Exclusive: RBI Inspection Reports of 2013-15 on ICICI Bank Show No Clue of the Subsequent Storm
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) failed to do any credit analysis of the top-20 borrowers of ICICI Bank, even as their share had grown to 20.30% and had exposed the Bank to increased risk. Research undertaken by Moneylife, on the other hand, indicates that RBI deliberately concealed data that reflects on its own shortcomings in the quality of its annual inspections, its findings and its ability to ensure compliance.
 
RBI, in its role as banking regulator, conducts annual inspections / reviews of banks to ensure compliance with rules and maintenance of acceptable risk profile. 
 
Risk assessment reports (RAR) evaluate management and organisation risk, credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, and operational risk in three facets, viz., information technology (IT), non-IT, and other risks. 
 
RAR also identifies the control-gap which causes the inherent risk and computes the aggregate risk as a weighted average of the inherent and control-gap parameters. 
 
The findings on capital and earnings help in the estimation of capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR), and to identify and correct major areas of financial divergence. Identification of major areas of non-compliance is done to ensure compliance by the bank.
 
In the third article in this series of annual reports released by the RBI to activist Girish Mittal following his long battle with the regulator, I am examining the inspection reports of ICICI Bank for the years FY12-13, FY13-14 and FY14-15. 
 

At the very first glance, ICICI Bank’s risk profile for the three-year period up to FY14-15 shows continuous deterioration. 

 

The aggregate bank risk score was 2.040 in FY12-13 (which is described as medium risk) which rose to 2.396 in FY14-15 denoting heightened overall risk.
 
What happened with the Bank in the subsequent period after these reports, as well as the controversies surrounding its managing director and CEO, Chanda Kochhar are all in the public domain. What is clear is that RBI, in its inspections and evaluation of management, had no advance warning of the storm to come. 
 
A worrying fact that emerges is that the credit risk of ICICI Bank is higher than that of Axis Bank in all three years. More about this later.
 
 
Do the RBI reports capture critical risk factors adequately? Do they prescribe remedial measures and ensure adoption of such measures?  While it is difficult to answer the first question in the absence of more material, the answer to second question is clearly a negative.
 
Mismatch between Credit Score & Comments
 
In FY12-13 report, the effectiveness of the board was evaluated on the basis of participation in the meetings of the board and committees of the board, and a survey that captured board members' response to a questionnaire. 
 
It is unclear how such a survey can help evaluate the board’s efficacy. Given that the board members make strategic and operational decisions of the company, their efficacy can be tested only based on an empirical study of the quality of the board decisions. This was not done. 
 
In FY13-14, the board was stated to be providing strategic directions and was described as well-functioning. Calendar year 2015 was the year when asset quality review (AQR) was introduced by RBI. 
 
The FY14-15 report stated that the board and ACB had not examined why the Bank's internal system had not identified the divergences as identified by successive RBI onsite inspections including the AQR exercise. The comments on the board’s performance are not fully consistent with the deteriorating risk score from 1.656 to 2.006.
 
Risk Governance
 
In the FY12-13 report, RBI came down heavily on the risk governance. The board-approved policy on internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) was deficient in communicating the actual level of risk and its direction in operationalising the Bank's business strategy. 
 
Further, the report stated that the risk taking did not follow a well-defined strategic path. The FY13-14 report stated that the supervisory engagement under risk-based supervision (RBS) during the off-site risk discovery process had shown significant non-compliances. 
 
The FY14-15 report broadly examined the risk handling by the credit risk management group of the Bank. The risk governance aspects were not consistent and varied in all the three reports.
 
Credit Risk Assessment
 
For credit risk assessment, RBI has assessed the credit exposure based on sensitive sector exposure, exposure in restructured advances, unsecured advances, divergence in risk-weighted assets, shortfall in provisioning, recovery from NPAs (non-performing assets), upgradation from NPA, etc.
 
Looking at the parameters (table below) considered for credit risk, it appears that RBI has followed different algorithms to compute the credit risk score.
 
 
Stress Testing
 
Stress test is helpful to set the spread above the risk free rate, aside from assessing the impact of possible loss events. In the FY12-13 report, RBI observed that there was no internal minimum capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRAR) or trigger CRAR under internal capital adequacy assessment process. The Bank’s capital planning was based on optimistic projections. 
 
Certain risk factors reckoned by the Bank for stress testing of various risks were found to be very mild. Though the Bank’s approach was seen to be somewhat subjective, RBI concluded that the stress testing scenario chosen by the Bank as 'not severely adverse'. 
 
The FY13-14 report observed that stress testing of market risk factors was not a comprehensive exercise and market driven credit risk stress scenarios were not considered for their impact on the derivatives portfolio. 
 
The FY14-15 report stated that the computation methodology for market risk tolerance limit was flawed as the Bank had not computed all three stress scenarios (mild, moderate, severe), and had used results of only severe stress scenarios.
 
