Reports

3075 kb
Date : 24 Jan 2013
Report of the Expert Committee to examine Three Tier Short Term Cooperative Credit Structure (ST CCS)

Chapter No.

Particulars

  Letter of Transmittal
 

Summary and Recommendations

1

Background and Introduction

2

Rural Cooperative Banking and Reforms

3

Role of ST CCS in providing agricultural credit

4

Financial performance of STCCS - an Overview

5

Financial Sustainability of STCCS

6

Strategies for higher CRAR and Consolidation

7

Policy Measures and other Initiatives Required

Annexures

Appendices

1

Details of Meetings of Committee

2

List of Participants

3

Views of members

4

Report of the Study conducted by Prof H S Shylendra, Committee Member

Letter of Transmittal

Chairman

15 January 2013

Dr D Subbarao
Governor
Reserve Bank of India
Central Office
Mumbai

Respected Sir

Expert Committee to Examine Three-Tier
Short Term Cooperative Credit Structure (ST CCS)

The Reserve Bank of India had constituted the above Committee vide order D.O RPCD.CO.RCBD.593/07.06.000/2012-13 dated 23 July 2012.

I am happy to place the report containing the analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the Committee for your kind perusal and consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Prakash Bakshi
Chairman of the Committee


Summary and Recommendations

1. The Expert Committee was constituted by RBI to have a relook at the functioning of the short-term cooperative credit structure (ST CCS) from the point of view of the role played by ST CCS in providing agricultural credit, to identify central cooperative banks (CCBs) and state cooperative banks (StCBs) which may not remain sustainable, and to suggest appropriate mechanisms for consolidation or delayering of the ST CCS and make recommendations for action to be taken by various stakeholders. The analysis, conclusions drawn, and recommendations made by the Committee are indicated below.

2. The Committee noted that the share of ST CCS in providing agricultural credit has fallen to a mere 17% at the aggregate level although there are small pockets where its share is more than 50%. The Committee is of the opinion that ST CCS, which was primarily constituted for provision of agricultural credit must provide at least 15% of the agriculture credit requirements in its operational area, gradually increasing to at least 30%.

(para: 3.14)

3. The Committee also noted that almost 40% of the loans provided by PACS and almost half the loans provided by CCBs are for non-agricultural purposes, although the share of many of these PACS and CCBs in agricultural credit was less than 30% in their operational area. The Committee noted with concern that these PACS and CCBs were not performing the role for which they were constituted. The Committee therefore recommends that CCB should strive to provide at least 70% of their loan portfolio for agriculture. The Committee also recommends that if a CCB or StCB consistently underperforms and provides less than 15% share of agricultural credit in the operational area, then that bank should be declared and treated as an urban co-operative bank. The Committee also noted that StCBs in the NER region as well as smaller states and union territories like Delhi, Goa, Chandigarh, etc. provide insignificant credit to agriculture and are catering to the requirements of only the urban population and may therefore be declared and treated as urban cooperative banks. Necessary amendments in the State Cooperative Societies Acts, Rules and byelaws of these banks may have to be carried out for this purpose.

(paras: 3.14, 3.15 & 3.17 )

4. As deposits made by members with PACS are not covered by DICGC, and not being part of the banking system PACS will not be in a position to issue kisan credit cards (KCC) transactable/working on ATMs and POS devices, it would be most appropriate for CCBs to provide these services directly by using PACS as their business correspondents (BCs). All the depositors and borrowers of PACS therefore would become normal shareholding members of the CCB with voting rights for all 'active' members. Definition of active members with reference to deposits and loans may be provided by RBI or an agency authorised by it. Necessary amendments in the State Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and bye-laws will be necessary in each state.

(paras: 6.39 & 5.26)

5. Almost two thirds of the deposits with StCBs are deposits made by CCBs in the form of term deposits for maintenance of their SLR and CRR requirements. However, StCBs lend far higher amounts to the same CCBs and also invest in loans which had generally resulted in higher NPAs, thus actually putting the SLR and CRR deposits made by CCBs to risk. While StCBs should definitely try to diversify their lending portfolio, ways to keep these investments safe need to be found. The Committee recommends that StCBs (and CCBs) may as a possible measure, be given a higher share in the food consortium credit.

(para: 4.17)

6. To the extent StCBs are able to mobilise deposits from individuals, cooperatives other than CCBs and other entities, and also function as aggregators of refinance requirements on part of CCBs, they would continue to conduct the important function of providing liquidity support to affiliated CCBs, although technically each CCB can receive such liquidity support directly from any other bank or financial institution also.

(para: 7.4)

7. Division of a state into two or more independent states should not be a compelling reason for the division of a well-functioning StCB and the possibility of converting such StCB into a multistate federal cooperative bank must be explored. Necessary amendments in the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, BR Act, and NABARD Act would have to be carried out for this purpose.

(para: 7.7)

8. About 238 CCBs already have a CRAR of 7% or more, and 2/3 of them would be able to meet additional capital requirements and sustain CRAR of at least 7% by 2014-15 and of 9% by 2016-17. However, a large number of CCBs and some StCBs do not have adequate capital to meet even the relaxed licensing norm of 4% CRAR. The Committee recommends that 31 March 2013 may be set as the deadline for these banks to mobilise the required capital either internally or from any other external source so as to achieve 4% CRAR failing which RBI should take the necessary regulatory action.

(para: 6.11)

9. To assess the additional capital requirements, the Committee used four scenarios: Model 1 with fixed growth rates for different parameters, Model 2 with continued past trend, and Models 3 and 4 with accelerated growth for different parameters.

(paras: 5.16,5.23 & 6.15)

10. The Committee estimated that 209 CCBs of the 370 CCBs will have to mobilise, as an aggregate, ` 4,024 crore by 2014-15 and ` 6,498 crore by 2016-17 to achieve CRAR of 7% and 9% respectively. Bank-wise, these amounts range from as low as ` 1.84 lakh to ` 282 crore. The Committee has estimated that about 151 CCBs should be able to mobilise the required capital from their members1 by asking the members to contribute amounts ranging from ` 2 to ` 4000 over a period of 4 years.

(paras: 5.16,5.23 & 6.15)

11. The Committee also recommends the following to help CCBs augment their capital.

a. CCBs may be permitted by RBI to issue fixed interest bearing deposits of 10 years or more with a lock-in period of five years for its members and to treat such deposits as tier 1 capital. These deposits could be converted into regular shares after the CCB achieves the required CRAR.

(para: 5.30)

b. CCBs may be permitted to issue perpetual bonds or debt instruments to be contributed by states, individuals and other entities, and the same to be treated as tier 1 capital.

(paras: 5.31 & 5.32)

c. Share capital deposits with PACS created through releases of GoI and the state shares may be transferred to the concerned CCBs if not eroded due to the losses.

(para 5.27)

d. CCBs may increase the percentage of share linking for all the loans provided by them

(para 5.28)

e. RBI may permit tier 2 capital to be treated as tier 1 capital to an extent of 150% of tier 1 capital fund for a period of five years.

(para 5.33)

12. The Committee has also estimated that about 58 CCBs would generally not be able to mobilise the required capital, or their business sizes are so small that they would not be sustainable in the long run and would have to be therefore consolidated with other CCB(s). The Committee has worked out illustrative examples of such possible consolidations and recommends that a working group may be constituted in each state for working out details of such possible consolidations in dialogue with the concerned stakeholders and preparing an action plan. The Committee recommends that broad parameters for attempting such consolidations should be a minimum business level Rs 200 crore for the consolidated CCB and achieving CRAR of 7% by 2014-15 and 9% by 2016-17 with a concrete action plan for contributing any additional capital that may be required. Contiguity of operational area may be given preference.

(paras 6.21 to 6.37)

13. Most of the CCBs and StCBs will also have to take concrete steps to improve their internal systems, human resources, and technology adoption. The Committee has also recommended various steps for improving the governance and management in StCBs and CCBs on the lines of recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Task Force.

(para 7.9)

14. An autonomous cooperative election authority may conduct elections for StCBs and CCBs and amendments may be made in the Cooperative Societies Act of each state ensuring that any director on the Board of these banks removed or superseded by RBI for any financial irregularity or if the bank incurs losses in any three years during their term of five years may be barred from contesting elections to any CCB or StCB for a period of five years.

(para:7.9 i)

15. BR Act may be amended to give direct and overriding authority to RBI over any other law for superseding the Board or removing any director on the board of StCB or CCB and to prescribe the number of professionals, each from a different specialisation, to be elected, or co-opted within three months of the election, on the board of StCB or CCB.

(para:7.9 ii & ii)

16. The panel of statutory auditors for StCB or CCB, being a banking entity, to be prescribed by RBI or an agency authorised by RBI although the recent Constitutional amendment requires the state government to prescribe the same.

(para:7.9 iv)

17. RBI to modify banking licence of any CCB to include additional operational area from which a PACS could work as BC of a CCB.

(para: 7.9 v)

18. State Cooperative Societies Acts to be amended so as to provide the authority to StCBs and CCBs in taking business decisions such as percentage of share linkage, making investments, paying dividends etc within the directions and guidelines prescribed by RBI.

(para: 7.9 vi)

19. 30 September 2013 to be set as deadline for all StCBs and CCBs to be fully operational on CBS and providing RTGS, NEFT, ATM and POS device based services.

(para: 7.10)

20. StCBs and CCBs to be fully included in the financial inclusion and EBT drive. Deposits of governments and government agencies to be also made in StCBs and CCBs which have achieved 7% CRAR and are on CBS.

(para: 7.11)

21. CCBs and StCBs to be covered by the banking Ombudsman or a similar mechanism that may be developed by RBI with NABARD.

(para: 7.12)

22. A working group to be set up to make recommendations on the human resources requirements following the transition of StCBs and CCBs on CBS and other ICT platforms.

(para: 7.13)

23. GoI may consider giving income tax exemption to StCBs and CCBs up to 2016-17 for incentivizing them to achieve 9% CRAR.

(para: 7.14)

24. RBI may consider graded CRAR norms for CCBs and StCBs of different business sizes.

(para: 7.15)

25. An independent organisation may be set up by CCBs and StCB in each state for providing support services.

(Para 7.8)

___________
1
All depositors and borrowers, presently of PACS, would become direct customers of CCBs once PACS started functioning as BCs and would have to become shareholding members of CCBs. Their loan-linked shares would also stand transferred to the CCBs.


Chapter 1
Background and Introduction

1.1 The Committee on Financial Sector Assessment (CFSA)1 had looked into the financial health of banks including the cooperative banks and made several recommendations for improving the financial health and systems for attaining and maintaining financial stability. The CFSA had reviewed the cooperative and rural banking sector as well and made the following recommendations, among others, relating to cooperative banks:

a. The prevalence of the three-tiered structure leads to an increase in transaction cost that diminish profit margins. Also, there is considerable interference by the elected board in the day-to-day management of these banks, which ordinarily should be the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Further, officials from the state government deputed to these banks may have neither the professional skills nor the requisite experience to run the banks, though recent initiatives of incorporating fit-and-proper criteria for the CEO and directors in the MoU is expected to alleviate this problem.

b. The suggestion by the Vaidyanathan Committee to introduce a risk weightbased capital requirement of 7 per cent should be implemented.

c. Rural co-operative banks, which fail to obtain a licence by end-March 2012, should not be allowed to operate.

1.2 In the last two years, RBI and NABARD implemented a roadmap for issue of licences to unlicensed state co-operative banks (StCBs) and central co-operative banks (CCBs) in a non-disruptive manner, with an intention to complete the licensing agenda by end of March 2012. After considering NABARD’s recommendations for issuance of licences based on inspection or quick scrutiny, 41 out of 370 CCBs were found to be unable to meet the licensing criteria by end-March 2012. RBI, therefore, allowed time upto 30 September 2012 for concrete steps to be taken by these 41 banks and the respective state governments for meeting the licensing parameters. Based on the capital infusion and other support provided by the states, NABARD recommended for issuance of licence to 15 banks and the balance 26 CCBs, however, did not meet the criteria by the set date, i.e., 30 September 2012. Further, 6 StCBs and 23 CCBs which had been granted licence by RBI earlier were found to be not able to maintain the 4% CRAR as on 31 March 2012. It is in such a background that RBI decided to have a relook at the working of the three tier rural cooperative banking structure, and constituted an Expert Committee (please see Annexure-1 for the RBI notification) under the Chairmanship of Dr. Prakash Bakshi, Chairman, NABARD and with representatives from GoI, RBI, State Govt., StCB and other experts as members with the following Terms of Reference (ToR):

I. To assess the role played by State & District Central Cooperative Banks in fulfilling the requirement of agriculture credit, the primary purpose for which they were set up.

II. To identify Cooperative Banks that may not be sustainable in the long run even if some of them have met the diluted licensing criteria for the time being.

III. To suggest appropriate mechanism for consolidation by way of amalgamation, merger, takeover, liquidation and delayering.

IV. To suggest pro-active measures that need to be taken in this direction by the Cooperative Banks themselves, GoI, State Govts, RBI and NABARD.

V. Any other issues and concerns relevant to the subject matter.

The Committee comprised the following members:

1. Dr. Prakash Bakshi, Chairman, NABARD

: Chairman

2. Shri V. Ramakrishna Rao, ED, NABARD

: Member

3. Shri Umesh Kumar, Joint Secretary, DFS, GoI

: Member

4. Dr. Mona Sharma, Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Govt. of Odisha

: Member2

5. Shri Yadavalli Vijendra Reddy, President, APCOB

: Member

6. Dr. B. Yerram Raju, Director, Development & Research Services (P) Ltd (Expert in the field)

: Member

7. Dr. H. S. Shylendra, Professor, IRMA, Anand

: Member

8. Shri C.D. Srinivasan, CGM, RBI, RPCD, CO

: Member Secretary

Approach

1.3 Basic premise of the Committee for analysing the business and financials, to arrive at conclusions and making recommendations was that ST CCS has been primarily set up for agricultural lending. In order to fulfil this obligation, a minimum of 15% market share in agricultural credit should be attained by the CCBs in their operational area and the percentage of agricultural lending should be at least 70% in their total loans outstanding. Attainment of CRAR at the designated level and maintaining the same and achieving higher CRAR within a time frame is of paramount importance and indicator of sustainable viability of the banks. Additional capital should be mobilised primarily through members’ contribution and supplemented from other sources.

Methodology

1.4 Chairman of the Committee had an initial discussion with Dr K C Chakrabarty, Deputy Governor, RBI, for setting the broad contours and framework for the working of the committee, given the short span of about three months in which the Committee was required to submit its report. The Committee decided to obtain feedback from representatives of all the three tiers through formal and informal meetings, and held discussions with select representatives of cooperative banks and PACS, NAFSCOB members and officials, state govt. officials, eminent experts, and All India Cooperative Bank Employees Federation (AICBEF). Further, the ToR of the Committee was uploaded on the website of NABARD for soliciting comments and suggestions from interested persons and stakeholders. State governments and cooperative banks were also advised to give their views and suggestions on the TOR for consideration of the Committee. The Committee members also met several times in formal and informal meetings to discuss and finalise the analysis and contents of the report. (Details are furnished in Appendix 1,2 and 3). Dr Shylendra, member of the Committee took up a special study of the roles played by the StCB and CCBs in Gujarat (Appendix 4).

1.5 The Committee obtained available data on ground level credit flow to agriculture by CCBs and by all other agencies in the operational areas of CCBs alongwith the financial data and balance sheets of StCBs and CCBs as on 31 March 2012. Data and other relevant information from PLPs, State Focus Paper, inspection reports of NABARD, agenda notes of SLBC, etc. alongwith data available from NAFSCOB, RBI, NABARD, and reports of various Committees was used. Given the weak database and MIS of the cooperative credit structure, the Committee made all possible efforts to verify and sanitise the data as far as possible before its use.

The report has captured changing scenario of rural banking (Chapter 2), the role of ST CCS in agricultural credit flow (Chapter 3), detailed analysis of financial performance of the entire ST CCS (Chapter 4), assessment of additional capital under different growth scenarios for achieving 7% CRAR by 2014-15 and 9% by 2016-17(Chapter 5), strategies for attaining higher CRAR and consolidation/ liquidation measures wherever necessary (Chapter 6) and various policy measures and initiatives required for strengthening the ST CCS (Chapter 7).

1.6 The Committee would like to place on record its appreciation for the inputs received from the Chairmen and Presidents, MDs and CEOs of all StCBs/ CCBs, officials of state governments, members and CEO of NAFSCOB, eminent experts, members of AICBEF and other interested people, who have provided valuable suggestions and comments. The entire analysis of the financials of ST CCS including conceptualisation of various growth scenarios and developing the analysis matrices on which the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee are based was carried out by Dr. U.S. Saha, General Manager, Shri A.V. Joshi, AGM and Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi, AGM who were ably supported by S/Shri A K Parhi, DGM, J Suresh, AGM, Smt Y Nagalatha Rani, AGM, S M Sule, Manager, Rajendar Perna, AM, Ramesh Kumbhare, AM and A P Chandrahasan, AM in compilation and cleansing of data as well as data analysis. Shri Manoj Raiwad, SDA, Shri Vaibhav Wadkar, DA and Smt Vedanti Khandalkar, DA-WP provided competent logistical support to this team. The Committee would like to record its appreciation for the indepth analysis of such voluminous data by this team in such a short period. The valuable inputs and suggestions received from S/Shri K V Rao, CGM, P B Subramanian, AGM and other colleagues in departments of Supervision and Institutional Development in NABARD are also duly acknowledged. The Committee also thanks all the Regional Offices of NABARD for providing information and organising various formal and informal meetings from time to time.

1.7 The Expert Committee is grateful to RBI for the opportunities given to the Committee and guidance provided. The Committee has made concerted efforts in analyzing the financials of cooperatives and made suggestions with the best of the knowledge of the Committee.

1

Chapter 2
Rural Cooperative Banking and Reforms

2.1 Rural credit cooperatives were born more than 100 years ago, and developed into two distinct streams of agricultural credit, one basically meeting the crop loan requirements of farmers, and the other supporting farmer level capital investments in agriculture. The structure which primarily meets the crop loan requirements is a three-tier structure in most of the states with primary agricultural credit cooperative societies (PACS) with farmers as their members at the base level, central cooperative banks (CCBs) as the intermediate federal structure with PACS as principal affiliated members, and the state cooperative bank (StCB) at the apex state level with CCBs and other cooperatives as its principal members. This three-tier cooperative credit structure is popularly known as the short-term cooperative credit structure (ST CCS).

2.2 The ST CCS functions as a three-tier structure in 16 states; while in 13 smaller states & union territories, PACS are directly affiliated to the StCB and the ST CCS functions as a two tier structure. In 3 states, a mixed structure, i.e., two tier in some districts, and three-tier in the other districts operates.

2.3 In principle, PACS was expected to mobilise deposits from its members, and use the same for providing crop loans to the needy members who need it. However, as deposits in PACS may not be enough to meet the loan requirements of all its farmer borrowing members, PACS draw support from the federal structure, viz., the CCB/StCB. The CCB was therefore constituted as a small bank working in small towns to mobilise deposits from public and provide the same for supporting the credit needs of PACS and its members. As part of the federal structure, the CCB was expected to also provide guidance and handholding support to PACS. StCB was set up in each state not only to mobilise deposits and thereby provide the required liquidity support to CCBs and PACS, but to also provide the required technical assistance, guidance and support to CCBs and PACS in fulfilling their obligations towards their farmer members. Wherever required, the StCB was also expected to mobilise liquidity and refinance support from the higher financing institutions like NABARD for supporting the crop loan operations of CCBs and PACS affiliated to it. Over time, ST CCS has also been providing medium term loans for investments in agriculture and for the rural sector, often with refinance support of NABARD.

2.4 As on 31 March 2012, the ST CCS comprised about 93,000 PACS, 370 CCBs and 32 StCBs.

2.5 The ST CCS was the only institutional arrangement for providing agricultural credit until 1969. However, after nationalisation, commercial banks (CBs), and later, the regional rural banks (RRBs) which were established from 1975 onwards, also started catering to the needs of agriculture and rural development sectors.

2.6 The banking scenario is changing constantly and significantly due to rapid and radical reforms taking place in Indian banks since 1993. Application of prudential banking norms including norms for income recognition and asset classification (IRAC) and capital adequacy based on the risk (CRAR) to make them stronger and competitive was followed by capitalisation of public sector commercial banks and RRBs. Although IRAC norms were gradually applied to the StCBs and CCBs, the risk based capital norms were not applied to them for a variety of reasons.

