Sunday, January 23, 2011

M&A’s IN THE INDIAN BANKING SECTOR

By:

Somnath Das Bakshi

IIM Lucknow

Introduction

In mathematics we know that points make up lines and lines make up planes and planes make up space or in common parlance small makes big. In the paradigm of corporate world it is not always bottom up and get big approach. Companies grow, shrink, merge, and acquire in order to gain long term strategic advantages. In this paper we will concentrate on merger and acquisition in banking sector in Indian. First we discuss possible benefits from merger. Next present scenario is discussed along with potential problems due to merger followed by key drivers of merger. The paper is concluded with future merger direction in the country.

Benefits of Merger

The question is why merger? Merger takes place in search of synergywhich takes three forms of operational, financial, and managerial. In case of banking such possible synergies can be classified as below

Operational synergy- Operational synergy can be achieved in four ways. Firstly due to economies of scale; as the fixed cost spreads over larger revenue base. Second in terms of scope economies as the opportunity arises in cross selling different products. Third is bank’s ability to serve larger and complex client base. Fourthly existence of bigger bank can help in resolution of smaller banks in time of crisis

Financial synergy- Financial synergy can be realized in access to lower cost of capital. Bigger banks will have access to wider capital base and diversified operation into various services reduces probability of bank failure. Other benefit is the access of smaller banks to better risk management and control system of larger banks, and tax relief that comes with merging with distressed banks.

Managerial synergy-One of the main benefit in merger is knowledge transfer resulting in superior planning and monitoring ability of the combined entity as a whole. Both Smaller and bigger banks can benefit from each other in term of efficient handling of resources.

Other controversial advantage in banking is the status of “too big to fall”. The idea is fall of big bank will lead to loss of confidence in the sector and widespread panic. So a government is expected to bailout larger banks. This has indeed been the case during crisis in USA and more recently in Ireland. We discuss more about it later.

Success of merger can be attributed to realizing all synergies and should be reflected in performance of banks post-merger in two fronts. One in improves bottom line and second is improved performance in stock market. Academic studies related to post-merger benefit analysis in foreign banks do not find significant benefit from either of two(Jayadev & Sensarma, 2007). Though there has been increased scale efficiency due to technological progress, regulatory change and beneficial effect of lower interest rate.

Merger in Indian Banking Sector

Banking in India has come a long way since the establishment of General bank of India in 1786, first of its kind in India. Important milestone in Indian banking were nationalization of banks, 14 in 1969 and 6 in 1980, and liberalization of Indian economy during early 1990 and subsequent entry of private players in banking sector. As of March 31, 2009, the Indian banking system comprised 27 public sector banks, 7 new private sector banks, 15 old private sector banks, 31 foreign banks, 86 Regional Rural Banks (RRBs), 4 Local Area Banks (LABs), 1,721 urban cooperative banks, 31 state co-operative banks and 371 district central co-operative banks(RBI, 2010).

Narasimham committee report in 1998 suggests merger in banking and creation of stronger banks to support current account convertibility related issues like domestic liquidity and interest rate movement. The committee further suggested existence of two or three banks with international orientation, eight to ten large banks catering to corporate needs and many smaller banks serving local trade.

While merger of domestic companies are guided by company’s law acquisition comes under takeover code of SEBI. In case of foreign companies acquisition requires approval of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB). Merger requires approval of both FIPB and Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Bank merger needs to take permission from RBI to be effective. Before 1960 only voluntary amalgamation was permitted by section 44A of Banking Regulation Act. Later section 45 was added to prevent weak banks from falling. Under this section RBI has power to reconstruct a weak bank and direct it to merge with other banks. RBI directed Bank of Baroda to merge with South Gujarat Local Area Bank Limited though the former was not keen on merger.

So far Indian banking sector has not seen mega mergers. Most of the past mergers have been driven by dictate of central bank in order to rescue unhealthy banks. The purpose has been to save sick bank’s customers. Post Narasimham committee report discouraging sick merger the trend has so far subdued though not stopped. Very recently Bank of Baroda has acquired Memon cooperative bank which had been non-functional since 2009. A list of recent mergersinvolving Indian commercial and investment banks can be found in appendix.

In Indian scenario four types of merger have taken place so far. First is public sector bank merging with other public sector banks; for example State Bank of Indore was merged with State Bank of India in 2009. Second is merger of private sector bank with public sector bank, this happened in 2004 when distressed Global Trust Bank was taken over by Oriental Bank of Commerce. Third one is merger of two private sector banks which has taken place in regular intervals post entry of private player with HDFC taking over Times Bank (2000), ICICI bank merging with Madura Bank (2001) and recent merger of HDFC bank with Centurion Bank of Punjab (2008) and ICICI taking over Bank of Rajasthan (2010). Fourth type of merger is foreign banks taking over foreign bank which happened in 2000 when Standard Chartered Bank acquired ANZ Grindlays bank. Other type of merger approved by central bank is merger of development financial institute with banks. ICICI limited merged with ICICI bank and IFCI Limited merged with Punjab National Bank.

