25 lakhs under CGS by number of accounts (%)
Data on total loans to MSE sector, extent of guarantee cover taken, claims lodged and settled received from 19 public sector banks and five private sector banks is furnished in Annex-I. The data revealed that the guarantee cover taken by banks for their MSE advances was very low. As at the end of March, 2011, out of 21.8 lakh MSE borrowal accounts, only 57,552 accounts, constituting 2.64% of total accounts, were covered under the CGS. In terms of the amount outstanding, guarantee cover was taken only for 3.01 % of the total advances to MSEs. Further, of the approximately 17.5 lakh accounts with credit limit of up to Rs. 5 lakh each, only 46,280 (2.64 %) accounts were covered under the guarantee scheme. In terms of amount outstanding, guarantee cover taken in respect of accounts with credit facility up to Rs 5 lakh constituted 2.75% of the total advances to such borrowers. The above analysis clearly illustrates that the CGS has not been attractive enough to MLIs.
46
1 State Bank of India Bank of Baroda Canara Bank Bank of India Total 25649 2616 21085 18400 67750
47
h. CGTMSE should assign reasons for rejection of the applications for guarantee cover under the scheme. This will enable the branches for correct submission of applications, or resubmission of the proposals. i. A whole turnover policy could be considered, where the entire MSE portfolio of the bank may be covered as against the present system of covering each borrowal account individually. j. The following two clauses of the Scheme are major hurdles in the implementation of the scheme and need to be removed: The Credit Guarantee Trust reserves the discretion to accept or reject any proposal referred to it by MLIs which otherwise satisfies the norms of the Scheme. Credit facility with interest rate of more than 3 per cent over Prime Lending Rate, is not eligible for being guaranteed under the scheme
B. Guarantee fee
a. The upfront guarantee fee may be charged at uniform rate of 0.75 % of the sanctioned amount. Risk-based guarantee fee may be introduced according to the risk factor in the industrial/ service sector. b. As the cost of credit to MSE sector is already very high, the rate of guarantee fee and annual service charge should be reduced by at least 50 percent across the board
49
E. Settlement of claims
a. Some MLIs felt that there is a need to ensure prompt settlement of claims under the CGTMSE scheme to foster confidence amongst bankers. b. As per the extant guidelines, fi nal instalment of claim is paid by the Trust only after the decree of recovery becomes time barred i.e. 12 years after the decree is passed by the courts. This provision of the scheme poses serious difficulty for banks. c. MLIs are required to take the permission of the Trust before adjusting the claim amount to the account of the borrower. This may be done away with as MLIs furnish an undertaking that they would take all possible steps for recovery including legal action. The MLIs should be permitted to adjust the settled amount to the borrowers account without seeking permission from CGTMSE. d. In the claims settled accounts, the MLI is required to remit the full amount to the CGTMSE in case of recoveries. The Trust then appropriates 75% of the recovered amount and refund the balance amount to the MLI. This procedure is cumbersome and the MLIs should be allowed to remit the proportionate share of the recovery to the Trust.
Existing software put in place by CGTMSE for covering/claiming under the CGS may be improved further to make it more user friendly
50
CHAPTER- 5
51
52
2. Guarantee Fee:
a) Risk- based guarantee fee The matter of introduction of risk-based guarantee fee was deliberated by me. I suggest that instead of the uniform rate of fee presently charged to cover the MSE loans under CGTMSE, the guarantee fees could be charged based on the risk profile of the loan portfolio of the bank concerned. For a risk-based fee, I suggest that an audit by a third party of the portfolio by sampling could be taken for each bank in order to decide the risk level of the portfolio and appropriate guarantee fee. The other alternative is to get the portfolio rated by an external agency which would however be a time consuming and costly process. Another suggestion was to decide the guarantee fee on the basis of gross NPAs in that portfolio. However, I am of the opinion that this could result in a higher guarantee fee for MLIs with larger MSE loan portfolio. More so, a differentiated risk-based fee structure would be inconsistent with the public policy purpose of providing CGS cover to the MSE sector which is considered more risky but contributes significantly to employment generation, exports and inclusive growth more generally as mentioned in paragraph 1.1 of Chapter I. The feedback of the member banks was also such that banks were not very favourably disposed to differentiated rates of guarantee fee. Besides, the case for risk-based guarantee fee is typically sought to be made out on the analogy of similar case for deposit insurance globally. But the Group noted that there is a need to carefully nuance between risk-based premium for deposit insurance and risk-based guarantee fee under CGTMSE because in the former case, deposits insured of different banks are subjected to individually voluntarily differing risk profiles of banks assets, whereas in the latter, MSE loans are conferred a priority status by public policy and, therefore, individual banks have no control over generic risk inherent in MSE loan portfolios i.e. the risks assumed in MSE lending are involuntary. I, therefore, recommend that a uniform guarantee fee would be most appropriate as being levied hitherto.