2.7 In the meanwhile, the Committee on Financial Sector Assessment (CFSA), set up by GoI in September 2006 under the Chairmanship of Dr Rakesh Mohan looked into the financial health of all banks including the cooperative banks and made recommendations for improvement of financial health and systems for attaining/maintaining financial stability. A major recommendation of the Committee was to prohibit unlicensed banks from functioning beyond March 2012.

Reforms in ST CCS

2.8 The poor financial health of the ST CCS had been a cause of concern during the past five decades, and several committees had, in the past, been constituted to look into the problems that plague the sector and make recommendations. The latest was the Task Force chaired by Prof. A Vaidyanathan (2004-05) which suggested wide-ranging reforms in the governance and management of ST CCS including crucial amendments to the respective State Cooperative Societies Acts which were to precede the recommended one-time capitalisation jointly by the Central government and the state governments (with certain contribution required to be coughed up by the ST CCS of the state itself).

2.9 Based on the recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Task Force, the GoI announced a package for revival of the ST CCS in 2006, which sought:

  • legal and institutional restructuring to make PACS, CCBs and StCBs democratic, member driven, autonomous and self-reliant institutions,

  • radical changes in the legal framework to empower the RBI to take action directly in matters deemed appropriate for prudent financial management of banks,

  • one-time financial assistance to wipe out accumulated losses and strengthen the capital base of each assisted institution to ensure CRAR of 7%, and

  • qualitative improvement in personnel in all tiers and at all levels through capacity building and other interventions, leading to an increase in overall efficiency.

Status of implementation

2.10 The status of implementation of the Revival Package, as on 31 December 2012 is as under:

  • Twenty-five state governments signed the MoU with GoI and NABARD to participate in and implement the package, and 21 States amended the respective State Cooperative Societies Acts.

  • An amount of ` 9,002 crore was released by NABARD as GoI share, while the state govts. released ` 856 crore as their share for recapitalisation of 53,202 eligible PACS in 17 States. Recapitalisation assistance could not be released in many cases as the states did not complete all the necessary benchmark activities within the stipulated period.

Impact of the Revival Package

2.11 Impact studies conducted in 13 States showed positive and visible impact of the implementation of the revival package in certain areas like:

  • Institutional and legal reforms including amendments to Cooperative Societies Acts, Rules, and Byelaws, thus creating the basis for autonomy to the banks and PACS.

  • Release of recap assistance leading to improve liquidity of PACS which enabled them to re-commence lending and restore cash flow and income streams.

  • The assisted PACS could attain CRAR of 7% after recapitalisation and many of them were able to maintain the same.

2.12 Post implementation of the revival package, financial indicators have shown varying degrees of improvement in all the three tiers of CCS. Loans disbursed by PACS during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 registered a growth of 73% in Uttar Pradesh, 53% in Madhya Pradesh and 23% in Odisha. The annual average growth rate during the period 2003-04 to 2009-10 ranged from 62% in Odisha to 38% in Haryana. Small and marginal farmer coverage was a priority with the CCS and continued to be around 70% during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 in Madhya Pradesh & Uttar Pradesh.


Chapter 3
Role of ST CCS in providing agricultural credit

Credit flow to Agriculture – Macro Analysis

3.1 The predominance of the cooperatives as the key credit provider of agricultural credit continued till mid-nineties when it was still meeting about 50% of agricultural credit provided by the entire banking system to farmers. But, with commercial banks stepping up their agricultural financing from 2001 onwards, and especially from 2003-04 onwards when the 'doubling the agricultural credit' campaign started, commercial banks today provide almost three fourths of the total agricultural credit in the country with RRBs providing another 10% or so. The net result is that despite a modest growth of about 20% per year in its agricultural credit dispensation during the last five years, and having a rural penetration of over 93,000 PACS as compared to only about 50,000 rural and semi-urban branches of CBs and RRBs, the share of the cooperatives in agricultural credit has fallen to about 17% in 2011-12 (as shown in table below).

Agricultural Loans Disbursed during the Year

(` in crore)

Agency

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Coops.

42,480

48,258

46,192

63,497

78,121

87,963

(18)

(19)

(15)

(17)

(17)

(17)

RRBs

20,435

25,312

26,765

35,217

44,293

54,450

(9)

(10)

(9)

(9)

(9)

(11)

CBs

1,66,485

1,81,088

2,28,951

2,85,800

3,45,877

3,68,616

(73)

(71)

(76)

(74)

(74)

(72)

Total

2,29,400

2,54,658

3,01,908

3,84,514

4,68,291

5,11,029

Figures in brackets indicate percentage share of different agencies to total agricultural credit

3.2 Although cooperatives are providing only 17% of agriculture credit, the share of cooperatives in total number of agricultural accounts held by the banking system is substantial. Cooperatives provided agricultural credit to 3.09 crore farmers during 2011-12 compared to only 2.55 crore farmers by commercial banks and 82 lakh by the RRBs. In fact, cooperatives financed 67 lakh new farmers during 2011-12 compared to 21 lakh new farmers by commercial banks and only 9 lakh new farmers by RRBs (as shown in table below).

Number of Loan Accounts Financed during the Year

(in lakh)

Agency

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Coops.

189

202

178

204

242

309

RRBs

62

62

76

73

73

82

CBs

172

175

202

205

234

255

Total

423

439

456

482

549

646

3.3 The success of cooperatives in reaching out to new farmers or those who had gone out of the active credit fold of the banking system is the real impact of the implementation of the Vaidyanathan revival package and implementation of the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme in its true spirit.

3.4 Such high penetration by the cooperatives despite having a low share in the total agricultural credit flow has the immediate implication of per account loan at ` 28,467 (2011-12) being provided by cooperatives as compared to ` 66,000 per account by RRBs and almost ` 1.5 lakh per account by commercial banks (as shown in table below). This trend has been prevailing in the past also.

Agricultural Loan Disbursed per Borrowing Account

(Amt. in `)

Agency

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Coops.

22,476

23,890

25,951

31,126

32,281

28,467

RRBs

32,960

40,826

35,217

48,242

60,675

66,402

CBs

96,793

1,03,479

1,13,342

1,39,414

1,47,810

1,44,525

3.5 Given the increasing trend in fragmentation of holdings and growing preponderance of small and marginal farmers who would require much smaller quantities of loans as compared to medium and large farmers, an inference could perhaps be drawn that cooperatives are increasingly supporting the neglected or sidelined category of small and marginal farmers. Although this is a positive sign, the fact cannot be overlooked that almost 55% of the agricultural loan accounts of commercial banks and almost 72% of the agricultural loan accounts of RRBs also pertain to small and marginal farmers (as shown in table below).

Small and Marginal Farmer Accounts for Loans Disbursed during the Year

(No. in lakh)

Agency

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Coops.

101

118

97

128

159

205

 

(53)

(58)

(55)

(63)

(66)

(66)

RRBs

40

42

43

50

52

59

 

(65)

(67)

(57)

(69)

(71)

(72)

CBs

74

97

106

107

125

141

 

(43)

(55)

(52)

(52)

(53)

(55)

Total

215

257

246

285

336

405

Figures in brackets indicate percentage of small and marginal farmer accounts to total accounts

3.6 It is therefore, not that cooperatives alone finance small and marginal farmers, while other banks finance only large farmers, as is often made out. At the same time, as has been mentioned elsewhere, cooperatives are severely constrained in terms of resources for lending, due to which PACS in almost all the states have prescribed individual maximum borrowing power (IMBP) as an outer ceiling for any individual loan to their members. Although there is no documented evidence, given the fact that the proportion of small and marginal farmers financed by RRBs is much higher than by cooperatives, and the per loan account amount provided by RRBs is almost 2½ times that provided by cooperatives, the possibility of fairly large number of borrowers from cooperatives being underfinanced and not getting adequate loan to meet their requirements and some members not getting any loans at all cannot be ruled out. The resources position as well as the other than agricultural3 credit business of the ST CCS therefore, needs to be looked in greater detail.

Agricultural Credit by different Tiers of ST CCS4

Role of PACS

3.7 84,327 PACS affiliated to 366 CCBs5 issued agricultural loans aggregating ` 67,531 crore, which constituted 92% of the total agricultural credit of ` 73,313 crore disbursed by CCBs (Annexure 3.1). In other words, only about 10% of the agricultural loans issued the PACS were supported through deposits mobilised by PACS and the rest 90% had to be provided by CCBs either through their own resources or through borrowings.

3.8 Agricultural loans issued by PACS constituted 59% of the total loans issued by PACS at ` 1.14 lakh crore. In other words, almost 41% of loans provided by PACS, either through internal resources or through borrowings from CCBs, were for non-agricultural purposes. The aggregated data at all India level however, gets distorted due to the high proportion of nonagricultural loans issued by PACS in four states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Uttar Pradesh where this proportion was as high as 76% of total non-agriculture loans. The PACS in these 4 States disbursed ` 42,611 crore, which constituted 91% of the total non-agriculture loans.

3.9 The average loan size of PACS worked out to ` 27,405 per account and varied hugely between less than ` 1,000 in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to over ` 60,500 in Punjab. The average agricultural loan per account also varied similarly from less than ` 1,000 to almost ` 80,000 in the same states. The average agricultural loan per account was however lower than the average loan per account. The detailed analysis showed that the size of agri loans was much higher than the size of non-agriculture loans in states like Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand etc. while the reverse is true in states like Kerala.

3.10 An area of concern however is the fact that only a little more than 4 crore members availed loans from PACS out of the total membership of over 9 crores signifying that the majority of the members do not avail of loan services from their cooperative; there are reasons to believe that most of such members did not become members for availing of the services of the PACS. Such a large proportion of inactive members also has its negative impact on the governance of the PACS.

Role of CCBs

3.11 As per the available data, 366 CCBs had disbursed agricultural loans aggregating ` 73,313 crore (average of last three years), while the year-wise agricultural loans had actually increased from ` 58,772 crore to ` 88,517 crore during the period. The three year average of crop loans issued by the CCBs stood at ` 67,406 crore constituting 92% of the total agricultural loans issued by CCBs (Annexure 3.2). In other words, the CCBs were found to be performing the principal task of supporting PACS for providing crop loans so far as their agricultural loan portfolio is concerned.

Share of agricultural loans

3.12 The share of agricultural loans to total loans issued by the CCBs, as an aggregate, was only 57%, although the actual shares range from as low as 12% in Jharkhand to 100% in Bihar. CCBs in 13 states had more than 50% share of agricultural loans to their total loans (Annexures 3.3 & 3.4).

3.13 As seen earlier, the aggregate share of agricultural loans by CCBs was about 22% in their operational area6; state-wise it ranged from as low as 1% in Jharkhand to almost 50% in the states like Maharashtra and Odisha. The share of CCBs in crop loans disbursed by all agencies ranged from a low of 1% in Jharkhand to 63% in Chhattisgarh.

3.14 The role played by 366 CCBs in their operational areas in providing agricultural credit is presented in the table below. It would be seen that more than one third of CCBs supported less than 15% the total agriculture credit flow in the operational area. In fact, only one third of the CCBs supported more than 30% of the agricultural credit in their operational areas, and two thirds of the CCBs were failing to provide even 30% support to the agricultural credit flow in their operational area, the principal purpose for which the CCBs and the entire set up of ST CCS was created. The Committee is of the opinion that ST CCS, which was primarily constituted for provision of agricultural credit must provide at least 15% of the agriculture credit requirements in its operational area, gradually increasing it to at least 30%. The Committee also recommends that if a CCB or StCB consistently underperforms and provides less than 15% share of agricultural credit in the operational area, then that bank should be declared and treated as an urban co-operative bank.

Share of CCBs in Agriculture Lending in their Operational Area

 

> 50%

> 30% to 50%

> 15% to 30%

= <15%

Total

No. of CCBs

 38

77

120

131

366

%

10

21

33

36

100

3.15 The Committee also noted that almost 40% of the loans provided by PACS and almost half the loans provided by CCBs are for non-agricultural purposes, although the share of many of these PACS and CCBs in agricultural credit was less than 30% in their operational area. The Committee noted with concern that these PACS and CCBs were not performing the role for which they were constituted. The Committee therefore recommends that CCB should strive to provide at least 70% of their loan portfolio for agriculture.

Role of ST CCS in NER and UTs

3.16 As mentioned earlier, PACS and other cooperatives are directly affiliated to StCBs in the small and north-eastern states (NER) and union territories (UTs). The 8 NER StCBs, including in Assam, have 231 branches and about 3,000 PACS are affiliated to them. However, the ST CCS provides not more than 4% of the agricultural credit provided in these states by the banking system. In other words, these ST CCS are not playing the primary role of providing agricultural credit in these states. In other smaller states like Goa, Pondicherry and Delhi as well as union territory like Chandigarh, there is practically no agriculture being practised in their operational areas of these StCBs, and even the agri-loans issued by these StCBs are actually for supply and distribution of inputs etc. These StCBs therefore actually cater to the deposit and loan requirements of the urban population. In fact, the Chandigarh StCB has formally written to the committee that they would like to function as an urban co-operative bank as most of the agricultural land in the UT has been acquired for non-agricultural purposes and as a result the PACS have become non-viable.

3.17 The Committee therefore recommends that StCBs in the NER region as well as smaller states and union territories like Delhi, Goa, Chandigarh etc which provide insignificant credit to agriculture and are catering to the requirements of only the urban population may therefore be declared and treated as urban co-operative banks. Necessary amendments in the State Cooperative Societies Acts, Rules and byelaws of these banks may have to be carried out for this purpose.


Chapter 4
Financial performance of ST CCS - an Overview

4.1 Financial performance of ST CCS comprising 31 StCBs, 370 CCBs and over 93,000 PACS in terms of business and profitability parameters is analysed for 2007-08 and 2011-12 in this chapter (detailed data presented in Annexures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). It would be seen that although these banks have a common nomenclature as StCBs and CCBs, they differ significantly from one another on almost all financial parameters.

Performance of Three and Mixed Tier ST CCS

4.2 As on 31 March 2012, this segment of ST CCS comprised 18 StCBs7, 370 CCBs and about 89,700 PACS constituting more than 90 per cent of the PACS in the country.

State Cooperative Banks (StCBs)

Sources of Funds

Owned Funds

4.3 Three StCBs, viz., Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra8, each with more than ` 1,000 crore of owned funds accounted for almost 40% of the total owned funds of the 18 StCBs which aggregated ` 9,578 crore. In fact, 11 StCBs had owned funds of less than ` 500 crore each out of which 2 StCBs did not have owned funds of even ` 100 crore.

4.4 Owned funds are most critical to CRAR, and it is seen that each of the three StCBs with less than 4% CRAR, viz., Assam, West Bengal and Kerala, had less than ` 200 crore owned funds.

Deposits

4.5 Deposits constituted about 60% of the resources of StCBs. Aggregate deposits of 18 StCBs stood at ` 78,270 crore and had grown at about 9% during the last 5 years. In comparison, the deposits of the rural and semiurban branches of scheduled commercial banks and RRBs had recorded growth rates of about 18% and 17% respectively. In fact, the growth of deposits of scheduled commercial banks in rural and semi-urban areas was higher than their aggregate deposit growth.

4.6 Geographical distribution of deposits showed that five StCBs, viz., Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, each with deposits of over ` 5,000 crore accounted for more than 50% of the aggregate deposits of StCBs. Maharashtra StCB, with a deposit base of ` 15,862 crore, alone accounted for almost 20% of the aggregate deposits of StCBs.

Types of Deposits

4.7 Further analysis showed that almost 90% of the total deposits of StCBs were term deposits (please see Table below). This large proportion of term deposits had its negative impact on cost of funds.

Deposits by Type

(` in crore)

Year

Current

Savings

Term

Total

2007-08

2,917

3,531

46,499

52,947

 

(5%)

(7%)

(88%)

 

2011-12

3,893

5707

68,670

78,270

 

(4%)

(7%)

(89%)

 

4.8 The disaggregated analysis showed that only Himachal StCB among the large StCBs had more than 30% CASA deposits, while smaller StCBs like Bihar and J&K had CASA deposits of 46% and 35% respectively. In 15 StCBs, CASA deposits accounted for less than 20% of their total deposits (Annexure 4.4).

Sources of Deposits

4.9 Almost 79% of the deposits with StCBs were from the affiliated cooperatives themselves, with CCBs accounting for ` 53,414 crore or 68% of the total deposits of the StCBs (please see table below). The deposits from CCBs were in the form of term deposits for CRR and SLR purposes9. As most of the StCBs have branches only in the state capital or its neighbourhood, an attempt was made to see whether deposits mobilised from individuals by the StCBs and the branches of the CCBs in the capital district of the state varied significantly. It was seen that in most of the states, branches of both StCBs as well as the CCBs in the capital districts were equally important in mobilising deposits from individuals. In one sense therefore, the branches of StCB competed with those of the CCB in mobilising deposits from individuals in the capital region, which could have generally been held as the logical business area of the CCB.

Deposits by Source

(` in crore)

Year

Individuals

CCBs

Other Societies

State Govt & its bodies

Total

2007-08

9147

34193

9179

428

52947

 

(17%)

(65%)

(17%)

(1%)

 

2011-12

15072

53414

8738

1045

78270

 

(19%)

(68%)

(11%)

(1%)

 

Borrowings

4.10 Borrowings constituted about 25% of total resources of the StCBs with almost 90% borrowings coming from NABARD (please see Table below).

Borrowings by Source

(` in crore)

Year

NABARD

State Govt

Other FIs

Total

2007-08

20,338

264

1,480

22,082

 

(92.10)

(1.20)

(6.70)

 

2011-12

38,489

821

3,642

42,953

 

(89.6)

(1.9)

(8.5)

 

Note : Figures in brackets indicates the percentage to the total borrowings

As almost the entire borrowing from NABARD was refinance for crop loans, it was provided at the subvented interest rate of 4%10. Due to such subvented borrowings, the average financial cost of borrowings worked out to 5.5% for StCBs. Availability of subvented refinance was also to some extent responsible for the StCBs not mobilizing CASA deposits aggressively.

Uses of Funds

Loans Outstanding

4.11 The total loans outstanding of the 18 StCBs as on 31 March 2012 was ` 73,978 crore, of which agricultural loans outstanding was ` 43,399 crore constituting 58.7% (Please see Table below). The short term agricultural loans outstanding stood at ` 39,418 crore constituting 53.3% of the total loans and formed about 91% of total agricultural loans provided by StCBs. As regards the growth in loans other than agriculture purpose, there was no uniform pattern in year-to- year growth.

Total Loans O/s of StCBs in Federal Structure

(` in crore)

As on 31 March

Total Loans11 Outstanding

Of Total, Agri Loans

Of Total, Non-Agri loans

2008

48,144

26,999

21,145

 

 

(56.1%)

(43.9%)

2012

73,978

43,399

30,579

 

 

(58.7%)

(41.3%)

Note : Figures in brackets indicate percentage to the total borrowings

4.12 The above table shows that StCBs had substantial non agricultural portfolio to the extent of 41% of total loan outstanding as on 31 March 2012. In general, the performance of StCBs under non-agricultural (other than agricultural) portfolio was not good and gross NPA level was quite high as observed in a number of cases. For example, gross NPA in Maharashtra StCB was about 34% for non-agricultural loans, and the proportion of nonagricultural loan was also high at around 64% of total loans outstanding. It was also observed in case of some StCBs that their gross NPA level was reasonable, e.g., Punjab StCB at 2.6% with 21% non-agricultural loan and West Bengal StCB at 4.3% with 27.5% share of non agricultural loan. A few examples of performance of StCBs are given in Annexure 4.5. StCBs, therefore, need to be cautious while financing non-agricultural projects and risk factors need to be factored in judiciously.

4.13 The proportion of agricultural loans to total loans outstanding ranges from 89% in Rajasthan to 5% in J&K StCB. Agricultural loans of 8 StCBs constituted more than 70% of their total loans outstanding (AP, Haryana, Karnataka, MP, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan & Uttaranchal).

4.14 Further, a broad assessment indicated that StCBs used 74% of own lendable resources12 of ` 64,288 crore to support their total lending (` 73,978 crore) and borrowing was used for the remaining portion of lending13. Thus, about one fourth of the lendable resources which could have been deployed for lending were in fact utilised by StCBs for making non-SLR investments.