Among other things, review of value-at-risk (VaR) breaches in the Bank was needed. There was no consistency in the risk parameters, or any reference to the previous year’s findings in any report. 
 
Incoherent Approach
 
All the risk factors showed deterioration during the three-year period. It is incongruous that despite highlighting major credit and risk management issues, the reports did not make any recommendation, much less specific recommendations for corrective action. 
 
Correspondingly, the subsequent year’s report neither reviewed any corrective action-taken report nor took off seamlessly from the previous year’s report.
 
Further, there was inconsistency between the risk score and comments. 
 
The empirical models are subject to modelling risk, and validation is considered necessary to test their efficacy before relying on them. 
 
In the reports, RBI accepted the Bank’s exposure to borrowers at the ratings assigned, presumably based on the risk assessment model developed by CRISIL being used by the Bank, and did not do any credit analysis of the top-20 borrowers whose share had grown to 20.30% and had exposed the Bank to increased risk. Had RBI undertaken such credit analysis, it could have identified more Videocons in the Bank’s cupboard!
 
In short, inconsistency between the risk score and comments, lack of any recommendation to rectify steady deterioration in risk profile, and lack of seamless approach reflected RBI’s hands off and perfunctory approach. 
 
Editor’s Note: RBI has strenuously fought against the attempts to make inspection reports public and has even claimed a fiduciary relationship with regulated entities. All three analyses of the inspection reports done by Moneylife so far indicate that the RBI had a lot to hide with regard to its own shortcomings on the quality of its annual inspections, its findings and its ability to ensure compliance. 
 
Here are the inspection reports of the ICICI Bank as provided by RBI to Girish Mittal under the RTI Act...
 
 
 
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi

    4 months ago

    Shankar3 weeks ago Also, please analyze 2016, 2017 and 2018 inspection reports of ICICI Bank.
    My Reply to Shankar3- MORE SKELETONS SHALL FALL FROM THE CUP-BOARD.

    Prakash Bhate

    4 months ago

    The much celebrated Raghuram Rajan quit RBI in mid-2016. So these three reports were prepared during his watch. He was also very reluctant to disclose names of willful defaulters. So what's the difference between a thorough professional and the current Governor?

    Murli Chari

    5 months ago

    A very candid and lucid article highlighting the lapses on the part of RBI to carry its regulatory duty with due diligence. In case of ICICI bank there is gross negligence as their advances to Videocon and other corporates was the major chunk of advances made by the bank. This slack attitude of the regulatory authority is also the reason for PSBs mounting NPAs. Most of the audits are sheer eyewash as many lapses are ignored or overlooked. The government regulatory authorities must get the help of independent professionals who are having professional integrity. Crores of rupees of the tax payers are going down the drain. All the people responsible for the regulatory lapses must be taken to task. The higher managements of many organizations collude brazenly with the beneficiaries compromising the interest of their employers. The government must identify the black sheep and get rid of them. We need executives with impeccable integrity and commitment.

    P M Ravindran

    5 months ago

    I am practically clueless on economics, except that I know that one can spend only less than what one earns. So no comments on the expert analysis of the economics part. But one thing I can vouch for is the fraud perpetrated by the administrative authorities in the name of supervision. I am reminded of the episode from our epics of a asura who was killed by Bhim. The story goes that this asura was such a terror that the locals concluded a deal with him. Everyday they would send a cartload of food and the asura would be satisfied with having the food, including the bovines latched to the cart and the deliveryman. Bhim once undertook to be the delivery guy and killed him. Similar things have been experienced in the tax department initially with the traders allowing some of their members to be penalised even when they paid haftas to the authorities regularly. This was just to pull wool over the eyes of the public and show that they were doing a get job. Similar is the case with bank audits. The team generally will have a great time at the cost of the employees of the bank and prepare a report with a few silly mistakes recorded for record sake.

    I once sought the designation of the authority conducting annual inspection of collectorates and a copy of the latest inspection report. No prizes for guessing the response.

    Shankar

    5 months ago

    Also, please analyse the 2016, 2017 and 2018 inspection reports of ICICI Bank

    Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi

    5 months ago

    https://www.moneylife.in/article/exclusive-rbi-inspection-reports-of-2013-15-on-icici-bank-show-no-clue-of-the-subsequent-storm/57653.html
    1. Since the past 72 years, RBI has been doing lots of disservice to the nation + the Indian citizenry, with impunity.
    2. Even SC judgments are violated in the name of Autonomy.
    3. How about the accountability of audit firms, PSB Boards, CMDs/CEOs/EDs, ticking masters of RBI Audit department, Statutory Audits, who ensured the loot ab initio?
    4. SBI management has written off NPAs worth INR. 2 trillion [Rs.2 Lac crores] recently-How about publishing names of willful defaulters, filing FIRs, police/court personnel involved, & processes involved, even after constituting special courts?
    5. Whether our Indian jails are equipped to accommodate all these culprits running to thousands?
    6. How about NPAs of PSBs + Private Banks?
    7. However, India possesses sufficient qualified manpower, infrastructure, talent, money & space to resolve the unemployment issues faced by teaming millions of the youth.
    8. The lazy duds of ad-hocism in UFM & IBA have been playing with the lives of honest to the core, but gullible PSB employees + retirees. They violate with impunity PSB EMPLOYEES PENSION ACT, 1995 passed by the Parliament.
    9. thereat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fOf8rUrdw.
    10. SATYAMAEVA JAYATHE!!!