So far Indian banks have remained focused on domestic market and have not ventured abroad. Two reasons are attributed for that. One is mature western banking market has not attracted Indian bankers and they instead concentrated on high growth domestic market. Second reason is that Indian banks are minuscule in size with respect to its global peers.

Drivers for Consolidation

There have been several drivers for growth in bank consolidation in US and western countries. The same factors are playing role in India as well

· Increases in global trade- Indian business houses have become big in last decade thanks to global big ticket acquisition by domestic businesses. Coupled with that increased domestic demand has led to more import. Growth in Indian business has led to growth in banking business also as seen from figure 1 which shows growth in NSE 100 index versus bank index since the latter’s inception in 2003.

  • Increase in corporate risk management activities in foreign exchange and interest rate market is a direct consequence of increase in both global trade and farm balance sheet. As exposure to foreign exchange and interest rate increases so does need for hedging.
  • Increase use of off balance sheet activities- Though RBI limits various off balance sheet activities still private banks have started use it.
  • Increase in customer credit through mortgages, home equity financing and credit card debt- Customer credit is linked with consumption. Boom in service sector resulted in Indian middle class people having more disposable income. Consequently demand in credit card and debt has gone up.

Too big to fall

An argument that has been referred against bank merger is that big banks become “too big to fall”. Fall of big banks have been problematic because of four reasons. First is deposits are insured by agencies, in India they are insured by Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) for a value up to `1 lakh , so any fall of big bank means big outlay by insurance agency and further crisis. Second is that most banks are interconnected with balance sheet exposure to other banks. So any fall may trigger a series of crisis. Third is the panic effect. Any big bank fall will result in panic and widespread withdrawal creating systematic bank crisis. Fourth if banks are big enough any trouble in bank may result in sovereign crisis which have been the case in Ireland recently.

Now in India no banks are big enough to trigger sovereign crisis. An indicator measuring bank asset to country GDP shows largest Indian bank has asset close to 24% of Indian GDP far below of what biggest Irish bank had(close to 100%).

Public sector Banks

Private Sector bank

Asset(`crore)

Asset/GDP

Asset(`crore)

Asset/GDP

St Bk of India

1451219.84

0.260334

ICICI Bank

489827.2

0.0878701

PNB

303594.72

0.054462

HDFC Bank

223045.73

0.0400122

Bank of Baroda

284272.58

0.050996

Axis Bank

180619.29

0.0324013

Canara Bank

266841.6

0.047869

Kotak Bank

55114.81

0.009887

Bank of India

277204.01

0.049728

UBI

195509.44

0.035072

Table 1 Asset and asset to GDP ratio for big Indian banks (source Capitaline)

Challenges & Road Ahead

When compared on size globally Indian banks lack their peers in other emerging countries like China, Brazil according to BCG report on banking(BCG). The same report ranks banks on the basis of total shareholder return (TSR), consisting of capital gain and free cash-flow yield. Relative TSR (RTSR) is used as an indicator and on the basis of that among large cap banks SBI ranks 34th in 2009 but when compared for the duration 2004-09 SBI climbs to 8th spot. This proves higher performance of Indian banks during global crisis. Along midcap banks HDFC and HDFC bank takes 6th and 8th spot while ICICI bank grabs 22nd spot on the basis of RTSR during 2004-09. The solid performance of Indian banks it is time to scale up to global peer and merge Indian business conservatism to western world’s best banking practices. Something that Indian companies in other sector like Tata Steel, Hindalco already doing.

Mergers have hit many roadblocks. Trade unions have acted against any kind of merger among PSBs in the past and they have been very strong in banking sector. Also heavy government holding in PSBs rules out any merger between PSB with private and foreign banks in near future. So major merger drives are expected to take place in private sector; which has indeed been the case as seen from appendix. PSB mergers have been driven by RBI dictate rather than being market driven.

Going forward there is little scope of big ticket mergers in Indian scenario happening in short run. But as the restriction on foreign banks are relaxed and Indian market evolves more, and regulatory requirement becomes stringent natural push will be toward consolidation. What needs to be kept in mind that consolidation will happen in Indian way and not necessarily following western models.

Bibliography

BCG. (n.d.). Creating Value in Banking 2010. Retrieved December 01, 2010, from http://www.bcg.com/documents/file39719.pdf

Jayadev, M., & Sensarma, R. (2007, October). Mergers in Indian Banking-An Analysis. South Asian Journal of Management, XIV(4), 20-49.