4.15 The proportion of agricultural loans outstanding to their own lendable resources was 67.5%. NABARD provided resources to the extent of 59% for agriculture and related eligible activities. In other words, StCBs depended heavily on NABARD for financing agriculture, their principal business, even when they had their own resources for the same. A major reason for such large borrowing, especially for crop loan purposes is the subvented nature of refinance when compared to the cost of their own lendable resources.

Investments

4.16 The total investments of the StCBs as on 31 March 2012 which stood at ` 52,837 crore had increased by 74% over the 2008 position. SLR investments constituted 48% of the total investments.

Investments of StCBs

(` in crore)

As on 31 March

Total investments

Of which SLR

SLR Investments as % to total investments

2008

30,298

16,406

54

2012

52,837

25,341

48

Regulatory Issue

4.17 It is seen that CCBs deposited ` 53,414 crore with StCBs as CRR/SLR deposits, while the StCBs had loans outstanding of ` 73,978 crore to the same CCBs. The CRR/SLR deposits are kept with StCB for 'safety' associated with such statutory deposits and lending a large portion of it back to the CCBs seems to go against the very spirit of CRR/SLR deposits. However, it may not appear to be so if the capital, reserves and borrowings of the StCBs are also taken into account. However, if that is done, the CRR/SLR deposits of CCBs kept with the StCBs would seem to be used for lending to other cooperatives and individuals for non-agricultural purposes which are even more riskier if their data on NPAs on such loans are taken into account. It may therefore become necessary to prescribe safe investments for the statutory deposits of CCBs kept with StCBs. The Committee recommends that StCBs (and CCBs) may be given a higher share in the food consortium credit as one possible measure.

Central Cooperative Banks (CCBs)

4.18 The overall performance of 368 CCBs14, based on available data is as follows:

Sources of funds - Owned Funds

4.19 The owned funds of the 368 CCBs comprising share capital, free reserves and other reserves stood at ` 22,262 crore as on March 2012 as against ` 15,166 crore as on March 2008. The owned fund status of CCBs was highly skewed with 235 CCBs (64%) having owned funds of less than ` 50 crore. While 53 CCBs have owned funds between ` 100 and ` 500 crore, another 79 CCBs have owned funds between ` 50 crore and ` 100 crore. One CCB, viz., Kangra is the only CCB to have owned funds in excess of ` 500 crore.

Deposits

4.20 Aggregate deposits of the 368 CCBs increased since March 2008 at an average rate of around 12% during the last five years as compared to about 18% and 17% for rural and semi-urban branches of scheduled commercial banks and RRBs. The deposits status was also highly skewed. While 2 CCBs had deposits of more than ` 5,000 crore each, 42 CCBs between ` 1,000 and ` 5,000 crore, and 58 CCBs between ` 1,000 and ` 500 crore. As many as 266 CCBs (72%) had mobilised deposits of less than ` 500 crore, out of which 45 CCBs had mobilised even less than ` 100 crore (Annexure 4.6).

Deposits by Source

4.21 Unlike the case of StCBs, the CCBs had a significantly higher proportion of individual deposits (65%) in 2011-12 (please see table below); and deposits from the cooperative system worked out to around 28% of the total deposits. This showed that branch network had helped in mobilising deposits from individuals.

Deposits by Source

(` in crore)

Year

Individuals

PACS

Other Societies

State Govt & its bodies

Total

2007-08

69,019

17,091

17,077

9,340

1,12,527

 

(61%)

(15%)

(15%)

(8%)

 

2011-12

1,21,510

30,776

22,567

12,800

1,87,653

 

(65%)

(16%)

(12%)

(7%)

 

Note : Figures in brackets indicates the percentage to the total borrowings

Deposits by type

4.22 Term deposits constituted the major part (around 58%) of the total deposits mobilised by these CCBs (please see table below). This pattern remained consistent over the years, and CASA deposits continued at about 42% of the total deposits of CCBs. While CASA deposits of 142 CCBs (38%) was less than the all India average of 42%, of which 76 CCBs had CASA of about 30%, and 6 CCBs from Andhra Pradesh and one from Kerala had less than 14% of their total deposits as CASA. At the aggregate level, deposits mobilised by the CCBs were more than deposits mobilised by RRBs. The difference however was that in the case of RRBs, term deposits constituted only 42% of the aggregate deposits while in case of CCBs this was 58% in 2011-12. This reversal of proportions of CASA and term deposits between CCBs and RRBs has a telling effect on the cost of funds of these institutions.

Deposits by Type

(` in crore)

Year

Current

Savings

Term

Total

2007-08

9,197

37,116

66,214

1,12,527

 

(8%)

(33%)

(59%)

 

2011-12

15,709

63,297

1,08,647

1,87,653

 

(8%)

(34%)

(58%)

 

Note : Figures in brackets indicates the percentage to the total borrowings

4.23 Deposit mobilisation by CCBs and StCBs of the two-tier structure focuses on rural and semi-urban areas. It is interesting, therefore, to compare their performance with deposit mobilisation by rural and semiurban branches of commercial banks and RRBs as on 31 March 2011. It is seen that the share of term deposits was about 10% higher for cooperatives as compared to commercial banks and about 17% higher than RRBs. While commercial banks and RRBs mobilised CASA deposits to an extent of 54% & 62% to total deposits respectively, the comparable share for cooperatives was 45% (please see table below). Because of such composition of deposits, the cost of deposits of the cooperatives worked out to 5.9%, while the cost of deposits of the RRBs was 5.0%. This difference of about 1% in cost of funds had an adverse impact on the profitability of the cooperatives.

Comparative Position of Deposits across Agencies as on 31 March 2011

(` in crore)

Rural & Semi urban branches of

Current

Savings

Term

Total

% of CASA

a. SBI, PSBs, & other CBs

79,346

4,94,266

4,97,103

10,88,831

 

% to total

8

46

46

100

54

b. RRBs

6,420

79,977

52,984

1,39,381

 

% to total (a+b)

5

57

38

100

62

c. CCBs/StCBs*

14,759

62,508

96,225

1,73,493

 

% to total

9

36

55

100

45

* deposits of StCBs in districts where there are no CCBs and StCB practically works as a CCB included

Borrowings

4.24 Total borrowings which stood at ` 53,863 crore constituted about 18% of the total resources of the CCBs. Borrowings from the higher tier/ NABARD constituted 78 % of the total borrowings (please see Table below).

Borrowings of CCBs

(` in crore)

Year

Total

Of total, borrowings from higher tier/ NABARD

Of total, State Govt/ ICDP etc.

2007-08

32,073

24,997

7,077

 

 

(78)

(22)

2011-12

53,863

42,265

11,599

 

 

(78)

(22)

Note : Figures in brackets indicates the percentage to the total borrowings

Uses of funds

Loans Outstanding

4.25 Aggregate outstanding loans of the 368 CCBs which stood at ` 1,57,028 crore showed an increase of 53% over 2008. The year to year growth was however, uneven. During 2008-09 there was negative growth, whereas during 2010-11 the growth was over 20%. There was also no uniformity in the growth of ST and MT loans. Short term loans constituted around 70% of the total loans outstanding. Loans to agriculture constituted around 51% of the total loans outstanding.

Total Loans O/s of CCBs

(` in crore)

As on 31 March

Total Loans Outstanding

Of which, Agri Loans

% of Agri loans to total

Of total, non agri loans

2008

1,02,379

60,630

59

41749

2012

1,57,028

80,022

51

77,006

4.26 A sample study of 28 CCBs showed that 23% CCBs had more than 10% gross NPA level under non-agriculture loan portfolio. The range of NPA varied from 10% (Khammam CCB with about 26% share in non-agri. loans) to 67% (Kolhapur CCB with 60% share in non-agri. loans). Some of the CCBs, such as Karimnagar (about 61% non agri share) had NPA level of 3.4% as on 31.3.2012. The details of the samples are given in the Annexure 4.7. The conclusion is that CCBs should not expand the loan portfolio to non agricultural purposes indiscriminately without considering the risk factors.

4.27 Further analysis showed that about 79% of the own lendable resources of CCBs were deployed in lending. The total owned funds of CCBs stood at ` 17,604 crore and deposits, net of SLR and CRR investments, available for lending stood at ` 1,31,357 crore. Thus, the total internal resources of the CCBs available for lending work out to ` 1,48,961 crore. Since CCBs had net borrowings of ` 53,863 crore, an amount of ` 1,03,165 crore were loans outstanding net of borrowings. In other words, the CCBs had made investments of about ` 45,000 crore even beyond their SLR and CRR deposits which could have been very well used for expanding their loan portfolio.

Investments

4.28 Nearly 32% of the resources of the CCBs were kept as investments, and investments at ` 94,769 crore constituted 51% of the deposits. The return on investments worked out to 8.1%.

CCBs in Profit and Losses

4.29 As may be seen from the table below, the number of CCBs making current profits improved substantially by 2011-12 as compared to 2007-08, with about two thirds of the loss-making CCBs in 2007-08 making current profits in 2011-12. Only about 13% of the CCBs are now making losses. This was the result of the loan defaults of PACS being cleared due to implementation of the Vaidyanathan package as well as the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme. The loss amounts however ranged widely from ` 10 lakh in Lalitpur CCB to ` 51 crore in Bolangir CCB.

CCBs In Profit or Loss

(` in crore)

Year

CCBs in Profit

Amount

CCBs in Loss

Amount

2007-08

259

+ 858

109

- 935

2011-12

325

+ 1,511

43

- 334

4.30 During 2011-12, Kolhapur CCB15 had reported the highest profit amount of ` 79.61 crore, mainly on account of ploughing back of excess provision of ` 62.80 crore. While 36 CCBs earned profit of above ` 10 crore each, 54 CCBs earned profit between ` 5 and ` 10 crore. However, 236 CCBs, or almost two third of the CCBs, earned profits of less than ` 5 crore, and as many as 92 CCBs (25%) earned current profit of less than ` 1 crore.

4.31 116 CCBs still carry accumulated losses of ` 4,334 crore, ranging from as less as ` 16 lakh to ` 199 crore. Twelve CCBs carry losses of above ` 100 crore each.

Costs and Margins

4.32 The costs and margins of CCBs in comparison with RRBs during 2007- 08 and 2011-12 are given in the table below

Costs & Returns of CCBs vis a vis RRBs

(in %)

 

CCBs

RRBs

2007-08

2011-12

2007-08

2011-12

Yield on loans

8.3

8.9

8.9

9.6

Return on Investments

6.9

8.1

6.7

7.2

Financial Return

7.0

7.6

8.1

8.7

Cost of Deposits

5.5

5.9

4.2

5.0

Cost of Borrowings

5.7

5.3

5.6

6.3

Financial Cost

4.7

5.0

4.4

5.2

Financial Margin

2.4

2.7

3.7

3.5

Staff Cost

1.2

1.2

1.9

1.8

Administrative Cost

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.7

Operating Cost

1.8

1.9

2.5

2.5

Operating Margin

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.0

Miscellaneous Income

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.5

Risk Cost

1.5

0.9

0.8

0.7

Net Margin

-0.04

0.4

1.0

0.8

Figures rounded off

4.33 While the cost of deposits of the RRBs (5.0% in 2011-12) was lower than that of the CCBs (5.9% in 2011-12), the cost of borrowings of RRBs was significantly higher in 2011-12 (6.3%) as compared to (5.3%) of CCBs. Although, the share of non agri loans of CCBs (49%) was slightly higher in terms of percentage as compared to RRBs (45%), yield on loans of RRBs was higher (9.6%) as compared to CCBs (8.9%). The staff cost of CCBs (1.2%) was significantly lower than that of the RRBs (1.8%). As a result, the operating cost of the CCBs was much lower (1.9%) as compared to RRBs (2.5%).

4.34 The higher financial margin of the RRBs ensured that their net margin remain positive and higher than that of the CCBs (0.4% as against 0.8% of RRBs).

4.35 It can be inferred from the above analysis that the earnings of the CCBs was lower primarily on account of higher cost of deposits.

PACS

4.36 The owned funds of about 90,000 PACS under the three tier and mixed tier structures stood at ` 14,368 crore as on 31 March 2011. The average owned funds per PACS works out to ` 0.16 crore.

4.37 Total deposits of the PACS which were around ` 25,225 crore as on 31 March 2008 increased to ` 37,062 crore as on 31 March 2011 registering an average growth of 15%. The average deposits per PACS, however, works out to ` 0.41 crore only, and excluding the deposits in the three southern states, the average deposits per PACS worked out to only ` 11 lakh.

4.38 Total borrowings of PACS which were around ` 47,375 crore as on 31 March 2008, increased to ` 53,892 crore as on 31 March 2011. The loans outstanding which stood at ` 64,998 crore as on 31 March 2008 increased to ` 87,625 crore as on 31 March 2011. The share of ST loans ranged between 65% to 72% over the period.

Profitability

4.39 Of the total number of 93,000+ PACS, data on profitability for 2010-11 is available for 80,858 PACS. During 2010-11, 54% of the PACS, i.e., 43,850 PACS earned profit of ` 1,756 crore while 46%, i.e., 37,008 PACS incurred loss of ` 1,926 crore.

Performance of Two tier ST CCS

4.40 As on 31 March 2012, the Two tier ST CCS consists of 13 StCBs and 3,668 PACS spread across 13 States/UTs inclusive of 8 NER States, and smaller states like Delhi and Goa. This structure comprises less than 5% of the total outlets of the ST CCS.

State Cooperative Banks (StCBs)

Sources of funds

Owned Funds

4.41 The owned funds of the 13 StCBs comprising share capital, free reserves and other reserves stood at ` 834 crore as on 31 March 2012 as against ` 645 crore as on 31 March 2008. Only 3 StCBs, viz., Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi, and Goa, out of the 13 StCBs have own funds of more than ` 100 crore each.

Deposits

4.42 Deposits at ` 8,160 crore in March 2012 constituted about 77% of the total resources of the StCBs. Aggregate deposits of the 13 StCBs have increased since March 2008 at an average growth rate of around 16% during the last five years. While 4 StCBs had deposits of more than ` 1,000 crore each, 2 StCBs had deposits above `500 crore, 5 StCBs had deposits between ` 100 and ` 500 crore, and 2 StCBs had deposits of ` 95 crore each only.

Deposits by type

4.43 As these StCBs primarily cater to the requirements of town population, they are able to tap CASA deposits of around 57%. In fact, although the StCBs in the two tier structures have CASA deposits of above 50% at the aggregate, CASA deposits in seven StCBs constituted more than 60% of the total deposits.

4.44 Also, in a significant departure from the trend observed so far, around 83% of the total deposits were collected from individuals, around 10% from affiliated cooperatives and the balance of around 7% from local bodies and other institutions.

4.45 A significantly higher share of CASA deposits has resulted in a low average cost of deposits at 5.2%.

Borrowings

4.46 Borrowings of the 13 StCBs stood at only ` 472 crore as on 31 March 2012. Borrowings from NABARD constituted 39% of the total borrowings while borrowings from State Govts and other financial institutions worked out to 30% each. The primary reason for low borrowings is the extremely low share of agricultural business in these states.

Uses of funds

Loans Outstanding

4.47 Loans outstanding of the StCBs in two tier structure which was ` 2,174 crore as on 31 March 2008, increased to ` 3,666 crore as on 31 March 2012. During the period, growth in loans outstanding was around 69%. Short term loans constituted around 23% of the total loans outstanding. Loans to agriculture constituted around 11% of the total loans outstanding. With such low share of agricultural loans and almost all loans being directly provided to clients in urban areas, these StCBs were practically working as urban cooperative banks.

Total Loans O/s of StCBs

(` in crore)

As on 31 March

Total Loans Outstanding

Of which, Agri Loans

% of Agri loans to total

2008

2,174

234

11

2012

3,666

393

11

Investments

4.48 Total investments of the StCBs increased from ` 2,800 crore as on 31 March 2008 to ` 5,043 crore as on 31 March 2012. Investments which stood at 64% of the total deposits as on 31 March 2008 declined to 62% of the total deposits as on 31 March 2012.

Profitability

4.49 Eleven of the 13 StCBs earned profit during 2011-12 (please see Table below). During this year, 4 StCBs earned profit of above ` 10 crore each.

StCBs in profit and in loss

(` in crore)

Year

in Profit

Amount

in Loss

Amount

2007-08

9

+ 38

4

-31

2011-12

11

+ 94

2

-7

The aggregate accumulated losses of 5 StCBs totalled ` 220 crore with Arunachal Pradesh carrying the highest accumulated loss of ` 129 crore.

Costs and Margins

4.50 Cost, margin and financial ratios of StCBs in three and mixed tier vis-avis two tier structures are given in table below (state-wise details given at Annexures 4.1 and 4.3)

Costs & Returns of StCBs

(in %)

 

Three & Mixed Tier

Two Tier

2007-08

2011-12

2007-08

2011-12

Yield on loans

5.8

7.1

8.2

8.4

Return on Investments

7.8

7.8

8.3

9.5

Financial Return

6.2

6.7

6.6

7.8

Cost of Deposits

6.1

7.6

4.6

5.2

Cost of Borrowings

4.1

3.9

5.3

6.0

Financial Cost

4.8

5.5

3.6

4.4

Financial Margin

1.3

1.2

3.0

3.3

Staff Cost

0.4

0.4

1.4

1.8

Administrative Cost

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.7

Operating Cost

0.9

0.7

2.2

2.5

Operating Margin

0.5

0.5

0.8

0.8

Miscellaneous Income

0.1

0.4

0.5

0.5

Risk Cost

0.3

0.4

1.2

0.5

Net Margin

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.8

Figures rounded off

4.51 In comparison with the StCBs in the three and mixed tier structures, higher yield on loans which are for non-agricultural purposes and investments have resulted in significantly higher financial margin for the StCBs in two tier structure (3.3% as against 1.2% in three tier StCBs in 2011-12). However, on account of higher staff cost (1.8% as against 0.4% in StCBs in three and mixed tier in 2011-12), the net margin of these StCBs has declined to 0.8%, but still higher than that of the three tier structure at 0.4%

PACS

4.52 Of the 93,000 and odd PACS at in the country, only about 3,700 PACS operate in the two tier structure. These PACS are however in poor financial health in respect of all parameters ranging from paid-up capital to deposits and loans outstanding. Their deposits actually declined from ` 225 crore in 2007 to ` 176 crore in 2011, and loans outstanding also declined from ` 668 crore to ` 142 crore during the same period. Most of these PACS are either defunct or engaged in non-agricultural activities like providing public distribution and other such services.

4.53 As per available data, during 2007-08, 776 PACS earned profit of ` 80 crore and 908 PACS incurred loss of ` 113 crore. During 2010-11, 704 PACS earned profit of ` 85 crore and 958 PACS incurred loss of ` 120 crore. Data in respect of remaining PACS (2,047 PACS for 2006-07 and 2,006 PACS for 2010-11) is not available readily.

4.54 The foregoing analysis shows that conclusions cannot be drawn on operational efficiencies between StCBs in three tier and two tier CCS merely on the basis of structures as these two structures are not comparable as most of the StCBs in two tier system are either located in NER/ backward/ disturbed areas or are urban in character.


Chapter 5
Financial Sustainability of ST CCS

5.1 The terms of reference of the committee included, inter alia, 'to identify cooperative banks that may not be sustainable in the long run even if some of them have met the diluted licensing criteria for the time being'. Both CCBs and StCBs are federal structures and their sustainability very largely depends on the sustainability of the lower tiers. It is this logic that was the backbone of the Vaidyanathan Task Force recommendations, and the GoI package subsequently designed on its recommendations also followed a bottom-up approach.

5.2 Therefore, a look at the functioning of PACS in greater detail and assessing their sustainability and future role in the light of developments that are taking place in the rural banking sector is needed before the sustainability of CCBs is looked into.

Sustainability and Future Role of PACS

5.3 As mentioned in chapter 2, an essential ingredient of grass roots financial cooperatives is mobilisation of deposits and providing loans from these aggregated deposits, although its resources could be supplemented through borrowings if the deposits are not enough for meeting the requirements of the members. The governance structure of PACS is therefore built around this cooperative principle.