b) Recovery of Guarantee Fee i) Fair Value of Guarantee Fee On the issue of fair value of guarantee fee charged by the Trust, I noted that as of today there is no conceptually rigorous and technically robust methodology adopted by CGTMSE to compute the fair value of guarantee fee to be charged to MLIs. Accordingly, in order to add conceptual and technical rigour to determination of fair value of annual guarantee fee, I recommend a conceptually rigorous and technically robust methodology for computing fair value of annual guarantee fee which simulates/models the dynamically evolving distribution of claims settled such that if the model-generated fair value guarantee fee per annum is charged, there will be, at 99.9% one-tailed confidence interval, only 0.1% probability that the claims settled will exceed the guarantee fees collected. In other words, there will be only 0.1% chance that the corpus/fund will be touched.
Based on the above methodology, in working out the most realistic and reliable annual guarantee fee, the potential claims likely to devolve during the year 2010-11 were also simulated by assuming the worst case scenario of the entire unclaimed portion of NPAs devolving. This is deemed to be likely scenario what with the implementation of my recommendations for
53
rationalisation/simplification of procedures, if accepted. To simulate this, the data shown in Table 5 was made use of. It will be observed that of the total number of NPA accounts covered under CGTMSE which stood at 4116, claims were lodged only for 649 accounts. This meant that potential devolvement on the Trust could theoretically be for the balance 3467 accounts, in the worst case scenario, which is approximately 5 times the claims actually lodged. Furthermore, the provision for claims made by the Trust in its Balance Sheet for the year ended 31,March 2009, based on the actuarial valuation of liability of the Trust for the year 2008-09 was Rs. 32.53 crore against claims paid to the extent of Rs8.38 crore for the same year. Thus the provision for claims was approximately 4 times the actual claims settled. I have therefore, considered the worst case scenario of all the potential claims devolving on the Trust and it was worked out that the potential pay-out could be approximately Rs.195 crore (5.34 times the claims which have devolved on the Trust till date as shown in Table 5). From this the net surplus of Rs.123 crore which the Trust has accumulated(GF/ASF received from 2000-01 to 2009-10 till January 31, 2010 net of tax at 33% but including interest income earned @ say 8% p.a. minus the cumulative claims settled. cf Annex- II), was subtracted as this amount is already available with the Trust as a cushion for any pay outs in 2010-11. Based on this worst case assumption, the fair value of guarantee fee worked out to 1.14% per annum at 99.9% one-tailed confidence level as shown below:
0 0 0 0.03 0.52
54
0.72%
0.90%
0.51%
% 0.69%
Currently, the Trust also charges Annual Service Fee, ranging from 0.50% to 0.75% p.a., in addition to the normal one-time upfront guarantee fee of 1.0 % to 1.5% of the amount of guaranteed MSE loans. Generally, the average period of cover is about 5 years and, therefore, the per annum guarantee fee for say, credit facility above Rs. 5 lakh, works out to 0.30% (1.5% divided by 5) which gives a composite above Rs. 5 lakh, works out to 0.30% (1.5% divided by 5)
55
which gives a composite more rigorously worked out annual guarantee fee of 1.14% p.a. I, therefore, recommend that the CGTMSE may charge composite, all-in guarantee fee of 1% p.a. which is almost the same as the composite annual fee now being charged by CGTMSE and appropriately realign downwards the guarantee fees chargeable to women entrepreneurs, Micro enterprises and units located in NE Region including Sikkim. Further, as discussed above, the Trust may each year review the Guarantee Fee to be charged on the basis of the model of dynamically evolving distribution of claims.