RBI. (2010). Discussion Paper on Entry of New Banks in Private Sector.



New Banks on the cards: The road ahead


By AJIT KUMAR MISHRA

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT INDORE

Shares of non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) such as Religare, IFCI, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial, Shriram Transport Finance, and Reliance Capital rallied aggressively after this release only to cool-off by the end of the day.These stocks went up hoping that the profitability of these NBFCs would improve if they were converted into banks. However, the road to bank conversion is more challenging than it appears. The issue of conversion of NBFCs into banks got a fillip after the Reserve Bank of India gave Kotak Mahindra the licence to convert into a bank last year.

Now, other large profitable NBFCs such as Sundaram Finance, Ashok Leyland Finance and Cholamandalam Finance have this option.Not that the RBI will be in a hurry to give these NBFCs a banking licence. But it is certainly an option for them considering that one of their competitors has opted for it.Importantly, with total assets of more than Rs 2,000 crore in the case of Ashok Leyland Finance and Sundaram Finance, they are even larger than some of the old private sector banks.

Uniformly, however, all the three NBFCs mentioned are not enthusiastic about converting into banks. Ashok Leyland Finance is sure that conversion into a bank may not even prove advantageous; that there is already a bank in the group — IndusInd Bank — may also be a reason for its lack of enthusiasm.However, even the other two look at the conversion option as a question that needs to be answered over the long-term.

A non-banking financial company (NBFC) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of loans and advances, acquisition of shares/stock/bonds/debentures/securities issued by government or local authority or other securities of like marketable nature, leasing, hire-purchase, insurance business, chit business, but does not include any institution whose principal business is that of agriculture activity, industrial activity, sale/purchase/construction of immovable property.A non-banking institution which is a company and which has its principal business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement or any other manner, or lending in any manner is also a non-banking financial company (residuary non-banking company).

Differences between the NBFCs and Banks:

  • (i) a NBFC cannot accept demand deposits (demand deposits are funds deposited at a depository institution that are payable on demand -- immediately or within a very short period -- like your current or savings accounts.)
  • (ii) it is not a part of the payment and settlement system and as such cannot issue cheques to its customers; and
  • (iii) deposit insurance facility of DICGC is not available for NBFC depositors unlike in case of banks.

However, to obviate dual regulation, certain category of NBFCs which are regulated by other regulators are exempted from the requirement of registration with RBI viz. venture capital fund/merchant banking companies/stock broking companies registered with Sebi, insurance company holding a valid certificate of registration issued by IRDA, Nidhi companies as notified under Section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956, chit companies as defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 or housing finance companies regulated by National Housing Bank.

The NBFCs that are registered with RBI are:

  • (i) equipment leasing company;
  • (ii) hire-purchase company;
  • (iii) loan company;
  • (iv) investment company.

With effect from December 6, 2006 the above NBFCs registered with RBI have been reclassified as

  • (i) Asset Finance Company (AFC)
  • (ii) Investment Company (IC)
  • (iii) Loan Company (LC)

AFC would be defined as any company which is a financial institution carrying on as its principal business the financing of physical assets supporting productive / economic activity, such as automobiles, tractors, lathe machines, generator sets, earth moving and material handling equipments, moving on own power and general purpose industrial machines.

Principal business for this purpose is defined as aggregate of financing real/physical assets supporting economic activity and income arising therefrom is not less than 60% of its total assets and total income respectively.The above type of companies may be further classified into those accepting deposits or those not accepting deposits.

Besides the above class of NBFCs the Residuary Non-Banking Companies are also registered as NBFC with the Bank.

The NBFCs that are registered with RBI are:

  • (i) equipment leasing company;
  • (ii) hire-purchase company;
  • (iii) loan company;
  • (iv) investment company.

With effect from December 6, 2006 the above NBFCs registered with RBI have been reclassified as

  • (i) Asset Finance Company (AFC)
  • (ii) Investment Company (IC)
  • (iii) Loan Company (LC)

AFC would be defined as any company which is a financial institution carrying on as its principal business the financing of physical assets supporting productive / economic activity, such as automobiles, tractors, lathe machines, generator sets, earth moving and material handling equipments, moving on own power and general purpose industrial machines.

Principal business for this purpose is defined as aggregate of financing real/physical assets supporting economic activity and income arising therefrom is not less than 60% of its total assets and total income respectively.

The above type of companies may be further classified into those accepting deposits or those not accepting deposits.Besides the above class of NBFCs the Residuary Non-Banking Companies are also registered as NBFC with the Bank.