5.4 PACS in 25 states had mobilised an amount of ` 37,238 crore as on 31 March 2011. The aggregate loans disbursed by PACS stood at ` 91,304 crore, or about 2½ times the deposits, suggesting significant requirement of liquidity support from CCBs for meeting the credit needs of the members of the PACS. The aggregated figures however hide the fact that ` 28,210 crore, or almost 80% of the deposits emanated in PACS of only three states, viz., Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, with ` 21,140 crore only in Kerala. Excluding these three states, PACS in the rest of the country had mobilised only about ` 7,000 crore as deposits whereas they had provided loans aggregating ` 47,000 crore which was more than 6 times the deposits mobilised signifying even more acute requirement of funds to be supplemented by CCBs.

5.5 It was obvious therefore, that deposit collection by PACS had to be given importance. The Vaidyanathan Task Force therefore recommended voting rights to be given to all depositors of PACS to enable them to have a say in the governance structure and also suggested that an Institutional protection and Deposit Safety Scheme may be devised to protect the deposits of PACS as they are not covered by DICGC. While steps have been initiated on these recommendations, the ground level banking scenario is not only changing significantly, but changing at a very fast pace, due to the financial inclusion drive as well as the program to transfer all the government benefits directly to the ‘Aadhaar enabled savings accounts’ of the beneficiaries as a national agenda. With the spread of business correspondents of commercial banks and RRBs already covering over 73,000 habitats with population of more than 2,000 in addition to opening of ultra-small and brick and mortar branches of these banks in larger habitats, and introducing similar initiatives in habitats with population of more than 1,000 during the next year, almost all rural households will very soon have savings bank accounts of the banking system where the deposits are protected by DICGC.

5.6 In the light of these developments, the probability of PACS increasing their deposit base significantly when these deposits are not covered by DICGC is not very high. In fact, a flight of deposits from PACS to savings bank accounts of commercial banks and RRBs, even when they are serviced through ultra-small branches or business correspondents, cannot be ruled out. While PACS are expected to play increasing role in provision of agricultural credit, their resource base is not likely to grow, or in fact may become smaller, and the need for their resources to be supplemented by CCBs would further increase, creating not only issues of prudential borrowing but also of corporate governance.

5.7 The principal business of PACS is provision of agricultural credit. The new guidelines for provision of agricultural credit by the banking system require banks to issue ATM and POS device enabled kisan credit cards (KCC) with a combination of distinguishable credit limits for crop production, agricultural investments, working capital for allied activities, and an element of consumption loan. This would require the issuing entity to be on core banking platform with connectivity to ATM switch etc. The possibility of PACS having this facility even in the distant future is remote.

5.8 These developments therefore, require a change in the business model of the PACS as well as the CCBs to which they are affiliated. The RBI guidelines already permit PACS to become business correspondents of commercial banks and RRBs. As and when the CCBs migrate to the core banking platform, it would be ideal for the PACS affiliated to the CCB to become its business correspondent so that all deposits made at PACS level are accounted directly in the books of the CCB and therefore are covered by the DICGC protection, and also major clients of the PACS - the farmers members - are able to get and operate ATM and POS enabled KCCs. The methodology for such transformation in the organisational design and functioning of PACS and CCBs is discussed in chapter 6.

Sustainability of CCBs

5.9 As on 31 March 2011, 149 CCBs had not received banking licence from the RBI. As per NABARD’s latest available inspection reports, 41 unlicensed CCBs did not have CRAR of 4% (in addition to eight CCBs which are already licensed but did not have 4% CRAR), and were thus not eligible to be issued licence by the RBI by 31 March 2012. The RBI therefore, gave time up to 30 September 2012 to enable the banks and the concerned state governments to take steps, primarily through capital infusion, to attain a CRAR of 4%. Many state governments took proactive steps and provided capital in one or the other form to enable some of these banks to have CRAR of 4%, thus enabling NABARD to recommend their cases to RBI for grant of licence. By 30 September 2012, with capital infusion of ` 266 crore in 14 CCBs, and one CCB attaining the 4% CRAR norm on its own, NABARD could recommend these 15 CCBs to RBI for grant of licence.

5.10 As on 30 September 2012, 187 out of 370 CCBs had CRAR of 9% or higher, thus matching the requirements of the banking sector in general. However, 49 CCBs did not have even the diluted norm of 4% CRAR; 26 of these CCBs are unlicensed - 16 in Uttar Pradesh, 6 in Maharashtra, 3 in J&K, and one in West Bengal.

Number of CCBs and their CRAR levels (31 March 2012)

CRAR %

< 4

4 to < 7

7 to < 9

9 to < 12

> = 12

Total

CCBs

49

83

51

85

102

370

5.11 In other words, 23 CCBs, which had already received licence now, do not comply with even the diluted CRAR norm of 4%. In fact, seven of these CCBs do not comply even with the minimum net worth norm of ` 1 lakh.

5.12 The above analysis means that at least 130 CCBs, or about one third of the total number, need to take serious action for attaining at least 7% CRAR in the next two years, and then to move on to at least 9% CRAR within the next five years.

CRAR of CCBs and their Market Share in Agricultural Credit

5.13 The Working Group on agricultural credit for the 12th Plan had estimated, about three years ago, the total agricultural credit requirement from all the agencies to be in the range of ` 40 - 42 lakh crore during the Plan period 2012-17, with the share of cooperatives estimated at around ` 9 lakh crore during the Plan period. Year-wise, the share of cooperatives was expected to increase from about ` 68,000 crore in 2012-13 to about ` 1 lakh crore in 2016-17. However, as has been seen earlier, agricultural credit from cooperatives has picked up substantially during the past two years, and with increasing refinance support from NABARD has already touched about ` 87,000 crore in 2011-12, an estimate they were expected to reach only by 2015-16. Given this trend, the cooperatives should be able to continue their growth path.

5.14 However, as CCBs are expected to primarily focus on agricultural credit, the effect that such an expansion will have on their CRAR needs to be analysed. The table below presents CRAR and the share of CCBs in agricultural credit in the operational areas for 366 CCBs for which detailed data was available. It is seen that 82 CCBs (71%) out of 115 CCBs, which had 30% or more share in agricultural credit, had CRAR of 7% or above. This goes on to suggest that increasing agricultural lending does not necessarily translate into riskier portfolio so as to have negative impact on CRAR. In fact, it is seen that the non–agricultural portfolio is riskier than the agricultural portfolio. Of the 49 CCBs with CRAR of less than 4%, 38 have less than 30% share in agricultural credit. Low CRAR therefore seems to be a manifestation of poor governance and management rather than the nature of portfolio.

CRAR Level

No. of CCBs

No. of CCBs based on its share of Agri-lending

<15%

15% to 30%

>30% to 50%

>50%

Total

<4%

49

23

15

6

5

49

4 to 7%

80

29

29

15

7

80

>7 to 9%

51

17

17

12

5

51

>9 to 12%

85

27

26

22

10

85

>12%

101

35

33

22

11

101

Total

366

131

120

77

38

366

** Of the total 370, 366 have been taken up

5.15 It is imperative that even if the RBI had diluted the criteria for licensing to 4% CRAR, CCBs and StCBs cannot continue to operate in the banking environment with such a low capital base. These banks would need to take concerted steps to reach the general banking norms in the foreseeable future and a five-year time-frame, i.e., by March 2017 for achieving at least 9% CRAR with an intermediate target of achieving 7% CRAR by March 2015 seems logical. Not only do we need to estimate the additional capital that may be required by these banks, but also how it can be contributed. The unlicensed banks, which do not achieve the CRAR of at least 4% by March 2013, may be debarred from undertaking any banking operations and their agri lending portfolio may be taken over by the neighbouring CCB or the StCB. For assessing the likely capital requirement, the Committee has used 4 different models as described hereunder:

Model 1

5.16 A simple analysis presuming a flat growth rate in all CCBs16 shows that 209 CCBs17 spread over 15 states would require an infusion of a little over ` 4,000 crore by March 2015 to attain CRAR of at least 7%, and an additional ` 2,500 crore by March 2017 to achieve CRAR of at least 9%. Although this estimate gives a fair idea of the capital infusion that would be required, the analysis suffers from the fact that a flat growth is assumed for all CCBs irrespective of their past performance and growth capacities.

Model 2

5.17 Another attempt was therefore made to see the capital requirements for achieving these CRAR levels if the present trend of business in the CCBs continues. Due to paucity of data and time, however, this analysis was restricted to a random sample of CCBs. An analysis of 20 CCBs spread over 5 states which presently have a CRAR of less than 4% and most of which are unlicensed, showed that they would require infusion of about ` 2,112 crore for achieving CRAR of at least 9% by March 2017 if they continue to grow at the same pace as at present. The comparable estimate for these 20 CCBs under Model 1 would be ` 1,453 crore ( as given in Annexure 5.1).

5.18 For a sample of 10 CCBs in 5 states (including two unlicensed CCBs recommended for granting license), which have a CRAR between 4% and 7%, capital infusion ` 126 crore would be required if they continue with the present business trends, and would require ` 225 crore under Model 1. As some of the CCBs may have business trends upwards of 15%, restricting their business growth to 15% in fact would put more pressure on them as they would receive lower amounts of loan linked share capital.

5.19 A similar analysis of 5 CCBs across 5 states which already have a CRAR of 7% or above reveals that capital infusion of about ` 29 crore would be required under Model 1 while no additional capital would be required if they continue their business on the same trends as of now.

Model 3

5.20 It is obvious from the above analysis that continuation of the present trend of business is not adequate enough, especially for CCBs with CRAR of less than 7%. It was also seen that many CCBs had less than 15% share in agricultural credit. It could be normally expected that such a situation will prevail in case of CCBs whose own agriculture portfolio was less than 50% of their total loan portfolio. However, surprisingly, this included even CCBs whose agricultural lending constituted more than 50% of their total loan business, and even 100%, as in absolute terms their total business was itself very small. Another attempt was therefore made to estimate the capital requirement if the agricultural credit portfolio was to expand to cover at least 15% of the agricultural credit disbursement in their operational area. An analysis of 16 such randomly selected CCBs spread over 8 states showed that CCBs which already had CRAR of more than 7%, would not require additional capital infusion even if their agricultural credit portfolio is expanded to cover at least 15% of the agricultural credit flow in the operational areas. However, CCBs with lower CRAR would need additional capital ranging from about ` 1 crore to ` 12 crore in addition to the capital required by them under Model 2 for achieving 9% CRAR by March 2017.

Model 4

5.21 Model 4 assumes a high growth trajectory covering both agricultural and non-agricultural credit business for the CCBs. It was obvious that cooperatives need to have, especially in view of their long history of agricultural financing, a meaningful share in the agricultural credit flow in their operational areas, which, in the long run should not be less than 30% if they have to remain an agricultural credit disbursing entity which can influence the credit flow in the region. However, as the national average itself is a paltry 17% at the moment, and almost one third of the CCBs have a less than 15% share in agriculture credit disbursement in their operational areas, the first target needs to be achieving a minimum of 15% share in agricultural credit within the next two years, and then accelerate agricultural credit disbursements to reach at least 30% share in about five years. It would also be necessary to increase loan linked share contribution to atleast 5% in those CCBs where it is lower than 5% and to a maximum of 10% for all kinds of loans and members depending on additional capital requirement of a particular CCB. The aggregate repayment rate of agricultural loans of cooperatives is about 76%, which needs to be stepped up to atleast 90% within five years through better credit appraisal and intensive monitoring. It has been seen that for some of the CCBs almost the entire credit portfolio is agricultural credit. Even this is not conducive to their growth. Such CCBs would have to build up capacities for providing non-agricultural loans and gradually have a share of 20% to 30% of their credit portfolio as nonagricultural loans. These efforts would lead to higher incomes making contributions to reserves possible.

5.22 Model 4 takes into account the above aspects, and the analysis needs to be bank specific based on potential and financials for bringing in such change in the CCBs in the next five years. Due to time constraints, this analysis was limited to a random sample of 16 CCBs. Ten of the 16 CCBs would need about ` 671 crore as additional capital for attaining CRAR of at least 9% by 2017. This means, an additional amount of around ` 224 crore over and above the additional capital needed under Model 3 (Annexure 5.2).

5.23 Based on the exercise carried out under the 4 models, 209 CCBs would require additional capital ranging from around ` 2 lakh to ` 282 crore under model 1. However, the number of CCBs and additional capital requirement would vary when the financial and business parameters are moderated under other models. CCBs with less than 4% CRAR and less than 15% of market share in agricultural credit would need substantial additional capital while CCBs already having 7% or more CRAR but with less than 15% agricultural credit share would generally not require additional capital for sustaining CRAR at 9%. While banks with CRAR of 4-9% and less than 15% agricultural credit share would need additional capital (model 3), most banks with 7-9% CRAR may not need any additional capital. As mentioned earlier, bank specific exercise would be required under models 3 and 4 to assess capital requirements for higher CRAR and higher agricultural credit share.

Strategies and Sources of Capital Mobilisation

5.24 StCBs and CCBs, being cooperative banks, can mobilise their capital only from their members who are also their owners. The same is true for PACS. Capital can be contributed by members in the form of direct share purchase or through share linked loans as has been the practice. The latter however effectively makes the loan costlier to the member and is technically a detrimental step. However, if the cooperative is run well and makes profits, it can disburse dividend against such shares and bring the effective cost of loan down. In fact, this needs to be the strategy that the cooperatives should adopt.

5.25 Certain strategies and measures are suggested below for enabling StCBs and CCBs to raise capital to attain the required higher CRAR.

Share Capital from Members

5.26 As PACS become BCs of CCBs, the entire client base of PACS will become direct clients of CCBs. It would be necessary for CCBs, therefore, to ensure that a depositor or borrower who transacts business at the PACS now operating as BC is a shareholding member of the CCB. The present 4.2 crore borrowing members at the level of PACS, as also depositors, will therefore have to take shares of CCBs while they continue to be members of PACS for availing other services. In tune with this requirement, all the depositors and borrowers of CCBs therefore would become normal shareholding members of the CCB with voting rights for “active members”18. This transition would allow mobilisation of additional share capital of CCBs by about ` 500 crore on an assumption that atleast one crore new members and converting non-borrowing members to borrower members will subscribe at the rate of ` 500 per member. All the active members who are obtaining other services from the CCBs, viz., benefit of higher interest rate on deposits, fertilizer and other services etc may also be required to contribute additional share capital. Presently, they are nominal members. This measure would help improve the capital and help attain the sustainable CRAR faster.

Transfer of Share Capital Deposit of Vaidyanathan Package

5.27 53,202 PACS were provided ` 8,521 crore by the GoI and ` 825 crore by the concerned state governments as share capital deposits under the Vaidyanathan package for revival of ST CCS. Of this, an amount of about ` 102 crore has been released for attaining of CRAR of 7% as on 31 March 2004 for the PACS concerned. As all agricultural loans including existing loans outstanding at the level of PACS would have to be transferred onto the books of the CCBs, it would be logical that the share capital deposit made with the PACS against agricultural credit losses and improving CRAR be transferred to the respective CCBs unless the same have been eroded.

Enhancing Share Linkage Percentage

5.28 The share linkage (in terms of a percentage to incremental loan outstanding) is observed to be varying from state to state from 1% to 10% depending on the type of loan and the type of borrower. In some cases, a monetary ceiling is prescribed. The share linkage has to be at a higher percentage, since this is ‘the most‘ important source of capital augmentation in terms of volumes and percentage. The cooperatives would need to mobilise additional 2% to 5% through share linking (with a maximum of 10% so that it does not become counterproductive) to help generate additional core capital (Tier I). A quick analysis indicates that the CCBs as a lot would be able to mobilise about ` 6,500 crore through this method. The concerned cooperatives may have to amend their bye-laws for taking this step.

5.29 The following steps are suggested for consideration of RBI as these will help the StCBs and CCBs significantly in augmenting their capital base.

Introduction of Interest bearing Capital Deposits

5.30 A new instrument in the form of Share Capital Deposit from members could be approved by RBI to be treated as Tier-I Capital. This instrument may have options to give a special dividend in the form of a fixed interest being paid. The individual banks could stipulate such capital deposits with a lock-in period of atleast 5 years and maturity period of 10 years or more. After attaining sustainable CRAR level, banks could convert these deposits into regular shares eligible for payment of dividend.

Introduction of Perpetual Long-Term Bonds

5.31 RBI may allow StCBs and CCBs to float such Bonds on the line of perpetual long-term bonds19. These may be permitted as Tier-I Capital for CRAR calculation for atleast 10 years or till attaining the sustainable CRAR level. Both Central and state governments may consider contributing to such bonds.

Long term debt

5.32 State government may keep deposits with StCBs/CCBs as long term debt for a period of 10-20 years without any interest or with nominal interest. Such debt may be kept with cooperative banks as share capital deposit for helping banks to attain higher CRAR20 and the same may be reckoned as Tier I capital till the bank sustains CRAR of 9% (say at least 5-7 years). Such debts will have moratorium period of at least 5 years.

Reckoning of Tier II Capital

5.33 In a few banks, it is observed that Tier II Capital is more than Tier I. As per the existing stipulations of RBI, the Tier II capital can be counted upto a maximum extent of Tier I. RBI may consider giving a relaxation for 5 years to treat Tier II capital up to at least 150 % of Tier I towards CRAR compliance.


Chapter 6
Strategies for higher CRAR and Consolidation

6.1 As per ToR 2, sustainability of banks was assessed for higher CRAR and additional capital requirement of banks was estimated wherever needed under different models. The findings of analysis and a few strategies for capital mobilisation were discussed in Chapter 5. As observed, 209 CCBs would need additional capital under various models for CRAR of 7% by 2014- 15 and 9% by 2016-17.

6.2 In this chapter, an attempt is made for assessing feasibility of mobilising additional capital for 209 banks for attaining CRAR of 7% by 2014-15 and 9% by 2016-17 and sustaining the same. As per the assessment indicated earlier, total additional capital requirement was estimated at about ` 4,000 crore to ` 6,500 crore under different models. Bank wise requirement would vary widely depending on each bank’s financials and business. Further, it was attempted to identify the banks, which will not be able to mobilise required capital by using either one or all the strategies and may have to eventually go for consolidation or closure. The results of consolidation and future 5 years’ financial position was also assessed for a few sets of banks to examine their sustainability.

6.3 As mentioned earlier, the additional capital requirement would undergo change if higher growth in business and in agri credit were applied (Model 4).

6.4 It was observed that 58 CCBs with CRAR of less than 7% were very sensitive and would not be able to attain 7% CRAR by 2014-15 without external fund support. Further, these banks may not sustain CRAR of 7% and 9%, even with increased growth in business and agri-credit and a higher market share. These include 26 CCBs which are unlicensed, 21 CCBs licensed but not having CRAR of 4% and a set of 11 other CCBs including CCBs which have received capital infusion for achieving CRAR of 4%.

6.5 Various possible measures for different categories of CCBs were applied to examine the sustainability of CCBs and to find out suitable measures specifically for certain categories of banks. This approach was needed, as a uniform prescription of actions would not help all types of banks.

Measures for different categories of CCBs

6.6 As per Model 1 assessment, the likely total additional capital requirement for CCBs worked out to ` 4,024 crore for 7% CRAR and ` 6,498 crore for 9% CRAR to be mobilised by 209 banks during the next five years. The likely additional capital requirement varied widely from ` 1.84 lakh (Jabalpur CCB) to ` 282 crore (Solapur CCB). The feasibility of mobilising additional capital is discussed hereunder for different groups of banks.

6.7 Out of 41 unlicensed CCBs as on 31 March 2012, 26 remained unlicensed and 15 could attain CRAR of atleast 4%. Another 23 CCBs were licensed but had CRAR of less than 4%. These banks are discussed separately in the following paragraphs.

Unlicensed CCBs

6.8 A decision on the continuation of these 26 unlicensed banks is under consideration of RBI since some State Governments (such as Maharashtra) are in the process of firming up their decision on infusion of capital. The fund requirements of the 26 unlicensed CCBs is likely to be around ` 2,114 crore for 4% CRAR (relaxed norm for license) at the first stage. Further, the likely additional capital requirement of these would be around ` 2,263 crore for 7% CRAR by 2014-15 and ` 2,391 crore for 9% CRAR by 2016-17 (Annexure 6.1).

Licensed Banks with CRAR of less than 4%

6.9 Under this category, 21 of 23 CCBs having CRAR of less than 4% are likely to require additional fund of about ` 912 crore for 7% CRAR by 2014-15 and about ` 1,373 crore for 9% CRAR by 2016-17. The capital requirement varied from ` 7 crore (Nawadha CCB) to ` 275 crore (Kolhapur CCB). Bank-wise requirement is given in Annexure 6.2. The balance two banks, viz., Sangli CCB and Kottayam CCB will not need any additional capital and would sustain on their own for 9% CRAR by 2017.

Unlicensed Banks recommended for licence in 2012-13

6.10 15 CCBs may get licence from RBI in 2012-13 which had attained 4% CRAR on receipt of government funds of about ` 286 crore (by 14 CCBs) and 1 CCB (Aurangabad in Bihar) on its own and NABARD has recommended to RBI for issuance of licence to these CCBs. However, 5 of these banks would be required to mobilise additional capital of ` 6.77 crore for a 7% CRAR by 2014-15 and 7 banks would require additional capital of ` 29.3 crore for 9% CRAR by 2016-17 (Annexure 6.3).

6.11 The Committee recommends that 31 March 2013 may be set as the deadline for these banks to mobilise the required capital either internally or from any other external source so as to achieve 4% CRAR failing which RBI should take the necessary regulatory action.

CCBs with 4% to 7% CRAR

6.12 Under this category, there are 77 banks, of which 66 banks require additional capital. 16 banks would not require any additional capital for 7% CRAR by 2014-15 while the remaining 61 banks would require capital to the extent of ` 805 crore. For attaining 9% CRAR by 2016-17, 66 banks would require an additional amount of ` 1,923 crore (please see table below). The banks are spread across states and the requirements varied from bank to bank, as given in Annexure 6.4.

Additional Capital Requirement for CCBs having CRAR of 4% to <7%

(` in crore)

No. of CCBs with CRAR of 4% to < 7%

No. of CCBs do not require addl. capital for 7% CRAR by 2014-15

No. of CCBs do not require addl. capital for 9% CRAR by 2016-17

No. of CCBs require addl. capital for 7% CRAR by 2014-15

No. of CCBs require addl. capital for 9% CRAR by 2016- 17

No.

Amt.

No.

Amt.

77

16

11

61

805

66

1,923

Banks with CRAR of 7% and above

6.13 There are 229 banks under this category, of which only 18 banks would require additional capital of ` 37.2 crore for maintaining 7% CRAR by 2014-15, while 88 banks would require additional capital of about ` 781 crore for 9% CRAR by 2016-17 (please see the table below). The amount of additional capital to be mobilised would be in the range from ` 7.00 lakh (Etah CCB) to ` 82 crore (Mumbai CCB). Bank-wise requirement is given at Annexure 6.5.

Additional Capital Requirement for CCBs having CRAR of 7% and above

(` in crore)

CCBs with CRAR levels of 7% and above

CCBs may not require any Addl. Capital for

Requirement of Addl. Capital for

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

CRAR level

No. of CCBs

No. of CCBs

No. of CCBs

No. of CCBs

Amt.

No. of CCBs

Amt.

7% to 9%

49

31

8

18

37.2

41

569.8

9% to 12%

83

83

38

00

00

45

209.9

12% & above

97

97

94

00

00

3

1.36

Grand Total

229

211

140

18

37.2

89

781.06

Feasibility of mobilisation of additional capital

6.14 19321 of 209 CCBs were taken up for detailed analysis for finding out feasibility of mobilising additional capital from borrowing and other members of PACS and identify CCBs which would not be able to mobilise funds from members for meeting additional capital requirement for CRAR of 9%.

6.15 CCB-wise analysis was carried out for assessing the feasibility of mobilising additional capital requirement which ranged from ` 1.84 lakh to ` 282 crore. The frequency distribution of capital requirement of 193 CCBs is presented below in the table.

Addl capital required to achieve 9% CRAR

No. of CCBs to mobilise addl. capital per PACS

< ` 25 lakh

`25 lakh – `1 cr

`1 - `2 cr

Total

Upto `1 crore

9

 

 

9

`1 to 5 crore

47

 

 

47

`5 to 10 crore

30

2

 

32

`10 to 50 crore

58

18

 

76

Above `50 crore

7

21

1

29

Total

151

41

1

193

As seen, 9 CCBs require additional capital of less than ` 1 crore (ranging from `1.84 lakh to less than `1 crore), while 29 CCBs would require additional capital of above `50 crore (ranging from `50 crore to `282 crore).

Per PACS basis

6.16 It was observed that 151 CCBs would require additional capital upto ` 25 lakh per PACS which varied from a low of ` 2,000 to a high of ` 25 lakh. Another set of 41 CCBs would require additional capital of ` 5 crore to above ` 50 crore. However, the average per PACS works out to less than ` 25 lakh for 30 CCBs and upto ` 1 crore per PACS for another 2 CCBs. Only 1 CCB (Thiruvananthapuram) requires ` 140.50 crore which works to ` 1.34 crore per PACS. Considering the limitations of capital mobilisation by CCBs from sources other than the members, it is felt that ` 25 lakh per PACS can be taken as a probable and achievable limit to be mobilised by each CCB in accordance with its requirement over the next 4 year period (2013-14 to 2016-17) as additional capital for 9% CRAR. However, 42 of the 151 CCBs may find it difficult to mobilise the regular capital for attaining and maintaining CRAR level of 9% by 2016-17.

Per Borrowing Member basis

6.17 However, as capital has to be contributed technically only by members, further analysis was done to assess the feasibility of capital mobilisation on per borrowing member basis for 193 of 209 CCBs.

Category A

6.18 Of the 151 banks required to mobilise upto ` 25 lakh per PACS, 127 would be able to do so if they mobilise upto ` 4,000 per borrowing member over 4 year period (as shown in table below). It would perhaps be feasible to mobilise capital as interest bearing capital deposits22. 24 of 151 CCBs would however require mobilising more than ` 4,000 to even beyond ` 10,000 per borrowing member, which appears to be not feasible under most circumstances. However, each CCB can assess its capital requirement and the feasibility in mobilisation for deciding its own road map for additional capital mobilisation.

No. of CCBs requiring additional capital for higher CRAR (9%) based
on Model 1 estimation.

Sr. No.

Recap
assistance
required

Category A : Average Per PACS <25 lakh

` 2 -` 500

` 500 -1000

` 1000 -2000

` 2000 -4000

` 4000 -10000

>` 10000

Total

1

Upto ` 1 cr

9

 

 

 

 

 

9

2

` 1 to 5 cr

31

8

5

1

2

 

47

3

` 5 to 10 cr

9

10

4

3

1

3

30

4

` 10 to 50 cr

 

7

19

20

9

3

58

5

Above ` 50 cr

 

 

 

1

3

3

7

6

Total

49

25

28

25

15

9

151

 

 

Category B : Average Per PACS - ` 25 lakh to ` 1 crore

1

` 5 to 10 cr

1

1

 

 

 

 

2

2

` 10 to 50 cr

 

 

5

7

4

2

18

3

Above ` 50 cr

1

2

4

2

3

9

21

 

Total

2

3

9

9

7

11

41

 

 

Category C : Average Per PACS - ` 1 crore to ` 2 crore

1

` 1 to 5 cr

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

Total

51

28

38

34

22

20

193

Categories B and C

6.19 Out of the 42 CCBs required to mobilise more than ` 25 lakh per PACS, 24 CCBs would need to mobilise from PACS’ borrowing members amounts upto ` 4,000/- which seems quite feasible although the absolute amounts per CCB are large. In all, therefore, a total of 151 CCBs (127+24) should be able to mobilise required additional capital if members contribute upto ` 4,000 per member (Annexure 6.6). In this process of additional capital mobilisation, per borrowing member contribution would be upto ` 500 (51 CCBs), ` 500 to ` 1,000 (28 CCBs), ` 1,000 to ` 2,000 (38 CCBs) and ` 2,000 to ` 4,000 (34 CCBs). The remaining 42 CCBs of 193 may not be in a position to mobilise adequate capital from borrowing members of the PACS.

6.20 Efforts therefore need to be initiated by CCBs to convert more non-borrowing members as borrowing members and also enrol additional members. CCBs can strive to mobilise capital additionally from other non-borrowing members and other members availing services as well. In this process, they may mobilise required funds to the extent of about ` 500 crore (@ ` 500 for additional 1 crore such members, as mentioned in chapter 5)

6.21 It may therefore be concluded that 151 CCBs should be able to mobilise the required additional capital. These CCBs should prepare the Sustainable Business Plans (SBPs) after assessing exact requirement of additional capital based on performance as on March 2013 for attaining CRAR of 9% by 2016-17 under Models 2 to 4 from the borrowing members or in combination of other efforts. NABARD and RBI would need to monitor the implementation of SBPs on a regular basis.

6.22 Remaining 58 CCBs would not be able to easily attain CRAR of 9% for sustainability since per borrowing member contribution would be beyond `4,000 and above ` 10,000 in some cases, which is considered to be very high for a farmer to contribute over a period of 4 years. However, individual banks would have to strive to mobilise the required amounts for survival.

6.23 In case any CCB fails to mobilise the additional capital either from members or from any other source, there would be no alternative but to adopt the following two options:

  1. Consolidation of banks wherever feasible, and

  2. If consolidation fails, closure or liquidation.

Consolidation

6.24 The primary objective of consolidation is to make the CCBs sustainable by combining 2 to 4 CCBs so that the combined unit can sustain the CRAR level of at least 9% with a small amount by way of additional capital, which is possible to be generated by the bank from its own operations and additional member contributions.

6.25 There are also small banks with limited business and functional areas as their branch network is limited, or they are functioning in smaller and remote areas. CCBs also became smaller as a consequence of division of districts in various states. Right-sizing of operations of such CCBs is also required23. Many CCBs are having CRAR of above 9% at present24 but have less than ` 200 crore business (deposits+loan outstanding). Such small CCBs would not be able to sustain in the long run, even though some of them presently have 9% CRAR. Hence, consolidation is necessary (Annexure 6.7).

Methodology

6.26 An exercise of consolidation is attempted taking into account both financial and non financial parameters:

a) Consolidation in contiguous geographical areas, where 2 to 4 banks can consolidate with each other with the primary objective of having bigger operational areas, economy of scale, profitability and sustainability.

b) Minimum business level should be at least ` 200 crore.

c) Consolidation would primarily be with CCBs and in case it is not feasible to get desired results, then consolidation with StCBs can be attempted.

d) Where consolidation is not feasible (banks being in isolated areas etc), the weaker banks will have to go for liquidation.

Expected results

6.27 The following results are expected as outcome of consolidation:

  • Have at least 70% of loan business for agriculture and allied activities including both short term and medium term loans.

  • Enhance business level and attain at least 15% market share of agri- credit and further increase this share to about 30%.

  • Adopt technology with appropriate software for MIS generation and also issue AADHAR enabled KCC, and provide ATMs, remittance services, etc. through technological upgradation.

  • Increase the level of branch and staff productivity and profitability.

Process and issues

6.28 The general bodies of the CCBs, which may be consolidated, will have to take appropriate decisions as required in the Cooperative Societies Act of the State.

6.29 HR issues such as, seniority, posting, transfer etc., would also arise and may be resolved as has been done in the case of amalgamation of RRBs. In some cases, voluntarily retirement plan may also have to be designed in the interest of the bank and the employees.

Legal framework

6.30 The Cooperative Societies Act has provisions for amalgamation of a CCB with two or more such CCBs and assets and liabilities can be transferred from the existing unit to the amalgamated bank. Provisions in the Societies Act in UP are not explicitly clear of this option and in a few other States (AP, Gujarat, Karnataka) have limited power for amalgamation. Hence, necessary amendments may be required in the respective Cooperative Societies Acts.

Requirements for Implementation

6.31 A Working Group may be constituted in each state where such an exercise is required to look into various aspects such as

a. Study the legal framework of the state and suggest required amendments.

b. Assess the need for consolidation of CCBs which would be unable to mobilize additional capital and identify the neighbouring CCBs for consolidation after having detailed discussions with all stakeholders;

c. Prepare a projected business and financial plan (as per Models 2 and 4) for ascertaining the attainment of CRAR level of 9% by 2017 and also its sustainability.

d. Assess the need for additional capital and mobilization ability for attaining and ensuring sustainability of 9% CRAR.

e. Assess the feasibility of mobilizing such capital from members and other stakeholders including state government.

f. Address any other matters related to the amalgamation.

Analysis of consolidation

6.32 To assess the feasibility of proposed consolidation, an exercise was carried out, wherein latest financial position of such CCBs identified for consolidation, likely status of the CCBs on consolidation and projected financials including likely CRAR of the consolidated CCBs over next five years was worked out. For projecting the financial position of the consolidated CCB, assumptions / methodology for Model 1 discussed in Chapter 5 were adopted as an initial assessment to examine the possibility of attaining CRAR of 9% by 2017.

Illustrations

6.33 Based on the latest financial position, 37 combinations (5 in West Bengal, 1 in Kerala, 5 in Punjab, 10 in Rajasthan, 9 in Bihar, 4 in Maharashtra and 3 in Odisha) involving 90 CCBs, having contiguous geographical locations were identified for an illustrative exercise and should not be quoted as a prescription of the Committee. These CCBs in Punjab had CRAR ranging from 0.56% to 42.35%, CCBs in Rajasthan with CRAR from 0.12% to 19.91%; CCBs in Bihar with CRAR from -11.14% to 55.10% and so on (as given in Annexure 6.7). Business level of the CCBs in Punjab, Rajasthan and Bihar was ranging from ` 215 crore to ` 1,056 crore, from ` 164 crore to ` 788 crore and from ` 33 crore to about ` 250 crore respectively. Combination of Thiruvananthapuram CCB with the highest amount of business of ` 4206 crore with Kollam CCB was also taken up. It was observed from the combinations that uniformly consolidating the financials (balance sheet as on 31 March 2012) of 2 banks25 would not help in all the cases to arrive at CRAR of 4%. Hence, 3 or more banks may have to be taken depending on the financial conditions of weak and strong banks.

Results of a few samples

6.34 Some possible combinations have been made in 5 states by combining 2 to 4 banks and tested for sustainable CRAR. A few of these combinations are given in table below. It may be seen that the consolidated bank will have sustainable CRAR with some capital infusion in some cases. These 12 consolidated banks were taken for further testing as per Models 1 and 2 for assessing sustainability (as given in Annexure 6.8). It is observed that combined banks still need additional capital (4 out of 5 combinations) under Model 1.

Consolidation of CCBs : Few examples (` in crore)

State

Name of CCB

CRAR (latest)

Total assistance required to achieve 9% by 2016-17 after
consolidation – Model I

As per Model II
recapitalisation
required to achieve
7% and 9%

2014-15

2016-17

1

2

3

4

5

6

Maharashtra

Beed

11.03

 

 

 

Jalna

-10.01

 

 

 

Osmanabad

-3.92

 

 

 

Aurangabad

4.07

 

 

 

Consolidated Bank

4.48

82.91

0

0

Nanded

6.01

 

 

 

Parbhani

14.14

 

 

 

Latur

4.25

 

 

 

Consolidated Bank

9.17

0

0

0

Odisha

Balasore-Bhadrak

7.67

 

 

 

Banki

8.25

 

 

 

Cuttack

5.55

 

 

 

Consolidated Bank

6.63

81.63

0

0

Bolangir

5.18

 

 

 

Bhawanipatna

5.7

 

 

 

Consolidated Bank

5.31

33.52

2

0

Rajasthan

Alwar

13.1

 

 

 

Bharatpur

0.12

 

 

 

Dausa

8.45

 

 

 

Consolidated Bank

7.54

21.23

0

8.50

6.35 Further testing under Model 2 showed that 3 combinations (as shown in table above) would not require any additional capital, whereas 2 combinations, i.e., 1 in Odisha - Bolangir and Bhawanipatna need ` 2 crore in 2014-15 for 7% CRAR while the other combination in Rajasthan, i.e., Alwar, Bharatpur and Dausa CCBs may need ` 8.5 crore in 2016-17 for 9% CRAR.

6.36 The illustrative examples mentioned above clearly indicate that there is a need for assessing additional capital requirement for each of the banks as also for the consolidated banks for actually working out the CRAR level of 9% by 2016-17 on the basis of the Model 2 to 4 (since uniform growth rate in business and profitability as assumed in Model 1 will not work for all the banks).

6.37 It is observed that for CCBs which required huge sums of additional capital for 9% CRAR, such as Solapur (` 282 crore), Kolhapur (` 275 crore), Deoria Kasia DCB (` 174 crore), Jammu CCB (` 201 crore) and Nagpur CCB (` 151 crore), it would not be feasible to take them up for consolidation without any external capital infusion either from the members or from any external source. Many of such banks have actually incurred huge losses not due to their agricultural lending portfolio but because of other business and investments. It would therefore be logical that such banks are taken up for closure/ liquidation after taking out their agricultural credit portfolio and consolidating only that part with other CCBs.

PACS as Business Correspondents (BC)

6.38 The need for PACS to function as BCs of CCBs has been articulated in para 5.8 of Chapter 5.

6.39 Functionally, while working as BCs, the loaning operations as also deposits collection will be carried out by PACS on behalf of CCBs and will be on the books of the CCBs, hence imbalances between the PACS and CCBs would not arise. While PACS will carry out their traditional operations on behalf of CCBs26 and earn agency fees without any risk, a proper mechanism needs to be developed in this regard. This will also enable PACS to increasingly provide other agricultural and non-agricultural services to the members who would now be members of both the PACS as well as of CCB.

6.40 NABARD has taken a lead for creating a common CBS system in over 200 CCBs and StCBs across the country. It is also creating the required ICT support infrastructure in the form of POS terminals and ATM card, as well as arranging required capacity building in CCBs. This will help CCBs to provide doorstep banking facilities using the services of PACS as BCs. This will also enable the member clients of CCBs and PACS to connect to the national payment system and avail all types of financial services. This can be implemented in any CCB or StCB having stabilized CBS branches. The Committee also proposes that a deadline of 30 September 2013 may be prescribed by RBI for all CCBs and StCBs to be fully operational on CBS and also to be part of the payment gateway through RTGS and NEFT and connectivity to the ATM or switch either directly or through a sponsor bank.


Chapter 7
Policy Measures and other Initiatives Required

7.1 The Committee observed that while mobilisation of the required capital by the concerned CCBs may help meet the CRAR requirements, the CCBs and StCBs will have to take many other steps in improving internal systems, adoption of technology, and improvement of human resources if they have to survive and function as an efficient banking institutions. PACS will also have to undergo a structural transformation while working as BCs and aim at providing multiple financial and non-financial services to member farmers and other rural population. These would require various policy measures and initiatives to be undertaken not only by the ST CCS, but also by the concerned state governments, RBI, Central Government and others. These measures and initiatives are indicated in the paragraphs below.

Membership of CCBs

7.2 At present, the CCB is a federal structure with PACS and other cooperatives being the principal members and having voting rights for the purpose of electing the Board of Directors of the CCB. However, as indicated earlier, when the CCBs start providing deposit and loan products to the rural population with PACS acting only as business correspondents, these depositors and borrowers will become direct clients of CCBs. In order to ensure good governance, it would be necessary that these depositors and borrowers become voting members of the CCB, subject to their being defined as “active members” as per the recent Constitutional amendment for cooperatives. It would be necessary to define “active member” in terms of amount of deposit and period for which the deposit is kept so far as depositors are concerned, and similarly in terms of amount of loan taken and the status of such a loan in terms of default, in the case of borrowers. That authority to prescribe parameters of deposits and loans for defining active members shall vest with RBI or an agency authorised by RBI.

7.3 These initiatives would require suitable amendments in the respective State Cooperative Societies Act with necessary changes in Rules and Byelaws. PACS will have to enter into a suitable agreement with the CCB for which it acts as business correspondent for payment of service fees. The members of PACS will then be farmers and others who avail of services directly provided by the PACS which would include services like sale of farm inputs, leasing out of equipments, provision of warehousing space to member farmers, provision of services like payment of electricity bills, insurance premium etc. as well as many other non-financial services like sale of household goods etc. If the PACS is in a position to also work as an extension centre for member farmers in collaboration with an appropriate technology service provider, such services would also be included and farmers availing of such services would need to become members of PACS. However, PACS not being any longer borrowing entities of CCBs, would not be having voting rights for elections to the Board of Directors of the CCB. Necessary amendments to the respective State Cooperative Societies Act with necessary changes in Rules and Byelaws would have to be carried out.