    REPLY

    RAJENDRA MOHANLAL GANATRA

    In Reply to Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi 5 months ago

    Very well said. The country continues to suffer extra ordinary governance deficit!

    Jayaraman

    5 months ago

    This is startling. Let us not look at Videocon in isolation. The quality of Credit Risk Management in the Bank is showing continued weakness. This could be attributed to Chanda Kochar's not so deeper involvement in the Credit scrutiny process (pending investigation of Videocon case). I think RBI should do constant verification of Top 20 borrowers, Top 50 borrowers and Top 100 borrowers of each bank and release regular publication in public domain to common citizens so as to improve their performance. Lastly, we should than Moneylife team for their continued aggression in bringing out these enlightening reports time and again.

    kiran

    5 months ago

    Kudos to Moneylife for publishing analysis on RBI annual inspection reports of SBI,Axis bank, Icici bank and helping the investors understand the implications of investing in banks.This is all the more important for the reason that no mainstream publication has done it till date. 24-hour business TV channels have not touched upon the subject matter of RBI reports at all although they advice relentlessly to buy stocks and never able to advise to sell and are not tired of celebrating their anniversaries all day long as crusaders of investors protection and as great champions of investors education with all fake celebrity endorsements of their channels.We salute the moneylife team and its specialist analysts and foremost the most committed RTI activist.

    TONY JOSE V

    5 months ago

    Excellent analytics and an eye opener to RBI

    Sebi asked to look at hiking companies' minumum public shareholding
    The government has asked market regulator Sebi to look at raising the minimum public shareholding level in listed companies to 35 per cent from the current 25 per cent, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said on Friday.
     
    Presenting the Union Budget 2019-20 in Parliament, Sitharaman said: "We have asked Sebi (Securities and Exchange Board of India) to examinine raising the minimum public shareholding to 35 per cent from the current 25 per cent." 
     
    Once tasked, Sebi will have to give a time frame for this to the companies. 
     
    This proposal is aimed at increasing liquidity in the stock markets and reduce share price manipulation. While the Indian market has largely been promoter-driven, a mandatory increase in public shareholding will help deepening of the bourses. 
     
    At the same time, such a move will help in tighter corporate governance, which has been slipping as evident from many recent cases. With disclosures being mandatory, such a move will also help protect investors and improve the corporate governance.
     
    Moreover, increase in the minimum public shareholding will bring in more liquidity and close off the avenues for price manipulation. 
     
    On the other hand, such a move will affect public sector banks (PSBs) in many of which the government shareholding is even higher than Sebi's current limit of 75 per cent. Repeated recapitalisation of PSBs in recent times has pushed up the government stake in state-run banks. 
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  • User

    RBI to regulate HFCs instead of National Housing Bank: Sitharaman
    Presenting her first Union Budget, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman proposed to transfer the regulatory authority over housing finance sector to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the National Housing Bank (NHB).
     
    Sitharaman told the Lok Sabha that the housing sector needs efficient and conducive regulation and that NHB plays a difficult and contracitory role of being both lender and regulator of the housing finance sector. "Efficient and conducive regulation of the housing sector is extremely important in our context. The National Housing Bank (NHB), besides being the refinancer and lender, is also regulator of the housing finance sector. This gives a somewhat conflicting and difficult mandate to NHB," she said.
     
    "I am proposing to return the regulation authority over the housing finance sector from NHB to RBI," the minister said. Necessary proposals have been placed in the Finance Bill," she added.
     
    This step is one among other steps announced on Friday to strengthen and better regulate the NBFC sector as non-banking financial companies (NBFC) in the country are facing severe liquidity crisis. The crunch situtation came to light after the infrastructure lending major IL&FS last September defaulted on a commercial paper.
     
    Among other decisions, Sitharaman said the government will provide one-time six months' partial credit guarantee to public sector banks for first loss of up to 10 per cent. 
     
    "Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are playing an extremely important role in sustaining consumption demand as well as capital formation in small and medium industrial segment," she said.
     
    "NBFCs that are fundamentally sound should continue to get funding from banks and mutual funds without being unduly risk averse. For purchase of high-rated pooled assets of financially sound NBFCs, amounting to a total of Rs one lakh crore during the current financial year, the government will provide one-time six months' partial credit guarantee to public sector banks for first loss of up to 10 per cent," the minister added.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    ramchandran vishwanathan

    5 months ago

    RBI must first regulate Banks properly . Hope it measures up to this additional responsibility

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone