Volume 4, Issue 5 (May, 2015) Online ISSN-2320-0073

Published by: Abhinav Publication

Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in
Management & Technology
THE ROLE OF ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANIES
(ARCS) IN NON-PERFORMING ASSETS (NPAS)
MANAGEMENT IN INDIAN BANKING SECTOR: AN
EMPIRICAL STUDY
Dr. Manas Chakrabarti
Associate Professor, University of Gour banga, Malda,W.B., India
Email: manaschakrabarti38@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The unabated rise in stressed assets of the Indian banking sector is a reason for concern for the
economy. The problem is acute particularly among the state-owned Public Sector banks. With the
economic growth rate slowing down to less than 5% now there is additional stress on bank loans. The
Reserve Bank of India estimated that Non-performing Assets (NPAs) and stressed assets put together
account for 10% of total bank loans at the end of September, 2014. With the slowdown of the Indian
economy, a number of companies/ projects are under stress. As a result, the Indian banking system has
seen increase in NPAs and restructured accounts during the recent years. Asset reconstruction
companies (ARCs) in India came about after the SARFAESI Act of 2002 to act as a bad bank by
isolating NPAs from the balance sheet of bank/FII and facilitate the latter to focus on normal banking
activities. ARCs in India have been set up as non-government vehicles with the support from the
banking system rather than debt aggregation and funding support under a government
owned/supported model. As on 31st March, 2015 there are fourteen ARCs operating in India out of
which five are functioning as private company. Since 2003, selling loans through auction to ARCs in
return for Security receipts became popular with banks. However, in recent years this option has not
been exercised by the Indian banks in an encouraging manner. This paper is an in-depth analysis on
the role of ARCs in the Indian Banking Sector in respect of Stressed Assets Management (including
NPAs); this humble study also travel around on the various problems which hinder smooth functioning
of ARCs and try to explore prospects of ARCs in the Indian economy. This is an exploratory study on
the basis of secondary data.
Keywords: Asset Reconstruction Companies; Indian Banking Sector; Non-Performing Assets;
Stressed Assets; Security Receipts

INTRODUCTION
In the banking system, high level of NPAs can be serious drag on overall performance of economy due
to diversion of its management and financial resources towards recovery of NPAs. Greater the
resources needed by banks to reserve for losses, lesser is the amount of capital they can leverage.
Consequently it compel the banks to take conservative approach in providing new loans; which may
lead to credit crunch in the financial market, amounting to economic and financial degradation. During
the period from 2010 to 2014 gross NPAs of all banks in India increased from INR 85000 crores to
INR 204250 crores and Restructured Advances from INR 136,426 crores to INR 332,000 crores.
Asset reconstruction companies (ARCs) in India came about after the SARFAESI Act of 2002 to
empower banks and some financial institutions to seize collateral in secured loans, without the
involvement of courts. Asset Reconstruction Companies are act as a bad bank by isolated Non
Available online on www.abhinavjournal.com 56
 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
Performing Assets from the balance sheet of bank/FII and facilitate the latter to concentrate in normal
banking activities. This is about the in-sourcing vs. out-sourcing choice of banks. Some banks could
choose to build internal distressed assets teams. Others could choose to sell distressed assets to
specialised firms that have skills in dealing with distressed assets. Since 2003, ARCs are playing a
vital role in Stressed Assets management in India.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The present study aspires to make an overall evaluation on the functioning of ARCs in India in respect
of Non-performing Assets (NPAs) management. To be specific, the main objectives of the study are -
1. To explain the need for NPA management and identify the strategy need for the same.
2. To elucidate the conceptual aspect on ARCs.
3. To describe the functioning of ARCs including their transaction structure.
4. To explain the need for ARCs in NPAs management.
5. To analyse the performance of ARCs in India.
6. To elucidate the problems and prospects of ARCs in India.
Accordingly, the reminder of the paper is organised as under. Section three and four laid down the
need for NPAs management and strategy adopted for the same respectively. Section five and six
explain the conceptual aspects of ARCs and Security Receipts (SRs) respectively. Section seven
narrates down the history of ARCs in India. Section eight and nine represents a brief sketch over
various functions of ARCs and transaction structures to execute the same respectively. Section ten
focuses on the various benefits of ARCs. The next chapter, i.e. chapter eleven evaluates the
performance of ARCs in India. Problems and prospects of ARCs are discussed in chapter twelve and
thirteen respectively and on the basis some recommendations for effective functioning of ARCs are
made in chapter fourteen. The last section is devoted for concluding observations.
This study is basically exploratory in nature and the entire gamut of discussion has been made on the
basis of secondary sources. Secondary data are collected from various reports on ARCs published by
RBI, annual reports of various ARCs in India, reports of the various committees set up by the
government on ARCs and the publications of Association of Asset Reconstruction Companies
(AARCs). Parameters like ratios, percentage of growth and others are considered for some meaningful
comparison and analysis to evaluate the role of ARCs in India in respect of stressed assets
management and also to derive some concrete conclusion.
Non-performing Assets (NPAs): A Stress on the Banking System
The Introduction of Financial Sector reforms since 1991 have changed the visage of banking industry
in India to a great extent. The banking industry has moved steadily from a regulated environment to a
deregulated market based economy. With the beginning of liberalization and globalization, resulting in
market development there has been fabulous change in the intermediation role of banks in India. The
pace of transformation has been more noteworthy in recent times with technology acting as a catalyst.
Consequently, we are observing the cut throat competition in the banking industry these days.
Obviously, the problem of swelling non-performing asset (NPA) is catching attention and
accumulation of huge NPA has assumed immense importance in the context of economic growth. The
vitality of the Indian banking system, particularly Public Sector Banks which control 70% of the
banking business, is threatened by rising non-performing assets (NPAs). The gross NPAs of the Indian
Banks stood at INR 255400 crores and GNPA percentage is 5.10% as on 31.03.2014. Besides NPAs,
the stress assets (restructured standard advances) constitute about 5.9 percentage of the gross advances
as on 31.03.2014 (table 1). It is reported by some rating firms that NPAs in the banking system are set
to increase in the range of Rs.60,000 crores to Rs. 1 lac crore in the coming days. Non-performing
Assets are threatening the stability and demolishing bank’s profitability through a loss of interest

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 57 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
income, write-off of the principal loan amount itself. Therefore, the Indian banking system may not
sustain this enormous NPA pile-up.
Table 1. Stress in the Indian Banking System Rs. in crores
Items Years
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Gross NPAs (All banks) 84747 97922 142300 194000 255400
Increase in NPAs (YOY) 15774 13175 44378 51700 61400
Restructured Advances
136326 137602 218608 301000 332000
(RA)
Increase in Restructured
61122 1176 81006 82392 31,000
Advances (YOY)
Gross NPA as a % of Gross
2.5 2.3 2.9 3.6 5.1
Advances (i)
RA as a % of Gross
4.2 3.5 4.7 5.8 5.9
Advances (ii)
Total stress as a % to Gross
6.7 5.8 7.6 9.4 11.00
Advances (i + ii)
Strategy for NPAs Management
In India, Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) and Asset Reconstruction companies are two pronged
strategy to address the NPA resolution. Co-existence of CDR and ARCs is a mutually beneficial
association. CDR typically focuses on restructuring of viable businesses at early stages of distress
while ARCs would focus on cases involving multi-pronged workouts involving sale of businesses and
assets of the borrower company without any limit on size of the debt. In a multiple ARCs model, it
would be necessary to stay away from fragmentation of debt, particularly in respect of large and
medium sized NPAs. ARCs should focus on those cases where they are better positioned to aggregate
debt. This will make easy resolution process a “win-win” approach for all.
To resolve NPAs, debt aggregation capability and necessary skill sets for resolution are decisive.
ARCs with ability to aggregate debt of different classes are in a better position to tackle inter-creditor
issues. The debt aggregation capability provides better leverage in implementing resolution strategy.
Further, The Banking Regulation Act of India has provided wide-ranging powers to ARCs for
resolution of NPAs. ARCs have access to all possible routes available to banks/FIs for resolution as
also access to additional empowerments viz. step-in rights and change in management, sale or lease of
business. Thus, ARCs with focus and domain expertise in resolution and the statutory / regulatory
empowerments for resolution are in a better position to implement timely resolution strategy thereby
enhancing the value from recoveries.
What is Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)?
Asset Reconstructions companies were created to administer and recover Non Performing Assets
acquired from the banking system. They are acting as a bad bank by isolating NPAs from the balance
sheet of bank/FII and facilitate the latter to focus on normal banking activities. Banks and financial
institutions with a large proportion of their bad loans or Non Performing Assets can sell to a separate
entity i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company. Then Asset Reconstruction Companies recover a sum
through attachment, liquidation etc. The objective is to help banks in making clean books by reducing
NPAs. Asset Reconstruction Companies are also making profit by buying NPAs at a lower price. The
process is all about in-sourcing vs. out-sourcing choice of banks in respect of recovery of overdue.
Some banks prefer to build internal distressed assets teams. Others could choose to sell distressed
assets to specialised firms (i.e. ARCs) that have specialised skills in dealing with distressed assets.