Role, Status and Functions of StCBs

7.4 To the extent the StCBs are able to mobilise deposits from individuals, cooperatives other than CCBs and governmental institutions and agencies, they would continue to provide a useful service to CCBs in terms of supplementing the liquidity of CCBs which need it. StCBs could also continue to act as aggregators of refinance requirements on behalf of member CCBs and take necessary action for borrowing and disbursing the same to the CCBs although, technically, CCBs being independent banks can avail of such refinance directly from higher financing institutions, and there needs to be an enabling provision to this effect irrespective of their federal relationship with the StCB.

7.5 It has been mentioned in earlier chapters that the StCBs and CCBs need to move towards providing about 70% of their loans for agriculture inclusive of crop loans and term loans for making capital investment in farms, and about 30% of their loan portfolio should be diversified as a risk mitigating measure. To facilitate such diversification in a safe manner, the Committee recommends a higher allocation to StCBs (and CCBs led by the concerned StCB) in the food consortium advances by the banking system for a period of at least 10 years.

7.6 It has been mentioned earlier that CCBs place their SLR and CRR deposits with StCBs and a regulatory issue arises when the same StCB disburses loans to the concerned CCBs or to others, thus placing the SLR and CRR deposits of CCBs to risk. Opportunities, direction and guidance for making safe investments of such deposits therefore need to be provided to StCBs by the RBI.

7.7 At present, there is a single StCB in each state although there are enabling provisions for more than one StCB in a single state27. The Committee has noted that states have been divided in the past due to a variety of reasons. Following such divisions, division of StCBs has also been done in many cases. The Committee feels that division of a business entity only due to division of administrative boundaries may not necessarily result in efficient and profitable divided entities. The Committee therefore recommends that if a state is divided the possibility of the existing StCB functioning as a multistate cooperative bank should not be overlooked. Necessary amendments in the Multistate Cooperative Societies Act, BR Act, and NABARD Act would therefore be required to enable the functioning of a Multi-state apex cooperative bank which is federal in character.

7.8 At present, the StCB is not only a banking entity for the affiliated CCBs, it is also expected to provide guidance, technical support, support in human resource development through training and other such initiatives, and handholding support for many other activities. The Committee notes that quite often business and banking decisions of the StCBs which are bottom line oriented could be in conflict with development initiatives which the StCBs are expected to take as these are in the nature of expenditure. The Committee therefore recommends that CCBs and other cooperatives should either avail the services through other professional entities or financially support the formation and operations of a separate federal cooperative for providing only non-financial services to the member CCBs28.

Governance and Management of StCBs and CCBs

7.9 The Vaidyanathan Task Force had recommended various measures for improving governance and management in StCBs and CCBs. The present Committee endorses the same and makes following recommendations to further improve the governance and management in StCBs and CCBs.

i. An autonomous cooperative election authority to be set up in each state as per the requirements of the Constitutional amendments would conduct elections for StCBs and CCBs also. On lines of the conditions of the Vaidyanathan Task Force for election to PACS, the Committee recommends an amendment in the respective State Cooperative Societies Act to provide that any director on the board of CCB or StCB removed or superseded by RBI for any financial irregularity or if the bank incurred losses in any three years during their term of five years may be barred from contesting elections in that CCB or StCB or any other CCB for a period of five years.

ii. Being banking institutions, the authority to remove the boards of StCBs and CCBs needs to be solely vested with RBI. Necessary amendments in the BR Act and the State Cooperative Societies Act would have to be carried out to ensure overriding powers of RBI vis-à-vis any other law.

iii. The Fit and Proper criteria presently prescribed by RBI for election of professionals to the boards of CCBs and StCBs stipulates three professionals to be either elected or to be co-opted with voting rights in case such number does not get elected. The recent Constitutional amendment puts the number of such professionals in cooperatives at two. Suitable amendment in the BR Act giving RBI overriding powers to prescribe the number of professionals generally for StCBs and CCBs, as well as specifically for a particular StCB or CCB as part of regulatory action, needs to be made. A modification in the present RBI order on Fit and Proper criteria for Board of Directors is also required to specify that each such professional should be of a separate specialisation. Such professional directors, if required to be co-opted, also should be co-opted within three months of the constitution of the board of the CCB or StCB failing which RBI should be free to take any necessary regulatory action.

iv. The Constitutional amendment prescribes that the panel of statutory auditors would be recommended by the state. However, CCBs and StCBs being banking institutions, the authority for appointing statutory auditors needs to be vested with the RBI or an agency authorised by RBI.

v. In order to provide better and more efficient financial services to the farmers and other rural population, if any PACS wishes to function as the BC of a CCB registered in a district other than in which the PACS is located and the CCB is in agreement to provide financial services in the operational area of that PACS by taking up that PACS as its BC, it should be free to do so. In such an event, the RBI would be required to modify the banking licence provided to the CCB for expanding its operational area to that district where such a PACS is located.

vi. At present, some of the State Cooperative Societies Acts29 contain provisions which restrict the flexibility of StCBs and CCBs in taking business decisions like prescribing the percentage of share linkage on loans, making investments, payment of dividend, etc. Necessary amendments in the State Cooperatives Societies Acts would be required which give complete freedom to the CCBs and StCBs to take such business decisions within the directions and guidelines prescribed by RBI.

Other recommendations

7.10 The Committee recommends that 30 September 2013 may be set as the deadline for all the StCBs and CCBs to be not only fully operational on CBS but also be part of the payment system through RTGS and NEFT, and also provide transactions through any ATM and POS devices which may be placed with PACS, input suppliers etc.

7.11 State and Central governments may take required steps to involve StCBs and CCBs in the financial inclusion drive and electronic benefit transfers (EBTs). The governments may also consider placing deposits of governmental agencies and entities with StCBs and CCBs which have achieved 7% sustainable CRAR and are already on core banking platform.

7.12 The depositors and borrowers of CCBs and StCBs also need to be part of a grievance redressal mechanism in the nature of Ombudsman instituted by RBI and the Committee recommends that all licensed CCBs and StCBs may be covered by the Ombudsman or a similar mechanism that may be developed by RBI with NABARD.

7.13 With the CCBs and StCBs moving onto the CBS and other ICT platforms, their human resource requirements would no longer be governed by the Mitra Committee recommendations made as a follow-up of the implementation of the Vaidyanathan package. RBI may like to constitute a working group to look into these issues and make suitable recommendations.

7.14 As a large number of CCBs and StCBs are required to augment their capital, the Committee recommends that the Government of India may consider providing income tax exemption to CCBs and StCBs up to 2016-17 for incentivizing them to achieve CRAR of 9%.

7.15 RBI may consider graded CRAR norms for CCBs and StCBs of different businesses sizes.


ANNEXURES AND APPENDICES

Annexure 1.1

Chief General Manager
DO RPCD.CO.RCBD. 593 /07.06.000/2012-13

July 23, 2012

Dear Dr. Prakash Bakshi

Expert Committee to examine Three-Tier-
Short Term Cooperative Credit Structure (STCCS)

As per the recommendations of the Committee on Financial Sector Assessment (CFSA) (Chairman: Dr. Rakesh Mohan), no unlicensed cooperative bank may be allowed to operate in cooperative space beyond 31 March 2012. However, this has to be attained in a non-disruptive manner. After recapitalization of the three tier Short-Term Co-operative Credit Structure (STCCS) 43 Central Cooperative Banks (CCBs) continue to have high level of financial impairment and as on 31 March 2012 they were unable to meet the licensing criteria. These financially weak/unviable entities need to be strengthened/weeded out of the financial system. The structural constraints in rural credit delivery system would need to be addressed so as to ensure a sustainable rural financial system. In order to examine all such issues and explore various ways to strengthen the rural cooperative credit architecture with appropriate institutions and instruments of credit to fulfill credit needs, it was proposed in the Annual Policy Statement for the year 2012-13, to constitute a Working Group to review the Short Term Cooperative Credit Structure (STCCS). The Committee will make an in-depth analysis of the STCCS and examine various alternatives with a view to reducing the cost of credit, including feasibility of setting up of a two-tier STCCS as against the existing three-tier structure Consequently, Reserve Bank has constituted an 'Expert Committee' under the Chairmanship of Shri Prakash Bakshi, Chairman, NABARD with the following terms of reference:

i) To assess role played by State & District Central Cooperative Banks in fulfilling the requirement of agriculture credit, the primary purpose for which they were set up

ii) To identify Cooperative Banks that may not be sustainable in the long run even if some of them have met the diluted licensing criteria for the time being

iii) To suggest appropriate mechanism for consolidation by way of amalgamation, merger, takeover, liquidation and delayering

iv) To suggest pro-active measures that need to be taken in this direction by the cooperative banks themselves, GOI, State Governments, RBI and NABARD

v) Any other issues and concerns relevant to the subject matter.

2. It gives me great pleasure to inform that you have been nominated Chairman of the Expert Committee, which is as under;

(i)

Dr. Prakash Bakshi, Chairman, NABARD

: Chairman

(ii)

Shri V. Ramakrishna Rao, ED, NABARD

: Member

(iii)

The Joint Secretary, DFS, MOF, GOI

: Member

(iv)

Dr. Mona Sharma, Principal Secretary, Govt. of Odisha

: Member

(v)

Shri Yadavalli Vijendra Reddy A.P. State Coop. Bank

: Member

(vi)

Dr. B. Yerram Raju, an Expert in the field

: Member

(vii)

Dr. H. Shylendra, Institute of Rural Management, Anand

: Member

(viii)

Shri C. D. Srinivasan, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Rural Planning and Credit Department will be the Member Secretary.

3. The Committee is required to submit its report within three months of the date of its first meeting.

With best regards,

01

Dr Prakash Bakshi
Chairman
National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development
Plot No.C-24, G-Block
Bandra-Kurla Complex
PB No.8121, Bandra (East)
Mumbai –400051

Annexure 3.1

State-wise Details of Membership, and Loan Issued by PACS in Two tier & mixed tier structures- Average of 3 Years (2009-10 to 2011-12)

Sl. No.

State

No. of PACS

Membership of PACS (No.)

Loans issued by PACS

Average Member per PACS

Avg borr. memb er per PACS

% Borro wing memb ership

Avg loan per memb er in `

Avg. Agri.
Loan per borr
ower in `

Total
members
(No.)

Borrowing membership (No.)

Amt of loan issued
(` crore)

Agri

Non-
Agri

Total

Agri

Non-
Agri

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1

Andhra Pradesh

3126

10368739

2711409

251135

2962544

5845

332

6177

3317

948

28.6

20852

21557

2

Bihar

7299

988687

146388

0

146388

414

0

414

136

21

14.8

28301

28301

3

Chattisgarh

1104

1931587

1287296

4460

1291756

1186

40

1226

1750

1171

66.9

9493

9215

4

Gujarat

8052

2551887

1091709

8818

1100527

4762

125

4887

317

137

43.1

44407

43621

5

Haryana

643

2754823

1189932

431882

1621814

5087

134

5222

4285

2523

58.9

32197

42754

6

Karnataka

4821

4991824

1634771

480830

2115601

4709

2047

6756

1036

439

42.4

31935

28803

7

Kerala

1554

15346101

2993982

5069067

8063049

3959

25474

29433

9876

5189

52.5

36503

13222

8

MP

4526

6210642

3913546

0

3913546

5747

0

5747

1373

865

63.0

14685

14685

9

Maharashtra

20653

8219599

3279577

128868

3408445

10145

1027

11172

398

166

41.5

32778

30934

10

Orissa

2699

4884332

1976808

70495

2047303

3633

162

3795

1810

759

41.9

18536

18379

11

Punjab

3636

1573630

1063007

436583

1499590

8496

579

9075

433

413

95.3

60519

79925

12

Rajasthan

5396

4485269

2564286

0

2564286

5488

1379

6867

832

476

57.2

26780

21401

13

Tamil Nadu

4534

9249536

3652657

0

3652657

2842

12018

14860

2041

806

39.5

40682

7781

14

U P

7253

12594640

3926263

0

3926263

3217

3071

6289

1737

542

31.2

16017

8194

15

Jharkhand

498

1251910

1129000

122910

1251910

188

0

188

2514

2514

100.0

1501

1664

16

Uttarakhand

756

187253

93901

62468

156369

160

0

161

248

207

83.5

10276

17068

17

West Bengal

5106

2969736

1504601

165647

1670248

1378

336

1714

582

328

56.2

10260

9156

18

HP

2104

1078481

124271

0

124271

258

33

291

513

60

11.5

23420

20764

19

J & K

567

884151

188452

0

188452

16

1

17

1560

333

21.3

915

870

 

Total

84327

92522827

34471856

7233163

41705019

67531

46760

114291

1098

495

45.1

27405

19590


Annexure 3.2

State-wise Summary of Loans Issued by CCBs
in Three tier & mixed tier Structures vis-à-vis All Agencies
Average for the Years 2009-10 to 2011-12

(` crore)

Sl. No.

Name of the State

GLC of all agencies

GLC of CCBs

Total Loans Issued

Of which Agriculture Sector

Total Loans Issued

Of which Agriculture Sector

Short term

Term Loan

Total

Short Term

Term loan

Total

1

Andhra Pradesh

70575

30508

17435

47943

8540

5975

569

6544

2

Bihar

21625

6462

3445

9907

397

397

0

397

3

Chhattisgarh

6529

1678

1735

3413

1203

1061

92

1153

4

Gujarat

33771

13689

6165

19854

6947

4469

563

5032

5

Haryana

50355

17150

9472

26622

6388

4829

151

4980

6

Karnataka

39319

14229

4833

19063

8168

3640

239

3880

7

Kerala

89067

24503

4686

29188

34401

6358

567

6926

8

Madhya Pradesh

25497

15482

3733

19214

6464

5979

168

6146

9

Maharashtra

42092

13144

5289

18434

13343

7863

1216

9079

10

Odisha

16169

5535

1674

7209

3890

3410

134

3545

11

Punjab

49015

25661

5124

30785

11944

8421

388

8809

12

Rajasthan

33496

17911

5227

23138

7038

5659

171

5830

13

Tamil Nadu

54113

28197

4042

32240

5535

3249

334

3583

14

Uttar Pradesh

55787

23981

8458

32439

8963

4272

937

5208

15

Jharkhand

13012

950

504

1454

78

9

0

9

16

Uttarakhand

5804

1570

993

2563

1032

485

127

612

17

West Bengal

17551

4460

2607

7067

2942

1201

158

1359

18

Himachal Pradesh

3623

580

516

1096

906

111

85

197

19

Jammu & Kashmir

3483

182

425

608

128

17

8

25

 

Total

630883

245873

86364

332238

128309

67406

5907

73313


Annexure 3.3

Share of CCBs in Three tier & mixed tier Structures
In Total Loans Issued and agri loan in its operational area
(Based on average of years 2009-10 to 2011-12)

(share in %)

Sl

State

Share of CCBs in Total LI (%)

Share of CCBs in Agri LI (%)

Share of CCBs in crop loan (%)

Share of Agri LI of CCB in its Total LI (%)

1

Andhra Pradesh

12

14

20

77

2

Bihar

2

4

6

100

3

Chhattisgarh

18

34

63

96

4

Gujarat

21

25

33

72

5

Haryana

13

19

28

78

6

Karnataka

21

20

26

47

7

Kerala

39

24

26

20

8

Madhya Pradesh

25

32

39

95

9

Maharashtra

32

49

60

68

10

Odisha

24

49

62

91

11

Punjab

24

29

33

74

12

Rajasthan

21

25

32

83

13

Tamil Nadu

10

11

12

65

14

Uttar Pradesh

16

16

18

58

15

Jharkhand

1

1

1

12

16

Uttarakhand

18

24

31

59

17

West Bengal

17

19

27

46

18

Himachal Pradesh

25

18

19

22

19

Jammu & Kashmir

4

4

9

19

 

Average

20

22

27

57


Annexure 3.4

Share of CCBs in Three tier & mixed tier Structures in
Total Loans Issued, Agri loans and Crop Loans based on 3 years average- Range

Sl

State

Share of CCBs in Total LI (%)

Share of CCBs in Agri LI (%)

Share of CCBs in Crop Loan (%)

CRAR (%)

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

Minimum

Maximum

1

Andhra Pradesh

8.0

25.5

10.3

24.4

10.7

41.4

4.9

26.3

2

Bihar

0.3

10.8

0.6

17.3

0.8

26.7

-1.3

55.1

3

Chhattisgarh

11.4

38.6

18.7

71.2

6.1

79.8

8.9

25.2

4

Gujarat

4.7

43.7

5.1

59.7

6.9

78.2

4.2

16.8

5

Haryana

8.9

32.3

16.4

45.2

17.9

59.3

3.8

13.5

6

Karnataka

3.1

68.5

4.3

51.5

4.8

59.1

7.1

25.3

7

Kerala

18.7

67.4

9.4

50.5

12.4

51.8

-2.1

11.4

8

Madhya Pradesh

6.3

68.3

9.3

77.1

13.7

78.9

4.3

25.2

9

Maharashtra

8.6

69.1

12.1

71.6

18.5

84.9

-18.4

26.8

10

Orissa

13.5

55.0

21.4

71.7

33.9

79.8

4.5

11.1

11

Punjab

10.8

49.4

8.5

46.9

10.1

48.2

0.6

26.1

12

Rajasthan

6.1

45.6

9.6

51.7

13.4

66.7

0.1

13.1

13

Tamil Nadu

2.3

30.7

3.4

27.5

3.0

28.9

4.91

13.2

14

Uttar Pradesh

0.3

57.5

0.4

49.7

0.4

49.5

-1700.7

24.7

15

Jharkhand

0.3

1.6

0.0

2.7

0.1

4.6

5.7

61.8

16

Uttaranchal

13.3

37.3

15.9

57.4

22.7

61.5

9.9

23.2

17

West Bengal

1.0

36.2

2.5

38.8

3.8

66.0

-19.7

12.8

18

HP

10.7

30.6

17.6

19.2

16.0

37.1

10.1

23.2

19

J & K

1.7

6.1

2.5

4.9

5.0

15.7

-140.1

-7.2

 

All India

0.3

69.1

0.0

77.1

0.1

84.9

-1700.7

61.8


Annexure 3.5

State-wise Summary of Loans Issued (LI)
by StCBs under Two Tier Structure vis-à-vis All Agencies
Average for the Years 2009-10 to 2011-12

(GLC in ` crore, share in %)

Sl.
No.