ii)
CGTMSE is a not-for-profit organisation, it was exempted from payment of Income-Tax for the first five years of its operations and its income has since been subject to tax thereafter. DICGC, which used to provide Credit Guarantee earlier, was exempt from tax for 15 years, and subsequently exemption period was extended by the Government for another 5 years. I, felt that the Ministry of Finance may also consider exempting the Trust from Income Tax as was done in the case of DICGC. The Trust was established with the explicit high public policy priority of providing impetus to the MSE sector. Thus, the case for exemption from income tax of the guarantee fee and income on investment of any surplus is not only justified by the underlying high public policy purpose but equally by the fact that the guarantee fee is not income in the first place as it is in the nature of revenue and meant to cover existing and potential claims as indeed so is income on investment of any surplus as ultimately that income will also be potentially used for meeting potential guarantee claims. Besides, the income on investment of corpus of the Trust increases the size of the Trust Fund and only furthers the public policy purpose of guaranteeing more MSE loans and/or reducing the guarantee fees thus ultimately benefiting only the MSE sector. So, it is only appropriate that fee income and income on investments may be exempted from Income Tax as indeed is the practice internationally vide page 33 of cross-country practices. More so, as the Government is the major contributor to the corpus, in the extreme case of shortfall, the Government may have to replenish the same. Hence, it may not be appropriate to levy income tax on its own income. In view of the rationale stated above, I, strongly recommend that the Government consider exempting both guarantee fee and the income on investments of the Trust from Income Tax.
iii)
As regards, the practice of recovery of the guarantee fee/ ASF from the MSE customers under the Scheme, I, noted that there were divergent practices amongst banks. In some cases, banks and borrowers share the fee equally. While some banks recover the entire fee from borrowers, in some cases banks refund the fees to borrowers at the time of final repayment of loans by the latter. The decision to charge fees to borrowers, or otherwise, is left to individual banks. In the erstwhile Credit Guarantee Scheme of DICGC, banks had the discretion to recover the guarantee fee from the borrowers, other than those belonging to theweaker sections. Since the guarantee scheme is
56
primarily a safety net for MSEs, I was of the opinion that the small borrowers should not be burdened with the cost of the guarantee and Government should bear the same. Micro enterprises generally have a weak financial structure and banks are generally reluctant to finance them for this reason. The need for credit enhancement either by secondary collateral security or by a third party guarantee gets accentuated in these accounts. However, most such entrepreneurs, being very small, have little or no secondary collateral security to offer. In this context, the Working Group on Rehabilitation of sick SMEs(Chairman: Dr. K. C. Chakrabarty), had also suggested that the government might bear the entire credit guarantee fees for micro enterprises in order to encourage financial inclusion in the sector. In this context, the Group noted that Government of India had made initial contribution to the Guarantee Fund. Thus, the Government has already taken the burden for the MSE borrowers. I am of the opinion that it may not be appropriate to ask banks, which are commercial entities, to bear the guarantee fee as any scheme for banks has to be a reasonable business proposition for it to be readily acceptable. Further, I, felt that if banks were made to bear the fee, they would somehow either discourage lending to MSEs, especially Micro Enterprises, or somehow indirectly load the same on the customer by charging a higher rate of interest on the facility provided thereby defeating the very purpose of fostering and developing the MSE sector. Considering the special dispensation of collateral free loans to Micro Enterprises upto the limit of Rs.10 lakhs recommended both by the K.C. Chakrabarty Committee and me, I strongly recommend that the guarantee fee for collateral free loans upto Rs.10 lakh to Micro Enterprises be borne/absorbed by the CGTMSE subject to the provison that the Trust be free to adjust Guarantee Fee both downwards and upwards, based on the modelling of the dynamically evolving distribution of claims. This will ensure that while the stakeholders like MLIs and their MSE clients benefit from the potentially lower guarantee fee, the CGTMSE also remains self-financing and self-sustaining in the long-term. Besides, asking MLIs to bear the guarantee fee, might be counter productive.