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 58 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
What is Security Receipts (SRs)?
SARFAESI Act 2002 (Section 2(1)ZG) define Security Receipt as -“Security Receipt” means a receipt
or other security, issued by a securitization company (SCs) or reconstruction company (RCs) to any
Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) pursuant to a scheme, evidencing the purchase or acquisition by
the holder thereof, of an undivided right, title or interest in the financial asset involved in
securitization. Latter on RBI Circular dated May 28, 2007 further elaborates the concept of SRs as SRs
issued by SCs/RCs are predominantly backed by impaired assets. SRs have the following inimitable
features as compared to other types of securities issued on securitization of normal assets
 SRs are not a debt instruments since they combine the features of both equity and debt.
However, these are recognized as securities under Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.
 The cash flows from the underlying assets cannot be assessed in terms of value and intervals.
 The sale of SRs is restricted to QIBs only.
 These instruments when rated would generally be lower than investment grade. These
instruments are generally privately placed and presently not listed.
History of ARCs
A cross country experience suggests that ARCs have been successfully deployed to implement a
comprehensive NPA management strategy in the aftermath of systemic banking crisis. In East Asian
countries, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Thailand etc., the Governments have encouraged transfer of assets
to ARCs by making a supportive environment. In 1980s, United States used government sponsored
ARC - Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to trounce thrift crisis. Governments may also provide
special powers to ARCs that are not otherwise available to banking system.
In India the problem of recovery from NPAs was first time recognized in 1997 by the Government of
India. The Narasimhan Committee observe that an important aspect of the continuing reform process
was to soften the high level of NPAs as a means of banking sector reform. The committee believe that
with a mixture of policy and institutional development, rising concern for NPA could be arrested.
However, the enormous backlog of existing NPAs continued to chase the banking sector and this
impinged severely on the banks’ performance and ultimately their profitability. The Report envisaged
formation of an “Asset Recovery Fund” to take the NPAs off the lender’s books at a discount.
Accordingly, Asset Reconstruction Company (Securitization Company / Reconstruction Company) is
registered under Section 3 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest (SRFAESI) Act, 2002. It is regulated by Reserve Bank of India as a
Non Banking Financial Company (u/s 45I (f) (iii) of RBI Act, 1934). RBI has exempted ARCs from
the compliances under section 45-IA, 45-IB and 45-IC of the Reserve Bank Act, 1934. They will
perform like an AMC (Asset management Company) within the ambit of the RBI guidelines.
Transaction structure adopted by ARCs
Stage 1:
At first, an ARC acquires NPA by floating an SPV which acts as a trust whereby the ARC is a trustee
and manager. NPA are acquired from banks/FIs at fair value based on assessment of realisable amount
and time to decree. The banks/FIs may receive cash/bonds/debentures as consideration or may invest
in SRs issued by the ARCs.
The trust acquires NPAs from banks/FIs and raises resources by devising fund/ schemes for the
financial assets taken over. Accordingly, it issues securities to the investors which are usually QIBs.
Security Receipts represent undivided right, title and interest in the trust fund. Subsequently, the ARC
redeems the investment to the bank/FIs out of the funds received from the issued securities. After
acquiring the NPA, the trust becomes the legal owner and the security holders its immediate
beneficiaries. The NPAs acquired are usually held in an asset specific or portfolio trust scheme. In the
VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 59 Online ISSN 2320-0073
 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
portfolio approach, due to the small size of the aggregate debt the ARC constitutes a portfolio of the
loan assets from different banks and FIs. Whereas when the size of the aggregate debt of a bank/FI is
large, the trust takes asset specific approach.

Stage 2: Thereafter, different fund schemes are pooled together in a master trust scheme and sold to
other investors on an agreed term basis. The ARC periodically declares the NAV of respective
schemes.