Name of the
State

GLC of all agencies

GLC of StCBs

Share of StCBs in

Total

Agriculture Sector

Total

Agriculture Sector

Short
term

Term
loan

Total

Short
term

Term
loan

Total

Total
LI

Agri
LI

crop
loan

Agri LI
in its
Total
LI

Crop
LI in
its
Agri
LI

1

Assam

3329

605

626

1231

63

5

26

32

2

3

1

50

16

2

Andaman & Nicobar

268

6

32

38

48

2

21

23

18

59

33

47

9

3

Arunachal Pradesh

159

22

38

60

5

0

2

2

3

3

0

33

3

4

Chandigarh

6804

0

4792

4792

13

0

0

0

0

0

 

0

 

5

Delhi

474

30

36

66

12

1

3

3

3

5

2

28

19

6

Goa

2448

79

148

227

589

10

15

25

24

11

13

4

41

7

Manipur

382

20

35

55

12

0

4

4

3

7

0

32

2

8

Meghalaya

519

90

66

156

34

4

5

10

7

6

5

28

46

9

Mizoram

456

36

41

77

85

1

8

10

19

12

3

11

12

10

Nagaland

201

0

0

95

21

0

0

14

10

14

 

66

0

11

Puducherry

1561

281

62

343

405

10

0

10

26

3

4

3

97

12

Sikkim

504

12

13

25

23

4

1

5

5

20

36

22

85

13

Tripura

1254

278

0

278

146

28

0

28

12

10

10

19

100

 

Total

18359

1458

5890

7443

1457

66

85

164

8

2

5

11

40


Annexure 4.1

Business and Profitability parameters of StCBs Three & mixed Tier Structures as on 31 March 2012

(` in crore)

Sr
No

StCB

Capital

Reser
ves &
Surplus

Total
Deposits

Total
Borro
wings

Total
Invest
ments

Total
Loans
Outsta nding

Interest earned on

Interest paid on

Profit (+)
/ Loss (-)

Accum
ulated
Loss, if any

Invest ments

Advances

Dep
osits

Borro
wings

1

Andhra Pradesh

247

1354

3912

5086

1543

7078

279

419

275

220

123

0

2

Bihar

20

172

1866

846

1046

1710

96

105

116

16

46

0

3

Chhattisgarh

77

80

1484

702

428

1156

27

71

107

24

10

0

4

Gujarat

21

311

4862

2504

3632

3624

324

235

380

136

19

0

5

Haryana

102

330

2131

3404

1358

4515

113

197

140

118

19

0

6

Karnataka

113

420

5263

2834

2908

5382

179

364

361

115

29

0

7

Kerala

389

393

5904

1384

4436

3077

200

113

474

26

-101

390

8

Madhya Pradesh

212

312

3879

3347

3081

4529

260

283

258

122

68

0

9

Maharashtra

445

656

15862

3966

12040

10285

886

809

1285

145

175

77

10

Orissa

171

122

3954

3403

4136

3793

263

238

320

134

11

0

11

Punjab

68

244

2593

4823

1488

6296

126

327

167

185

27

0

12

Rajasthan

84

398

3580

3611

3491

4036

248

212

253

151

20

0

13

Tamil Nadu

996

579

6523

2328

2139

7538

182

548

476

114

52

0

14

UP

144

573

4631

1804

2484

4979

253

233

358

70

30

0

15

Uttaranchal

34

25

1231

511

1080

643

93

33

95

18

3

0

16

H P

8

326

5242

749

3931

2362

313

230

357

39

41

0

17

J & K

2

7

538

1

427

103

36

11

33

0

4

0

18

West Bengal

40

104

4814

1649

3189

2873

248

420

492

45

-31

27

 

Total

3170

6408

78270

42953

52837

73978

4126

4849

5946

1679

544

494


Annexure 4.2

Business and Profitability parameters of CCBs in Three & mixed Tier Structures as on 31 March 2012

(` crore)

Sr No

State

Cap
ital

Rese
rves & Sur
plus

Total Dep
osits

Total Borro wings

Total Invest ments

Total Loans Outsta nding

Interest earned on

Interest paid on

No. of CCBs in Profit

Amo
unt of Profit

No. of CCBs in Loss

Amo
unt of Loss

Accum ulated Losses

Invest ments

Adva nces

Depo sits

Borro wings

1

Andhra Pradesh

1045

1014

4702

6412

3246

9725

219

707

343

318

21

50

1

-2

180

2

Bihar

175

134

1807

422

932

849

66

103

90

12

18

30

2

-2

5

3

Chhattisgarh

190

174

3404

703

2693

1308

234

166

143

32

6

60

0

0

0

4

Gujarat

390

978

14075

3411

10277

8309

694

869

819

162

15

87

3

-13

0

5

Haryana

332

355

5365

4144

2364

7562

165

477

305

171

14

8

5

-28

0

6

Jharkhand

73

76

901

81

626

305

72

30

61

2

8

11

0

0

0

7

Karnataka

505

683

9222

3952

4331

9669

345

780

542

193

21

99

0

0

16

8

Kerala

206

899

22414

2404

7113

17463

598

1923

1681

243

11

41

3

-20

0

9

Maharashtra

1911

3212

49231

5110

23083

35298

1780

3238

2447

291

30

428

1

-7

0

10

MP

685

1005

9536

3918

5870

8651

376

901

504

229

38

181

0

0

0

11

Odisha

587

137

4731

3006

3160

5360

257

416

335

124

15

32

2

-52

26

12

Punjab

162

696

9035

5665

1743

9864

411

724

508

265

17

34

3

-11

29

13

Rajasthan

320

352

7063

3830

4514

6213

298

531

434

171

28

44

1

-9

10

14

Tamil Nadu

1639

1206

15418

5399

4332

20590

357

1918

1214

369

23

189

0

0

3

15

UP

441

1149

11646

3503

8347

6763

744

433

534

161

32

98

18

-153

25

16

Uttarakhand

45

310

4249

671

3350

1738

287

148

238

27

10

52

0

0

12

17

West Bengal

165

346

7576

877

4457

4104

403

361

493

52

16

31

1

-2

0

18

HP

5

588

5663

340

3551

2654

296

237

378

10

2

36

0

0

24

19

J & K

5

68

1616

15

780

604

59

59

21

2

0

0

3

-35

1

 

Total

8881

13381

187653

53863

94768

157028

7659

14019

11090

2835

325

1511

43

-334

331


Annexure 4.3

Business and Profitability parameters of StCBs in Two tier Structure as on 31 March 2012

(` in crore)

Sr. No.

StCB

Capital

Rese
rves & Sur
plus

Total Depo
sits

Total Borrow ings

Total Invest
ments

Total Loans Outstan ding

Gross NPA Amo
unt

Interest earned on Investm ents

Inte
rest on adva
nces

Inte
rest paid on depo
sits

Interest paid on Borrow ings

Profit (+) / Loss (-)

Accum ulated Loss, (if any)

1

Assam

9

16

1559

7

1020

505

104

79

46

61

0

26

16

2

Andaman & Nicobar

3

41

456

46

316

223

43

26

22

24

4

3

0

3

Arunachal Pradesh

192

6

95

149

20

109

92

24

2

3

14

0

129

4

Chandigarh

1

11

254

0

217

62

9

16

7

12

0

3

0

5

Delhi

3

144

794

21

634

362

27

111

0

44

0

30

0

6

Goa

21

90

1160

0

527

624

94

46

70

85

0

1

0

7

Manipur

15

31

95

121

103

153

133

9

5

3

1

0

21

8

Meghalaya

6

53

1184

44

888

422

56

67

42

54

3

11

0

9

Mizoram

6

4

372

30

106

237

40

12

21

17

2

3

0

10

Nagaland

35

27

367

10

236

132

34

19

11

16

1

1

43

11

Pondicherry

15

46

533

19

171

387

50

10

42

34

1

-7

11

12

Sikkim

11

11

136

21

43

93

5

7

10

8

2

3

0

13

Tripura

17

21

1156

3

761

356

27

53

31

64

0

14

0

 

Total

334

500

8160

472

5043

3666

714

479

308

424

28

87

220


Annexure 4.4

Deposits by Type and by Source of StCBs in Three tier and mixed tier Structures as on 31 March 2012

(` crore)

Sr.
No.

StCB

Deposits by Type

Deposits by Source

Fixed /
Term
Deposits

Savings
Bank
Deposits

Current
Deposits

Total
Deposits

Of which,
Total
CASA
Deposits

Share of
CASA
Deposits
to Total
(%)

Deposits
by
Indivi
duals

Deposits
by CCBs

Depo
sits
by Other
Socie
ties

Depo
sits
by Govt. /
Govt.
bodies

Total
Depo
sits

1

Andhra Pradesh

3478

176

258

3912

434

11

545

2941

153

273

3912

2

Bihar

1011

412

444

1866

855

46

611

802

453

0

1866

3

Chhattisgarh

1344

96

43

1484

139

9

124

1318

42

0

1484

4

Gujarat

4633

5

223

4862

229

5

38

3737

1087

0

4862

5

Haryana

1838

232

60

2131

292

14

411

1535

47

138

2131

6

Karnataka

4596

297

371

5263

668

13

836

3987

0

440

5263

7

Kerala

5518

91

295

5904

386

7

300

5473

131

0

5904

8

Madhya Pradesh

3364

209

305

3879

514

13

426

3051

402

0

3879

9

Maharashtra

14635

624

603

15862

1228

8

861

11330

3671

0

15862

10

Orissa

3739

118

98

3954

216

5

739

2922

114

179

3954

11

Punjab

2259

215

120

2593

335

13

579

1924

91

0

2593

12

Rajasthan

3225

74

281

3580

355

10

293

3287

0

0

3580

13

Tamil Nadu

5764

611

149

6523

759

12

2178

3479

866

0

6523

14

Uttar Pradesh

4149

335

147

4631

482

10

700

3437

493

0

4631

15

Uttaranchal

1198

10

23

1231

33

3

14

1205

12

0

1231

16

Himachal Pradesh

3517

1628

97

5242

1726

33

5073

0

156

13

5242

17

Jammu & Kashmir

351

126

61

538

187

35

288

249

0

0

538

18

West Bengal

4052

448

314

4814

762

16

1055

2737

1020

3

4814

 

Grand Total

68670

5707

3893

78270

9600

12

15072

53414

8738

1046

78270


Annexure 4.5

Analysis of NPAs of Agri and Non Agri loans of Select StCBs

(` in crore)

Sl. No.

Name of the StCB

Position as on (31 March)

Total loan o/s

Agri. Loan o/s

Non-Agri loan o/s

Gross NPAs

Agri. Loan NPAs

Non-Agri loan NPAs

% of Non Agri Loans to Total Loans

Prov for Agr.

Prov. For non-agri

Net Loss/ Profit

Accu mula ted loss

Gross NPAs %

Agri NPA %

Non-Agri. NPA %

1

Punjab StCB

2011

5325

4187

1138

55

26

29

21.4

99

19

26

0

1.0

0.6

2.6

2

West Bengal StCB

2011

3303

2396

907

424

385

39

27.5

28

39

10

0

12.8

16.1

4.3

3

UP StCB Ltd.

2011

3999

3979

1999

313

116

197

50.0

269

159

21

0

7.8

2.9

9.8

4

Andhra Pradesh StCB

2011

5660

4835

825

155

44

111

14.6

4

22

112

0

2.7

0.9

13.5

5

Madhya Pradesh StCB

2011

3271

2661

610

105

0

105

18.7

0

75

40

0

3.2

0.0

17.2

6

Maharastra StCB

2012

10285

3725

6560

2210

0

2210

63.8

0

2039

175

77

21.5

0.0

33.7


Annexure 4.6

Deposits by Type and by Source of CCBs in Three tier and mixed tier Structures as on 31 March 2012

(` crore)

Sr No

State

Deposits by Type

Deposits by Source

Fixed
/Term Deposits

Savings Bank Deposits

Current Deposits

Total Deposits

Of which, Total CASA Deposits

Share of CASA Deposits in Total (%)

Deposits by Indivi
duals

Depo
sits by PACS

Depo
sits by Other Soci
eties

Deposits by Govt./ Govt. bodies

Total Depo
sits

1

Andhra Pradesh

3793

745

165

4702

909

19

2958

1092

533

120

4702

2

Bihar

492

1132

183

1807

1315

73

1432

23

267

85

1807

3

Chhattisgarh

1126

2112

166

3404

2278

67

2798

445

25

136

3404

4

Gujarat

7540

5429

1107

14075

6535

46

9729

488

3560

299

14075

5

Haryana

2625

2631

109

5365

2740

51

3896

179

436

853

5365

6

Jharkhand

370

479

52

901

531

59

670

11

204

16

901

7

Karnataka

6332

2126

763

9222

2890

31

5225

2069

1483

444

9222

8

Kerala

18171

3342

901

22414

4243

19

10019

9571

2369

455

22414

9

Maharashtra

22887

17312

9032

49231

26344

54

29071

5731

7244

7185

49231

10

MP

5162

3789

585

9536

4374

46

6041

801

1994

699

9536

11

Odisha

3246

1342

143

4731

1485

31

3041

1551

73

65

4731

12

Punjab

4433

4324

278

9035

4602

51

7373

1354

54

254

9035

13

Rajasthan

4428

2382

252

7063

2635

37

4613

991

933

526

7063

14

Tamil Nadu

11997

2451

971

15418

3422

22

10680

3214

866

658

15418

15

Uttar Pradesh

4377

6734

535

11646

7269

62

10624

317

546

159

11646

16

Uttarakhand

1833

2267

150

4249

2416

57

2976

795

115

363

4249

17

West Bengal

4889

2498

189

7576

2686

35

4701

2122

691

62

7576

18

HP

4120

1521

21

5663

1542

27

4121

11

1173

358

5663

19

J & K

827

681

108

1616

789

49

1543

11

1

62

1616

 

Total

108647

63297

15709

187653

79005

42

121510

30776

22567

12800

187653


Annexure 4.7

Analysis of NPAs of Agri and Non Agri loans of Select CCBs

(` in crore)

Sl. No

Name of the CCB

Position as on

Total loan o/s

Agri. Loan o/s

Non-Agri loan o/s

Gross NPAs

Agri. Loan NPAs

Non-Agri loan NPAs

% of Non Agri Loans to Total Loans

Prov for Agr.

Prov. For non-agri

Net Loss (-) / Profit ( + )

Acc
umu lated loss

Gross NPAs %

Agri NPA %

Non-Agri. NPA %

1

Jalandhar

31-Mar-12

608

346

262

17

17

0.4

43.1

0.2

9.0

2.5

0

2.9

4.9

0.1

2

Karimnagar

31-Mar-12

467

180

287

11

1.4

10

61.4

0.2

6.4

3.5

15

2.4

0.8

3.4

3

Nasik

31-Mar-10

1532

651

881

113

61

52

57.5

12

180

11

0

7.4

9.4

5.9

4

Nagpur

31-Mar-12

730

375

355

74

47

27

48.6

8.2

24

41

199

10.2

12.6

7.6

5

Mugberia

31-Mar-12

215

69

147

15

1.1

14

68.1

0.1

4.6

0.8

0

7.0

1.6

9.6

6

Khammam

31-Mar-12

334

246

88

15

6.6

8.8

26.4

0.7

6.9

1.2

0

4.6

2.7

10.0

7

Nalgonda

31-Mar-12

424

297

126

30

16

14

29.8

2.2

6.0

1.0

0

7.0

5.4

10.8

8

Gorakhpur

31-Mar-12

181

90

91

76

66

10

50.4

54

0

-11

117

42.3

74.0

11.2

9

Jammu

31-Mar-12

381

58

323

57

19

38

84.9

22

0

-32

148

15.0

33.8

11.7

10

Purnea

31-Mar-12

69

46

23

20

17

2.8

33.1

7.0

2.8

-1.6

25

28.7

36.8

12.3

11

Murshidabad

31-Mar-12

207

90

117

26

10

16

56.6

3.2

8.8

0.2

5.5

12.4

11.2

13.3

12

Kakinada

31-Mar-12

796

564

232

51

19

32

29.1

5.1

20

1.1

0

6.4

3.4

13.6

13

Ghazipur

31-Mar-12

76

55

21

17

13

3.2

27.6

10.6

0

-2.4

39

21.8

24.3

15.4

14

Solapur

31-Mar-11

2935

623

2312

407

22

385

78.8

5.7

145

15

0

13.9

3.5

16.6

15

Thiruvanathapuram

31-Mar-11

1848

597

1251

327

10

317

67.7

1.7

100

2.7

0

17.7

1.7

25.3

16

Jalna

31-Mar-12

202

140

63

37

21

16

31.0

17

16

11

5

18.5

15.2

25.9


Analysis of NPAs of Agri and Non Agri loans of Select CCBs

(` in crore)

Sl.
No

Name of the CCB

Position as on

Total loan o/s

Agri. Loan o/s

Non-Agri loan o/s

Gross NPAs

Agri. Loan NPAs

Non-Agri loan NPAs

% of Non Agri Loans to Total Loans

Prov for Agr.

Prov. For non-agri

Net Loss (-) / Profit ( + )

Acc
umu lated loss

Gross NPAs %

Agri NPA %

Non-Agri. NPA %

17

Mau

31-Mar-12

31

17

14

14

10

3.7

45.9

12

0

-1.7

27

44.8

60.5

26.2

18

Muzzafurpur

31-Mar-12

35

14

21

15

10

6

58.8

7.2

5.6

2.7

29

44.3

68.8

27.2

19

Burdwan

31-Mar-12

605

327

278

88

12

76

45.9

8.0

52

2.0

0

14.5

3.5

27.5

20

Amritsar

31-Mar-12

473

354

119

45

11

33

25.1

6.0

15

1.5

12

9.5

3.2

28.2

21

Jalgaon

31-Mar-12

1147

567

581

209

27

182

50.6

3.9

180

17

94

18.2

4.7

31.4

22

Buldhana

31-Mar-12

577

166

410

134

3.7

130

71.1

123

0

2.0

170

23.2

2.2

31.7

23

Azamgarh

31-Mar-12

61

41

20

22

15

7.0

33.4

15

0

-2.7

81

35.3

36.0

34.0

24

Dhule & Nandurbar

31-Mar-12

510

183

327

169

19

150

64.2

12

70

0.9

117

33.1

10.2

45.9

25

Etah

31-Mar-12

93

79

14

27

20

7.7

15.3

13

4.9

0

0

29.5

25.1

54.0

26

Nanded

31-Mar-12

547

224

323

208

16

192

59.0

10

192

2.8

144

38.1

7.2

59.6

27

Birbhum

31-Mar-12

197

104

92

61

2.0

59

47.0

0.9

25

-1.8

46

30.8

1.9

63.4

28

Kolhapur

31-Mar-11

1356

542

814

563

21

542

60.0

14

293

7.3

197

41.5

3.9

66.6


Annexure 4.8

Deposits by Type and by Source of StCBs in Two tier Structure as on 31 March 2012

(` crore)

Sr. No.

StCB

Deposits by Type

Deposits by Source

Fixed
/Term Deposits

Savings Bank Dep
osits

Current Dep
osits

Total Depo
sits

Of which, Total CASA Deposits

Share of CASA Deposits in Total (%)

Deposits by Indivi
duals

Depo
sits by PACS

Deposits by Other Societies

Deposits by Govt./ Govt. bodies

Total Dep
osits

1

Assam

496

929

135

1559

1064

68

1494

0

66

0

1559

2

Andaman & Nicobar

197

244

15

456

259

57

448

0

8

0

456

3

Arunachal

30

47

18

95

65

69

62

0

33

0

95

4

Chandigarh

88

161

6

254

167

66

185

0

28

41

254

5

Delhi

333

401

59

794

460

58

619

7

168

0

794

6

Goa

628

426

106

1160

532

46

743

0

354

63

1160

7

Manipur

30

45

20

95

65

69

81

0

14

0

95

8

Meghalaya

431

645

108

1184

752

64

981

0

26

177

1184

9

Mizoram

140

218

14

372

233

62

366

4

2

0

372

10

Nagaland

139

203

25

367

228

62

361

0

6

0

367

11

Pondicherry

357

140

36

533

176

33

389

0

63

80

533

12

Sikkim

76

51

8

136

60

44

110

0

23

2

136

13

Tripura

583

434

139

1156

573

50

911

0

38

206

1156

 

Total

3526

3945

689

8160

4634

57

6751

11

829

569

8160


Annexure - 5.1

Statement showing likely additional capital required for CCBs on 'Trend Based' performance

(` crore)

Sr. No

Name of the CCB

State

Status of CCB -Licenced / Unlicenced

Present CRAR (as per DoS)

Share of Agri. Loans issued in Area of Operation

Likely additional capital requirements estimated for achieving 9% CRAR (Model-1)

Likely additional capital requirements estimated for achieving CRAR of 7% by 2014-15 & 9% by 2016-17 (Model-2)

Group -I [CRAR upto 4%]

1

Jaunpur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-1700.68

0.92

125

162

2

Siddharthnagar

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-1511.17

5.96

47

61

3

Sultanpur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-717.81

0.81

71

89

4

Bahraich

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-620.32

1.93

69

101

5

Deoria

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-487.78

0.36

174

229

6

Ballia

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-439.84

5.89

99

183

7

Sitapur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-113.88

3.72

97

179

8

Azamgarh

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-91.87

8.44

66

86

9

Basti

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-73.94

18.06

59

89

10

Hardoi

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-71.55

2.9

73

110

11

Fatehpur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-57.26

12.49

106

273

12

Gorakhpur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-55.39

5.21

109

152

13

Varanasi

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-47.59

10.24

59

51

14

Ghazipur

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-28.39

12.75

41

52

15

Allahabad

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-27.39

17.86

98

121

16

Faizabad

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced

-19.85

8.21

33

37

17

Bharatpur

Rajasthan

Licenced

0.1

10.52

21

14

18

Birbhum

West Bengal

Unlicenced

-19.66

29.57

71

88

19

Jind

Haryana

Licenced

3.78

19.52

25

37

20

Sitamarhi

Bihar

Licenced

3.71

3.48

10

0

 

Total

 

 

 

 

1453

2112

Group -II [CRAR above 4% upto 7%]

1

Murshidabad

West Bengal

Licenced

4.02

10.38

19

4

2

Hissar

Haryana

Licenced

4.01

25.74

47

16


Statement showing likely additional capital required for CCBs on 'Trend Based' performance

(` crore)

Sr. No

Name of the CCB

State

Status of CCB -Licenced
/Unlicenced

Present CRAR (as per DoS)

Share of Agri. Loans issued in Area of Operation

Likely additional capital requirements estimated for achieving 9% CRAR (Model-1)

Likely additional capital requirements estimated for achieving CRAR of 7% by 2014-15 & 9% by 2016-17 (Model-2)

3

Kurukshtra

Haryana

Licenced

4.83

14.54

27

17

4

Sirsa

Haryana

Licenced

4.21

16.97

24

29

5

Palakkad

Kerala

Licenced

4.1

50.5

66

45

6

Kanpur *

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced $

4.2

13.37

0

4

7

Kanyakumari

Tamil Nadu

Licenced

5.21

3.83

26

0

8

Sivaganga

Tamil Nadu

Licenced

5.63

5.79

12

0

9

Mau#

Uttar Pradesh

Unlicenced $

5.5

2.48

0

13

10

Purulia

West Bengal

Licenced

4.73

8.91

4

0

 

Total

 

 

 

 

225

126

Group -III [CRAR above 7% upto 9%]

1

Karnataka-Dharwad

Karnataka

Licenced

7.2

9.86

0

0

2

Salem

Tamil Nadu

Licenced

7.9

22.43

25

0

 

Total

 

 

 

 

25

0

Group -IV [CRAR above 9% upto 12%]

1

Vidyasagar

West Bengal

Licenced

9.25

14.02

2

0

2

Keonjhar

Odisha

Licenced

9.73

57.14

2

0

 

Total

 

 

 

 

4

0

Group -V [CRAR above 12%]

1

Aurangabad

Bihar

Licenced

17.6

10.35

0

0

 

Total

 

 

 

 

0

0

* Besides ` 30.00 Crore received during 2012-13.
# Besides ` 19.05 Crore received during 2012-13.
$ Recommended for grant of licence as the banks has attained licencing criteria.