The main reason for NBFCs being so keen on this change is access to low cost funds. Currently NBFCs cost of funds is around 15%, banks due to their float funds, current and savings account have a cost of funds of around 7%-8%. Also banks are part of the payment and settlement system while NBFCs do not have access to this. However this move would require NBFCs to ensure that the interests of the company and the depositors are not hurt in the bargain. Some NBFCs have hired consultants to give them recommendations on this.

In the long term this move will be good for NBFCs as they will have access to cheaper cost of funds. Also as many NBFCs are not very viable this provides an option to merge with stronger banks. For the banks they would benefit from a larger branch network and the strong brand equity of the leading NBFCs in the retail sector. Banks would also benefit from merging with some strong NBFCs who have high localised business presence and the banks will be able to encash on this and build it up further. From the depositors viewpoint they would suffer as they will have to put their deposits into banks which pay lower interest rates. However the stronger regulations for banks will make them safer for depositors.

The costs of conversion appear primarily to be dissuading factor. Though NBFCs can get low-cost savings and current account deposits, as also tax advantages, when they convert into a bank, they would also have to park a higher proportion in government securities.The statutory liquidity ratio is 25 per cent for banks while it is 15 per cent for NBFCs. Conditions such as mandatory priority sector lending are also viewed as imposing additional costs.

Overall, there is the feeling that the advantage of low-cost deposits is neutralised by the conditionalities of a banking licence. This has certainly made the NBFCs wary of conversion.

NBFCs are also not sure of transforming themselves into a bank, which involves more than lending to customers and managing assets.Skills relating to offering of products such as savings bank account, cash management services, forex management and so on need to be learnt. NBFCs are not certain if such skills can be acquired without making large capital investments.

As it is, the capital needs of their business are quite high. Being one among many in the banking industry compared to being among the top of the NBFC industry does not also sound such a great idea.The NBFCs may view the conversion into a bank as an opportunity to grow. Over the long-term, growth opportunities in the retail financing space may get constrained because of spread compression and single-digit volume growth. Conversion into a bank may be seen as an option to grow in size.That, however, seems a long way off. The prospect for growth in the next couple of years appears encouraging and these NBFCs seem to have the wherewithal to succeed in the market place.The experience of Kotak may also be keenly watched before a decision is taken. Kotak has taken the plunge and if it succeeds then the probability of Sundaram Finance or Cholamandalam exploring the conversion option seriously will increase.

However, of the various issues touched upon, the possibility of NBFCs converting into banks appears high, as these institutions are already regulated by the RBI and follow some of the prudential norms such as capital adequacy, provisioning norms applicable to banks.

In addition, historically RBI has given NBFCs with a good track record and low-NPAs an option to enter the banking sector. Only one NBFC, Kotak Mahindra Finance, availed itself of this option.Today NBFCs are also in a position to bring in the capital requirement, which maybe anywhere between Rs 300 crore and Rs 1,000 crore.

The advantages NBFCs would enjoy once they get converted into banks, is access to lower-cost deposits and improved leverage. Currently only a few NBFCs are allowed to access public deposits. As of March 2009, NBFCs had only Rs 21,548 crore as deposits outstanding against Rs 37,00,000 crore with the scheduled commercial banks.

The prudential norms prescribed by RBI for NBFCs and lack of access to low cost funds have suppressed their return on equity (RoE) as compared to banks. Profitability will go up with access to low-cost deposits and lower capital requirements.

However, the transition to a bank will not be easy for a NBFC.

Access to low-cost deposits would depend on the branch network and currently branch licences are scarce in metro and urban areas. Banks, with their first mover advantage, have already charted out huge branch expansion programmes which would increase the competition for low-cost deposits.

Once they convert to banks, NBFCs will also have to comply with Cash Reserve Ratio and Statutory Liquidity Ratio norms as well as the mandatory priority sector lending norms.

The concentrated loan-books which now allow some NBFCs to focus on lucrative niches and earn exceptional spreads may no longer be possible. Lending would need to become broadbased.

In addition, the conversion may entail a rejig in the branch networks of NBFCs and not all their existing branches may continue to be operational. While this move to open up entry into banking sector is positive for NBFCs it is not negative for the existing banks.

Despite the threat of increased competition, the impact will be low.In 2008-09, NBFCs accounted for 9 per cent of the total financial system assets, while commercial banks held a dominant 70 per cent of the assets. Therefore NBFCs are currently not of a scale to threaten existing banks.In addition, NBFCs will also forego the advantages of operating in an unregulated turf with concentrated exposures. Banks on the other hand, will get to enter the markets serviced by the .NBFCs

References: www.rbi.org.in

www.wikipedia.org

www.thehindubusinessline.com