Function of ARCs
In accordance with the Act and RBI guidelines, ARCs can acquire the financial assets of NPA
companies on their own balance sheet or through the trust structure by floatation of schemes for
raising resources through selling of Security Receipts (SRs) from QIBs. The “trust” structure for
acquisition and resolution of NPAs is most preferred structure by the investors and in generally in line
with the international practices.
As per RBI Notification no. DNBS.2/CGM (CSM)-2003, dated April 23, 2003, ARCs can perform the
following functions:-
1. Acquisition of financial assets (as defined u/s 2(L) of SRFAESI Act, 2002).
2. Change or takeover of Management / Sale or Lease of Business of the Borrower.
3. Rescheduling of Debts.
4. Enforcement of Security Interest (as per section 13(4) of SRFAESI Act, 2002).
5. Settlement of dues payable by the borrower.

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 60 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
Benefits of ARCs
Following are the benefits of ARCs
 Relieving banks from the burden of NPAs which could allow banks to focus better on
managing the core business and also tapping new business opportunities.
 By maximising recovery value through minimisation of cost, ARCs can bring back depositor
and investor confidence by ensuring the lender’s financial health.
 ARCs help in building industry expertise in loan resolution, besides serving as a catalyst for
important legal reforms in bankruptcy procedures and loan collection.
 ARCs play an important role in developing capital markets through secondary asset
instruments.
Performance of ARCs in India
Unlike in other countries where ARCs are government sponsored or government has direct
participation (including the funding support) in operations of ARCs, in India, the Government has
minimal participation in the Non-Performing Loan (NPL) resolution process. The Indian ARC model
envisages market forces to consolidate and attractively package lender interests, arrange funding for
providing clean exit to seller banks and lend focused attention for NPL resolution. In line with the
above objective, ARCs in India have been set up as non-government vehicles with the support from
the banking system rather than debt aggregation and funding support under a government
owned/supported model. Further, the Indian model envisages setting up of multiple ARCs and funding
to be arranged by ARCs on their own. As on 31st March, 2015 there are fourteen ARCs operating in
India out of which five are functioning as private company (table 2).
Table 2. List of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) in India as on 31st March, 2015.
Sl Public /
Name Sponsored by
no. Private
Asset Reconstruction Company
01 Public ICICI, SBI, IDBI and PNB
India Limited (ARCIL)
02 ASREC (India) Limited Public Unit Trust of India
Edelweiss Financial Services
03 Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Public
India Ltd.
Alchemist Asset Reconstruction
04 Public Alchemist Ltd.
Company Limited
Assets Care and Reconstruction
05 Public IFCI
Enterprise Ltd.
India SME Asset Reconstruction SIDBI, Bank of Baroda, United
06 Public
Company Limited bank of India and SIDBI Venture
Pridhivi Asset Reconstruction and Punjab National Bank, UCO
07 Public
Securitisation Company Limited bank and Andhra bank.
Reliance Capital, Corporation
Reliance Asset Reconstruction
08 Public Bank, Indian Bank, GIC of India,
Company Limited
Dacecroft and Blue Ridge.
UV Asset Reconstruction
09 Public N.A.
Company Limited
HDFC Bank, Tata Capital
Financial Services Ltd., City
International Asset Reconstruction
10 Private Union bank, FMO – Netherlands,
Company Private Limited
ICICI bank Ltd, Standard bank
plc UK
VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 61 Online ISSN 2320-0073
 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
Group of Professional from
Invent Asset Securitisation &
11 Private diversified field of banking, law,
Reconstruction Private Limited
Accountancy.
JM Financial Asset
12 Reconstruction Company Private Private JM Financial Services India Ltd.
Limited
Group of Professional from
Pegasus Asset Reconstruction
13 Private diversified field of banking, law,
Private Limited
Accountancy.
Group of Professional from
14 Phoenix ARC Private Limited Private diversified field of banking, law,
Accountancy.
Source: www.arcindia.co.in.
Since 2003, selling loans through auction to ARCs in return for SRs became popular with banks.
Certain banks started to offload a big chunk of NPAs from their books via this route. However, in the
past few years, this option has not been exercised by the banks in an encouraging manner. The primary
reason for low consummation of NPA auctions is due to price expectation mismatch between banks
and ARCs, contributed largely by the discount factor and pricing of risks associated with recovery
which comprise of estimate of realizable amount and period of realization. Although ARCs were
created as a systemic response to address growing NPAs but the recent experience suggests that while
NPAs are accelerating, flow of Assets to ARCs has rather been dreary (Figure 1). Again, Poor
performance of Security Receipts has affected the industry in two ways – firstly, the overall deals
between ARCs and banks have reduced considerably; secondly, more banks prefer cash sale to SRs.

