The conventional
thinking in corporate lending went that the power of the bank over the borrower
was inversely proportional to the size of the loan. Hobbled by laws that made
loan recovery a chore, a promoter lobby determined to protect their interests
and political masters who prioritized the next election to prudential norms,
PSU banks seemed resigned to loan waivers and NPAs. While the 5/25
plan appeared to give banks some leverage, too often the general public has
seen the banks fight shy of targeting large corporates (and their nabob
promoters).
The current mood in
the RBI seems determined to consign this behaviour into the dustbin. First, a
tough-talking governor has finally stood up and castigated the
“sweep-under-the-carpet” mentality on several occasions. This has been
supplemented by a far-sighted government that has been taking bold economic
decisions to ease the bureaucratic gridlock and resource constraints, coal and
gas being good examples. Equally important, unlike previous administrations the
government has largely refrained from second-guessing the RBI’s policy stance.
This has helped restore investor confidence and manage the eventual capital
flows when the US Fed raises interest rates.
But the significant
(and yet largely under-reported) change has been in the RBI’s policy framework
for managing bad loans. Through the establishment of the Joint Lender Forum
(JLF) and the recent policy directive on Strategic Debt Restructuring (SDR),
the RBI has delivered some sophisticated artillery capabilities to banks. The
SDR allows lenders with the capability to convert their debt into equity and
acquire management control over the firm by wiping out the promoter’s stake.
Supported by generous (interim) dispensations on prudential norms and SEBI
takeover codes, the SDR mechanism allows lenders to form a united front to force
recalcitrant lenders into taking the tough economic decisions necessary for the
firm’s survival. This is a massive change as much in the psychology of
corporate lending as it is about actual policy. The RBI deserves to be richly
commended for taking up such innovative approaches to structural issues, which
is fast emerging as a hallmark of Dr. Rajan’s tenure, such as with payment and
small finance banks.
It appears that banks
are taking tentative steps along this path. On 27th July, the first
SDR “workout” was undertaken on ElectroSteel
Steels’s loan of INR 9600 crores.
This was followed, on August 10th, by an INR 500 crores SDR on Lanco
Infratech’s project. On 20th August, the JLF of Jyoti
Structures decided to implement the SDR to convert an INR 2,178 crore debt
into equity, wiping out the promoter’s stake. So far, the market seems to be
pessimistic of the economic prospects for these companies that are trading down
17%, 12%, and 11% from the time of their respective SDR announcement (all data as
of 23rd Aug, 2015).
Exiting the Chakravyuh
Anyone acquainted with
Hindu mythology is aware that it was the prospect of exiting the maelstrom that
made the hearts of the stoutest warriors tremble. While the SDR exhorts the JLF
to keep out the past promoter and work quickly to undertake a sale of the
company it is sketchy on the actual details of managing the company in the
interim period. This silence extends to communicating the plan and its progress
with wider stakeholders. As a consequence, the market has been largely in the
dark regarding the improvement in operational parameters.
Corporate Affairs recommends the
following tactical inclusions to navigate a smoother exit from the SDR –
a.
- Establish a stakeholder engagement plan
A financial restructuring plan spells uncertainty for employees, customers
and the authorities such as the sales tax and excise departments of individual
states. Often companies also have litigations that are pending at various
levels of the judiciary that requires a pro-active outreach. Employees and customers are in the dark as to
the motives of the JLF, which need to be clearly conveyed and fit into the
strategic initiatives of the firm. Assuming a “BAU” approach is clearly a
recipe for low all-round morale, negatively impacting share prices and
negotiating power for the JLF.
- Strengthen and co-opt the executive management
It seems a naïve to expect that the removal of the promoter could
somehow enthuse the firm’s prospects and the contributions of the executive
management. Often where the sector itself is in the doldrums, the promoter’s
actions might have precipitated the eventual collapse. Several economic sectors
continue to remain in oligopolistic cliques, the resolution of which is an
element of policy detail. In such a case, the management might require
re-skilling and familiarization in the usage of cost management tools to
improve [productivity. Management reporting, which might have been given a
go-by in the previous dispensation will need to be rigorously implemented to
instill operational discipline. This could assist in cost simplification and raising
morale as the effect of the “quick-wins” kicks in.
- Involve specialist support
It is understandable to see nervousness amongst JLF constituents for
incremental funding of their NPAs in SDR. However, there could be strategic
investments that might be justified through improvements in capital structure,
process, technological and sales effectiveness that could enhance the
attractiveness of the account for a potential bidder. Specialist shops, both
merchant banking and consulting arms exist within PSU banks themselves. In
addition, there are a plethora of outfits that could provide turnkey support to
the company which should look to outsource non-core activities. It is not clear
whether these are being actively planned for the SDR accounts, but these should
be considered too. The incremental expenditure might well be worth it in the asking
price and the management time that it saves of the JLF team.
The path less travelled
At the risk of
spouting clichés, it is very clear that banks are in uncharted territory with
the use of SDR as a tool for tackling NPAs. Notwithstanding the solid support
(read ear-wringing) of the RBI, it is up to the banks to embrace bold,
innovative solutions. This should also serve as a recurring reminder to the other
silent stakeholders – domestic financial institutions and the retail investor
community.
The hubris of the
promoters is as much a cause of NPAs as is the meekness of their shareholders. Participants
need to take a more active interest in the functioning of the companies that
they own. Selling out of companies that they don’t like is understandable, but
the hero worship of the companies that they like is unpardonable. Investors
should understand that today’s heroes could easily turn in to tomorrow’s
zeroes.
No comments:
Post a Comment