57
I, therefore recommend that guarantee cover upto 85% of the amount in default be made applicable to credit facilities to Micro Enterprises upto Rs. 10 lakh
58
b) Time period for Invocation of Guarantees Under the Scheme, there is a lock-in period of 18 months from either the date of last disbursement of the loan, or the date of guarantee fee, whichever is later, during which guarantee cannot be
59
invoked. MLIs can invoke the guarantee within a maximum period of one year from the date of account becoming NPA, if this date is after lock-in period, or within one year after the lock-in period, if the loan becomes non-performing within the lock-in period. There are suggestions from banks that the lock-in period may be reduced from the present 18 months to 12 months. I was of the opinion that the provision of a lock-in period of 18 months is reasonable as it is expected that MLIs should conduct proper due diligence in sanctioning of loans so that the credit facility does not become non-performing within a short period of sanction. Moreover, I was of the opinion that the Fund should be dipped into only when the account is considered reasonably doubtful of recovery. Even if a borrower defaults from the first month of sanction of the loan, it takes 16 months for the account to become a doubtful asset. I, therefore, recommend that the present requirement of a lock-in period of 18 months is reasonable and may continue. However, I felt that the provision of filing claim within a period of one year from the date of classification of the asset as NPA is a very short period to judge the loan as irrecoverable as there is always a chance of upgradation of the status of the account within first one year. The present position only compels MLIs to initiate premature legal action simply to meet the deadline for invoking guarantee. I, therefore, recommend that MLIs may be allowed to invoke guarantee within a period of two years from the date of classification of the account as NPA.
c) Release of Final Claim As per the extant guidelines, final instalment of claim (25% of the total eligible amount) is paid by the Trust only after the decree of recovery becomes time barred i.e. approximately 12 years after the decree is passed by courts. The feedback received from the banks revealed that this provision of the Scheme poses serious difficulty for banks as they had to wait for a very long period for the final claim to be settled. I also felt that the period was too long which resulted in 25% of the remaining dues of banks with the Trust almost perpetually. I felt that the final claim should be paid once the lender has obtained a decree from the court. However, SIDBI opined that MLIs should take steps to execute the decree and the needed some time for the same. I, therefore, recommend that the final claim should be paid by the Trust after three years of the obtention of decree of recovery.
However, as the loans extended to both the MSE units are covered under CGS, I does not recommend bringing factors under the guarantee scheme of CGTMSE as it would encourage another level of intermediation and resultant additional costs to MSEs
9. Definition of Collateral:
The CGTMSE Scheme provides guarantee cover for collateral-free and third- party guarantee free credit facilities extended by MLIs to MSE borrowers. As per the definition provided in the CGTMSE Scheme, Primary security means the assets created out of credit facility so extended and / or which are directly associated with the project, or business, for which credit facility is extended. This definition was not in sync with the international banking practice. Internationally, an asset which is acquired by utilising the bank finance is treated as the primary collateral for the lender and any other additional security offered whether belonging to the borrower, or to a third party, is treated as secondary or supplementary collateral. However, it was felt that the CGTMSE Scheme had been working satisfactorily and borrowers had no difficulty in offering the assets belonging to the unit as additional security to banks. I, therefore, does not recommend change in the present definition of the Scheme. The Scheme may cover the credit facilities which are secured by primary collateral as well as secondary collateral which belongs to the unit and are directly connected to the business activity of the unit.
61
The facts and concepts of Respondents may be biased, imaginary and may be based entirely on their personal experience.
Most of question in the questionnaire was close ended which reduced the scope for people to give free opinion.
The sample size was not enough to reach on any exact conclusion.
62
QUESTIONNAIRE
Q1. Are you availing credit facility from any bank ? Yes No Q2. If yes, from which bank you are availing credit facility ? SBI PNB BOI ALLAHABAD CANARA OTHER please specify
Q3. Would you prefer to avail credit guarantee schemes from PNB Yes No Q4. Are you satisfied with the credit norms of PNB? Yes No
63
Q5. Rate the following factors according to your satisfaction level towards Credit Guarantee Scheme of PNB (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
PARTICULARS
Rate of interest/pricing Prompt sanction and adequacy of limit Better service and simplification of procedures Others
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied TOTAL
20
20 7 7 0 4 2
20
20 20
Document required
1 20
64
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 Beck, T., et al., The typology of partial credit guarantee funds around the world. J. Financial Stability (2009) (accessed September 4, 2009) Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises. Annual reports (various issues). Credit Guarantee Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises. (www.cgtmse.in) (accessed September 25, 2009) Davies, Ian. Peoples Republic of China: Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Credit Guarantee Companies Asian Development Bank. 2007. Government of India. Report of the Prime Ministers Task Force on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. January 2010 Reserve Bank of India, Report on Trend and Progress of Banking in India 2008-09. Reserve Bank of India. Report of the Working Group on Rehabilitation of Sick SMEs.2008.