Figure 1. Flow of NPAs to ARCs 2009 TO 2014 (Rs. in crores)

Problems with ARCs
During the period from 2003 to 2014 Stressed assets at banks (NPAs + restructured loans) have
increased from INR 0.7 trillion to INR 6.1 trillion in 2014. In this period, the annual sale of assets by
banks to ARCs has stagnated at INR 0.05 to INR 0.123 billion a year. Now let us discuss what went
wrong with ARCs in India –
1. Excessive Banking regulatory interference. ARC is simply a buyer of distressed debt and ARC
might be an individual, or a private equity fund, or any other structure. The sale should be a
clean transaction where distressed debt is sold and cash is paid to the lender. There are no
problems with the working of the ARC on the counts of consumer protection, micro-prudential
regulation or systemic risk, therefore the working of ARCs should be completely unregulated.
So far, this clarity of thought has been absent, and the working of ARCs has been riddled with
poorly thought out RBI regulations.

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 62 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
2. How banks should sell distressed assets is not clarified. Micro-prudential regulators of banks
are often keen to hide the problems of bank fragility. This problem has hampered sound
thinking about regulations governing provisioning and the sale of assets by banks to ARCs.
Actually Provisioning norms by Indian banks, are driven by regulatory prescriptions rather
than risk assessment. Even though an asset becomes non-performing after being overdue for
90 days, provisions for the loss associated with this are spread over a period of four years. This
generates a perverse incentive to not sell NPAs: provisioning for an NPA has a gradual impact
on the balance sheet of the bank while sale of the NPA has to be booked as an upfront loss. As
a result banks either hold on to these assets for longer than it is economically sensible, or sell
assets to ARCs only when the transaction is at or above book value. In addition, there are a
variety of procedural problems with the process of banks selling NPAs including auctions that
do not give adequate time for due diligence by ARCs, and auctions that are cancelled after
bids are received.
3. Feeble bankruptcy process. The ability of ARCs to realise value is defined by the bankruptcy
process. The legal framework for recovery are the debt recovery tribunals (DRTs), set up
under the RDDBFI Act, 1993, and the enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI
Act. But unfortunately both these mechanisms have performed poorly in resolving NPAs.
Recovery as a percentage of the outstanding amount for cases filed was at 19 percent and 16
percent for DRTs, in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The recovery percentages were 24 percent
and 22 percent under SARFAESI, in the same period. While RBI has allowed ARCs to take
over the management of the defaulting firm, restructuring under the provisions of the
Companies Act is a time taking process. It requires specialised management skills and long
term financing, both of which ARCs may not currently possess. Given the time and cost
involved in this type of restructuring, only NPAs with very high recovery potential will be
selected for this type of resolution.
4. In sourcing vs. outsourcing of distressed asset management: Ideally, the banking rules about
distressed assets resolution should be neutral to the identity of the debt holder. However, in
India, at numerous points, the powers in processing distressed debt favour banks and do not
give non-bank actors comparable powers. This creates incentives for in-sourcing of the
distressed debt function. Recovery process by ARCs usually involves taking possession of the
collateral security, settlement or rescheduling of payments, sale or lease or takeover of the
borrower's business and conversion of debt into equity. But the operational guidelines for
many of these were issued by RBI much after 2002. For example, the guidelines for
management takeover of the defaulting firm were issued in 2010, eight years after the Act was
passed, with subsequent amendments in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The guideline allowing
ARCs to sell assets to each other, which enables them to aggregate assets of a borrower for a
management takeover, came in 2013. As a consequence, from 2002 to 2013, ARCs were just
handicapped. Banks have been given additional power for dealing with stressed assets, that are
not available to ARCs. These include loan restructuring for individual assets, and the corporate
debt restructuring (CDR) mechanism for dealing with stressed consortium loans. Banks are
enjoying greater restructuring flexibility, under the CDR process, than do ARCs. For example,
both the CDR lenders and ARCs have been allowed to convert debt of the borrower firm to
equity. SEBI guidelines on lock-in period for share issuance have been relaxed for issuance
under the CDR mechanism. Unlike the requirement in the Indian Takeover Code, the acquirer
of shares in the CDR process is exempted from making an open offer. However, no such
exemptions have been provided for the conversion of debt to equity by ARCs.
5. Lack of adequate foreign skills and capital. A natural pool of expertise is global firms with a
specialisation in distressed debt management. Perhaps the only pool of capital that can pay
cash for distressed assets is overseas buyers. However, autarkic policies by RBI have restricted

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 63 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
the entry of foreign players, and capital controls have been used to block the inflow of foreign
capital. This choked ARCs of both capital and knowledge.
Therefore a question may arise, how ARCs survived in India in an environment riddled with mistakes
in regulation? There are two things that are helping ARCs to remain viable even in such a market. The
first is the low levels of capital that ARCs need to acquire NPAs. When ARCs issue SRs to finance the
NPA acquisition, it is done through trusts in which ARCs, as per RBI guidelines, need to have at least
5 percent of own investment. These SRs have a maturity of 5 years, which can be extended to 8 years
in special cases. This is the time-frame that ARCs have, in order to recover value from the acquired
assets. Any loss at the end of this period has to be borne by SR holders proportionately. Since the ARC
share in the loss from the asset is limited to 5 percent, it allows ARCs to acquire assets even at
uneconomic valuations. In most cases, the seller bank, who can sell assets at close to book value, itself
subscribes to the balance 95 percent of SRs. The second is the annual management fee (usually 1.5-2
percent of the acquisition value of the asset) that ARCs receive from the seller bank. The fee has no
link with the recovery from the asset. Hence, the ARC has little incentive to recover or resolve assets.
They just need to hold the assets till maturity of the SRs, during which they continue to earn the
management fee income. In this form of the sale transaction, the NPA risk remains in the bank balance
sheets and it is merely being reclassified as investment in SRs. Therefore ARC industry in India
remains ineffective so far NPA management is concerned.
Prospects of ARCs
On 30th January, 2014 RBI released a Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy,
with a number of changes in the operational framework for ARCs. The guidelines proposes the
following changes in the ARC framework –
 Assets in the 61 to 90 days category can also be sold to ARCs. This would encourage early
sale of distressed assets and better recovery.
 Banks allowed in spreading loss on sale over a two year period, for assets sold till March,
2015. They can also enjoy reverse provisions made for NPA, if there is gain on sale. This
would address banks' concerns on loss on sale of assets.
 It is obligatory for banks to accept bids in an auction that are above reserve price and fulfil
conditions specified.
 Steps have to be taken to improve price lucidity in price on bilateral sale of assets.
 Sale of assets between ARCs and their sponsor banks is permitted only through a see-through
and arms length auction. These would improve transparency in the sale process.
 Promoters of companies allowed buy-back assets from the ARCs, with ARCs demonstrating
no prior complicity between the ARC and the defaulting borrower, to the RBI.
All the above measures create a positive impact over ARCs functioning in India. On one hand, these
remove procedural snags faced by ARCs; on the other, there is pressure on Public Sector Banks
(PSBs) to offload their growing NPAs or face erosion in profits in the medium term. Both factors
contributed to a rapid gush in sale of NPAs from banks to ARCs in the last quarter of FY 2014. PSBs
take a leading role in this regard. For example, State Bank of India (SBI) in its Annual Report for FY
2014, has accounted a sale of INR 36 billion of NPAs to ARCs. The book value and the sale value of
these assets are INR 15 billion and INR 16 billion respectively, with SBI making a profit of INR 1
billion from these transactions.
The surge in NPA sale transactions in 2014 has led to the following further changes through the 5th
August, 2014 notification by the RBI in respect of ARCs-
 Increase ARCs capital commitment in the acquired asset from 5 to 15 percent.

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 64 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
 ARCs fees now linked to the net asset value (NAV) of the acquired assets rather than the
outstanding value of the security receipts. This means, shortfalls in recovery now affect ARC
fees.
 Amplified reporting and disclosure requirements for ARCs, especially when asset are sold by
banks above book value and for asset sale by ARCs at a significant discount.
 Increased time that ARCs get for due diligence at asset auctions, at least two weeks.
 Reduced planning period for acquired assets from one year to six months. This is also the time
frame within which the acquired asset needs to be re-rated or re-valued.
 Inclusion of ARCs in the Joint Lenders Forum (JLF) and a mandate for them to put up a list of
wilful defaulters on their website.
The changes initiated by RBI in 2014 are helping ARC to execute their transactions in the following
manner -
 Banks are now selling assets to ARCs without actual risk transfer, since 95 percent of the
value of the sale got back into banks' balance sheets as investment in SRs.
 ARCs earning fee income linked to the book value of the asset and not to its recovery value.
Low levels of ARCs capital commitments meant no real incentive for them to resolve NPAs.
 Promoters, even the wilful defaulters, getting relief from repaying their dues under the ARC
model, which was focused on warehousing instead of resolution of NPAs.
Recommendation for effective functioning of ARCs in India
The latest amendments in the Framework for Revitalising Distressed Assets in the Economy in 2014
have raised the ARCs risk in acquiring assets. ARCs will now need to make recoveries to earn fees and
to get returns on invested capital. However, the larger problems of these arrangements remain
unresolved. In order to make easier in distressed debt processing and ARCs work, the work plan for
policy makers should consists of the following elements:
 A comprehensible measures is required that the interference of RBI in regulations should stop
at the point of sale of distressed assets to the ARC. The working of the ARCs should be
unregulated as there is no market failure.
 Mistakes in micro-prudential regulations of banks, in recognition and provisioning for NPAs
by banks, need to be addressed.
 Banks should be required to do true sales in exchange of cash for distressed debt. This will
yield closure on the books of the bank. After the transaction, the ARC would work to obtain
recovery with no relationship to the original lender.
 The bankruptcy process should be improved.
 ARCs should be first class participants in the bankruptcy process. There should be no bias in
the bankruptcy process in favour of any one kind of financial firm such as bank.
 Establishment of operations by foreign ARCs should be practicable with 100% equity
ownership. Foreign capital into ARCs (whether private or foreign) should be welcome through
private equity structures. All institutional investors in India (but not banks) should be able to
invest capital into these private equity structures.
 Banks should only select the choice of selling (in exchange for cash) or not selling.

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 65 Online ISSN 2320-0073

 Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research In
Management & Technology
CONCLUSION
The best indicator for the health of the banking industry in a country is its level of NPAs. It reflects the
performance of banks. However, in recent years NPAs have become a major concern for the Indian
economy. ARCs with statutory/ regulatory powers can function in an effective manner as a nodal
resolution agencies co-existing with CDR mechanism in respect of NPA and stressed assets
management. But their business is not growing up due to number of reasons. Bank officials are
hesitant to sell bad loans because they fear this might be perceived as an admittance of failure to
recover the loan. They also fear vigilance inquiries. The growth of ARCs is important for the Indian
Economy. ARCs can add value by cutting short the time to resolution as well as maximizing the
recoveries. These practices will enable banks/ FIs to move to internationally accepted norms. There
should be mechanism to review to working of ARC which should work upon increasing the
transparency in the sector . The banks/ FIs that cannot sell the assets immediately to ARCs due to
possible balance sheet concerns should support the resolution efforts of ARCs. As more and more
private players enter into this sector, this space is really worth watching for.
REFERENCES
1. Alvarez and Marsal (2014), “Outlook for Stressed Asset market in India”, retrieved from
www.alvarezandmarsal.com/sites/default/files/.../india-stressed-assets.pdf.
2. Chakrabarty, K.C. (2012), “Indian Banking Sector: Towards the next orbit”, RBI Monthly
Bulletin.
3. Ghosh, S.K. (2012), “Bank books point to real slow down” , Financial Express, May.
4. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services (30th December,
2011), “Report of the key Advisory Group on the Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs)”,
retrieved from financialservices.gov.in/reports/reports_arcs.pdf as on 30.12.2011.
5. Kakker, R. (2005), “NPA management – Role of Asset Reconstruction Companies”, the Chartered
Accountant, May 2005, pp. 1522 - 1527
6. Kumar, N. (2003), “Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002”, The Indian Banker, May.
7. Mallya, K.G. (2005) “Beyond the Non Performing Assets”, M/S deepa publications.
8. Mishra, Hari H., (2014), “Asset Reconstruction Company: Systematic Approach to NPL
management”, retrieved from https://www.icsi.edu/portals/70/23112013S4.pdf
9. RBI Report on Trend and Progress of Banks in India (2010-15)
10. Shah A., Sharma A. and Thomas S., (August 23rd, 2014), “NPAs processed by asset reconstruction
companies- where did we go wrong”? Accessed from ajayshahblog.blogspot.com/.../npas-
processed-by-asset-reconstruction.
11. http://www.arcindia.co.in

VOL. 4, ISSUE 5 (May 2015) 66 Online ISSN 2320-0073