Annexure - 5.2

Model wise assessment of likely additional capital requirement of select CCBs

(` crore)

Sr No

Name of the CCB

CRAR as per DoS

Model-1 (Uniform growth rate @ 15%)

Model-2 (Trend)

Model-3 (Higher Agri Loan O/S)

Model-4 (Higher growth in important business parameters)

Recap needed to achieve 9% CRAR by 2017

Recap needed to achieve 9% CRAR by 2017

Recap needed to achieve 9% CRAR by 2017

Additional capital Need for Model 3 compared to Model 2.

Likely additional capital need in growth model (Model-4)

Likely additional capital Need for Model 4 compared to Model 3.

1

Kanpur

4.2

0

3.5*

5.2*

1.7

14.0*

8.8*

2

Kurushetra

4.83

27.0

17.2

18.4

1.2

36.0

17.6

3

Pallakad

4.1

66.1

45.0

57.0

12.0

205

148

4

Salem

7.9

25.0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Murshidabad

4.02

19.0

3.5

4.5

1.0

9.2

4.7

6

Vidyasagar

9.25

1.9

0

0

0

2.0

2.0

7

Birbhum

-19.66

71.1

87.5

91.0

3.5

82.5

0

8

Jind

3.78

25.0

36.5

36.5

0

46.5

10

9

Allahabad

-27.39

98.0

120.7

116.0

0

132.5

16.5

10

Basti

-73.94

59.0

88.8

89.5

0.7

97.3

7.8

11

Sitamarhi

3.71

10.0

0

0

0

0

0

12

Hissar

4.01

47.0

15.5

15.5

0

18.0

2.5

13

Sirsa

4.21

24.0

29.0

29.0

0

22.5

0

14

Karnataka Dharwad

7.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

15

Keonjhar

9.73

2.0

0

0

0

6.0

6.0

16

Aurangabad (Bihar)

17.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Total

475.1

447.2

462.6

20.1

671.5

223.9

 

* besides ` 30 crore given during 2012-13.


Annexure - 6.1

Unlicensed CCBs - CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9%
by 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%)(Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

1

Deoria Kasia

31.03.2012

-487.78

173

173

174

2

Jammu

31.03.2012

-33.85

168

185

201

3

Buldana

31.03.2012

-15.55

151

179

206

4

Nagpur

31.03.2012

-15.77

149

153

151

5

Jaunpur

31.03.2012

-1700.68

125

125

125

6

Dhule & Nandurbar

31.03.2012

-10.49

107

135

161

7

Gorakhpur

31.03.2012

-55.39

97

103

109

8

Ballia

31.03.2012

-439.84

97

98

99

9

Fatehpur

31.03.2012

-57.26

96

101

106

10

Sitapur

31.03.2012

-113.88

92

95

97

11

Allahabad

31.03.2012

-27.39

78

88

98

12

Anantnag

31.03.2012

-140.11

78

80

82

13

Wardha

31.03.2012

-18.36

76

81

85

14

Sultanpur

31.03.2012

-717.81

70

71

71

15

Baharaich

31.03.2012

-620.32

68

68

69

16

Hardoi

31.03.2012

-71.55

66

70

73

17

Azamgarh

31.03.2012

-91.87

61

64

66

18

Birbhum

31.03.2012

-19.66

54

63

71

19

Basti

31.03.2012

-73.94

54

57

59

20

Varanasi

31.03.2012

-47.59

52

56

59

21

Siddhartha Nagar

31.03.2012

-1511.17

47

47

47

22

Osmanabad

31.03.2012

-3.92

38

37

32

23

Jalna

31.03.2012

-10.01

38

41

44

24

Ghazipur

31.03.2012

-28.39

33

37

41

25

Faizabad

31.03.2012

-19.85

25

29

33

26

Baramulla

31.03.2012

-7.24

20

27

33

Total

2114

2263

2391


Annexure - 6.2

Licensed Banks with less than 4% CRAR
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectivel
y

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%)(Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

1

Kolhapur

31.03.2011

-11.49

190.11

234.77

275.06

2

Sangli

31.03.2011

-14.30

95.76

0.00

0.00

3

Alappuzha

31.03.2011

-2.05

57.16

95.13

130.36

4

Sambalpur

31.03.2012

-1.50

41.42

67.95

92.13

5

Nasik

31.03.2010

2.40

32.70

114.77

191.33

6

Pathanamthitta

31.03.2010

1.16

13.45

33.42

52.02

7

Balageria

31.03.2011

-1.88

13.20

22.37

30.96

8

Kasargod

31.03.2010

1.85

10.69

32.02

51.79

9

Mansa

31.03.2010

0.56

10.66

23.39

35.42

10

Kollam

31.03.2011

2.94

8.89

48.58

84.90

11

Malappuram

31.03.2011

3.33

8.13

54.55

97.69

12

Faridkot

31.03.2011

1.48

6.97

18.04

28.30

13

Bharatpur

31.03.2011

0.12

6.89

14.02

20.63

14

Idukki

31.03.2010

3.34

5.21

39.57

71.41

15

Nagaur

31.03.2010

1.84

4.90

14.38

23.20

16

Thrissur

31.03.2010

3.59

3.20

55.70

104.07

17

Nawadah

31.03.2011

-1.31

2.84

5.04

7.12

18

Jalpaiguri

31.03.2011

2.80

1.59

7.01

12.02

19

Wyanad

31.03.2011

3.53

0.97

11.78

21.71

20

Jind

31.03.2010

3.78

0.74

13.58

25.49

21

Sitamarhi

31.03.2011

3.71

0.29

5.49

10.33

22

Kottayam

31.03.2011

-0.40

0.23

0.00

0.00

23

Jalgaon

31.03.2012

3.29

0.00

0.00

7.21

Total

516.01

911.57

1373.17


Annexure - 6.3

CCBs recommended for license -
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

Net Worth

Capital Funds

Risk Weighted Assets

CRAR (%)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

Financial Support received from State Govt. in 2012-13

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

State -BIHAR

1

Katihar

31.03.2012

3.1

5.25

40.56

12.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.65

2

Purnea

31.03.2012

4.09

4.09

72.43

5.64

0.00

0.32

1.92

9.78

3

Muzaffarpur

31.03.2012

11.23

12.43

48.48

25.63

0.00

0.00

0.00

21.33

4

Munger-Jamui

31.03.2012

4.3

6.07

62.19

9.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

27.30

5

Aurangabad

31.03.2012

 

 

 

17.60

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Sub total

0.00

0.32

1.92

64.06

State -RAJASTHAN

6

Tonk

31.03.2012

10.14

10.45

163.43

6.40

0.00

2.25

7.95

30.00

Sub total

0.00

2.25

7.95

30.00

State -UP

7

Pratapgarh

31.03.2012

11.58

6.8

117.54

5.78

0.00

0.58

3.34

8.49

8

Raibareili

31.03.2012

8.65

8.13

115.65

7.03

0.00

0.00

2.45

11.69

9

Farukkhabad

31.03.2012

10.92

10.92

145.24

7.52

0.00

0.00

4.31

15.68

10

Mau

31.03.2012

1.4

9.34

30.73

30.38

0.00

0.00

0.00

19.05

11

Barabanki

31.03.2012

9.67

8.26

77.72

10.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

21.64

12

Aligarh

31.03.2012

5.92

5.14

85.13

6.04

0.00

1.25

4.05

24.45

13

Lucknow

31.03.2012

4.09

4.02

82.17

4.90

0.00

2.37

5.24

28.50

14

Kanpur

31.03.2012

6.54

3.43

81.76

4.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

30.00

15

Unnao

31.03.2012

4.67

13.59

55.08

24.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

32.40

Sub total

0.00

4.20

19.39

191.90

GRANT TOTAL

0.00

6.77

29.26

285.96


Annexure - 6.4

Licensed Banks with CRAR ranging from 4% to 7%-
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%)(Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

1

Hisar

31.03.2012

4.01

0.06

24.31

46.85

2

Murshidabad

31.03.2012

4.02

0.15

9.89

19.02

3

Sasaram-Babhua

31.03.2011

4.06

0.00

2.84

5.77

4

Palakkad

31.03.2010

4.07

0.00

33.91

66.10

5

Aurangabad

31.03.2011

4.07

0.00

31.88

62.72

6

Sangrur

31.03.2011

4.16

0.00

31.87

63.65

7

Mugberia

31.03.2010

4.19

0.03

10.17

19.66

8

Sirsa

31.03.2011

4.21

0.00

11.95

23.57

9

Kutch

31.03.2012

4.22

0.00

2.55

5.06

10

Parbhani

31.03.2011

4.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

11

Chhindwara

31.03.2010

4.33

0.00

5.07

11.13

12

Thiruvananthapuram

31.03.2011

4.42

0.00

68.55

140.50

13

Mehsana

31.03.2010

4.45

0.00

9.96

20.54

14

United Puri Nimpara

31.03.2011

4.48

0.00

2.26

5.30

15

Solapur

31.03.2011

4.49

0.00

144.07

282.18

16

Ferozepur

31.03.2012

4.51

0.00

14.74

30.44

17

Fatehabad

31.03.2011

4.55

0.00

11.62

24.14

18

Amritsar

31.03.2012

4.64

0.00

16.19

34.18

19

Junagarh

31.03.2012

4.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

20

Purulia

31.03.2011

4.73

0.00

1.96

4.30

21

Hoshangabad

31.03.2011

4.79

0.00

6.74

17.77

22

Surendranagar

31.03.2012

4.80

0.00

0.00

0.64

23

Kurukshetra

31.03.2011

4.83

0.00

12.53

27.02

24

Prakasam

31.03.2011

4.89

0.00

14.68

32.35

25

Virudhunagar

31.03.2011

4.91

0.00

2.51

12.24

26

Pali

31.03.2011

4.93

0.00

7.16

17.78


Licensed Banks with CRAR ranging from 4% to 7%-
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

27

Seoni

31.03.2011

4.97

0.00

0.00

0.00

28

Gurdaspur

31.03.2012

4.97

0.00

16.54

37.20

29

Taran Taran

31.03.2011

5.02

0.00

9.23

21.96

30

Fatehgarh Sahib

31.03.2011

5.06

0.00

10.46

24.98

31

Boudh

31.03.2010

5.07

0.00

0.17

2.95

32

Tirunelveli

31.03.2011

5.14

0.00

12.31

28.05

33

Guna

31.03.2011

5.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

34

Panchkula

31.03.2011

5.15

0.00

4.30

10.41

35

Bolangir

31.03.2012

5.18

0.00

10.34

24.03

36

Tamluk Ghatal

31.03.2011

5.18

0.00

8.83

19.62

37

Kanyakumari

31.03.2011

5.21

0.00

10.60

25.98

38

Raisen

31.03.2010

5.26

0.00

6.57

15.37

39

Kurnool

31.03.2010

5.27

0.00

6.56

14.88

40

Patiala

31.03.2011

5.27

0.00

21.96

53.33

41

Bhatinda

31.03.2011

5.29

0.00

13.62

32.50

42

Datia

31.03.2010

5.34

0.00

1.59

4.25

43

Rewari

31.03.2010

5.38

0.00

7.32

17.18

44

Thanjavur

31.03.2011

5.43

0.00

4.32

18.67

45

Nadia

31.03.2012

5.55

0.00

6.26

16.23

46

Cuttack

31.03.2012

5.55

0.00

20.06

49.84

47

Motihari

31.03.2011

5.59

0.00

3.03

7.78

48

Sivagangai

31.03.2011

5.63

0.00

2.82

12.47

49

Deogarh-Jamtara

31.03.2012

5.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

50

Bhawanipatna

31.03.2010

5.70

0.00

3.97

9.49

51

Ajmer

31.03.2010

5.71

0.00

1.24

5.33

52

Baroda

31.03.2012

5.74

0.00

0.00

0.00

53

Fazilka

31.03.2011

5.75

0.00

8.09

21.76


Licensed Banks with CRAR ranging from 4% to 7%-
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

54

Vellore

31.03.2011

5.78

0.00

13.37

38.50

55

Dindigul

31.03.2011

5.81

0.00

12.15

33.11

56

Kozhikode

31.03.2012

5.85

0.00

28.35

83.85

57

Kannur

31.03.2010

5.93

0.00

22.68

66.52

58

Thoothukudi

31.03.2011

6.00

0.00

0.00

5.28

59

Bhilwara

31.03.2010

6.04

0.00

4.61

11.86

60

Nanded

31.03.2011

6.10

0.00

6.61

23.62

61

Jabalpur

31.03.2011

6.15

0.00

0.00

0.02

62

Dewas

31.03.2010

6.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

63

Moga

31.03.2010

6.27

0.00

6.99

20.29

64

Mirzapur DCCB

31.03.2011

6.28

0.00

1.89

6.34

65

Cuddalore

31.03.2010

6.30

0.00

9.24

33.32

66

Bhiwani

31.03.2010

6.38

0.00

8.86

27.70

67

Ratnagiri

31.03.2011

6.48

0.00

2.70

21.23

68

Kheda

31.03.2011

6.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

69

Shahdol

31.03.2011

6.60

0.00

0.00

0.00

70

Dakshin Dinajpur

31.03.2011

6.61

0.00

0.00

0.05

71

Koraput

31.03.2011

6.65

0.00

8.55

27.23

72

Bhopal

31.03.2010

6.70

0.00

4.47

20.94

73

Tiruchirapalli

31.03.2010

6.70

0.00

2.78

36.16

74

Yamunanagar

31.03.2010

6.71

0.00

0.00

0.00

75

Hazaribagh

31.03.2011

6.82

0.00

0.00

0.00

76

Warangal

31.03.2010

6.88

0.00

0.00

2.85

77

Sundergarh

31.03.2011

6.88

0.00

4.29

16.85

 

 

 

 

0.23

805.13

1922.92


Annexure - 6.5

Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

1

Tumkur

31.03.2010

7.07

0.00

1.11

10.70

2

Mayurbhanj

31.03.2010

7.13

0.00

1.98

7.42

3

Shivpuri

31.03.2011

7.14

0.00

0.00

3.19

4

Pudukottai

31.03.2010

7.18

0.00

1.86

12.10

5

Karnataka (Dharwad)

31.03.2011

7.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

6

Bundi

31.03.2010

7.20

0.00

0.36

4.07

7

Ramanathapuram

31.03.2011

7.20

0.00

0.00

9.29

8

Sindhudurg

31.03.2011

7.22

0.00

0.37

21.08

9

Aska

31.03.2012

7.23

0.00

0.00

2.74

10

Kanchipuram

31.03.2011

7.27

0.00

0.87

34.72

11

South Canara

31.03.2011

7.28

0.00

0.00

28.11

12

Chandrapur

31.03.2010

7.29

0.00

2.48

29.06

13

Sabarkantha

31.03.2010

7.44

0.00

2.29

18.79

14

Mumbai

31.03.2010

7.44

0.00

16.57

81.55

15

Agra

31.03.2011

7.54

0.00

0.00

3.13

16

Hoshiarpur

31.03.2011

7.61

0.00

1.70

27.17

17

Madurai

31.03.2011

7.61

0.00

0.00

19.97

18

Balasore Bhadrak

31.03.2010

7.64

0.00

2.76

27.98

19

Jhunjhunu

31.03.2010

7.67

0.00

0.57

5.86

20

Anantapur

31.03.2010

7.68

0.00

0.00

15.07

21

Tiruvannamalai

31.03.2010

7.69

0.00

0.00

14.23

22

Banda

31.03.2011

7.74

0.00

0.05

3.68

23

Karnal

31.03.2011

7.81

0.00

0.91

24.06

24

Hooghly

31.03.2011

7.88

0.00

0.41

16.05

25

Salem

31.03.2011

7.90

0.00

0.00

25.02

26

Morena

31.03.2011

7.91

0.00

0.00

6.01


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

27

Nalanda

31.03.2010

7.92

0.00

0.00

1.30

28

Khurda

31.03.2011

7.97

0.00

0.18

9.00

29

Chitradurga

31.03.2011

8.00

0.00

0.00

4.06

30

Nilgiris

31.03.2011

8.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

31

Damoh

31.03.2011

8.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

32

Gurgaon

31.03.2011

8.07

0.00

0.62

17.44

33

Banki

31.03.2012

8.25

0.00

0.00

3.81

34

Bangalore

31.03.2011

8.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

35

Kodinar

31.03.2010

8.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

36

Jhalawar

31.03.2011

8.43

0.00

0.00

9.30

37

Ambala

31.03.2011

8.44

0.00

0.00

9.87

38

Dausa

31.03.2010

8.45

0.00

0.00

3.09

39

Muktsar

31.03.2010

8.48

0.00

2.13

15.59

40

Jaisalmer

31.03.2011

8.50

0.00

0.00

1.58

41

Kaithal

31.03.2011

8.54

0.00

0.00

13.27

42

Villupuram

31.03.2010

8.60

0.00

0.00

9.83

43

Udaipur

31.03.2011

8.74

0.00

0.00

5.37

44

Tikamgarh

31.03.2011

8.77

0.00

0.00

0.00

45

Dharmapuri

31.03.2010

8.79

0.00

0.00

6.40

46

Jalore

31.03.2011

8.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

47

Bilaspur

31.03.2010

8.90

0.00

0.00

0.00

48

Chittoor

31.03.2010

8.92

0.00

0.00

2.97

49

SAS Nagar

31.03.2011

8.97

0.00

0.00

5.86

Sub total -CRAR 7% to 9%

0.00

37.24

569.81

50

Churu

31.03.2011

9.03

0.00

0.00

2.83

51

Kota

31.03.2010

9.13

0.00

0.00

0.00

52

Mandya

31.03.2011

9.14

0.00

0.00

4.97


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

53

Jagdalpur

31.03.2010

9.16

0.00

0.00

0.00

54

Jaipur

31.03.2011

9.16

0.00

0.00

5.55

55

Raigarh

31.03.2010

9.18

0.00

0.00

10.73

56

Visakhapatnam

31.03.2011

9.21

0.00

0.00

5.96

57

Vidyasagar

31.03.2011

9.25

0.00

0.00

1.92

58

Rewa

31.03.2012

9.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

59

Ahmednagar

31.03.2010

9.27

0.00

0.00

38.66

60

Firozabad

31.03.2011

9.28

0.00

0.00

2.45

61

Faridabad

31.03.2011

9.30

0.00

0.00

14.37

62

Kumbakonam

31.03.2010

9.31

0.00

0.00

0.00

63

Jhansi

31.03.2011

9.34

0.00

0.00

1.90

64

Vaishali

31.03.2011

9.34

0.00

0.00

1.13

65

Banaskantha

31.03.2011

9.35

0.00

0.00

11.48

66

Kolar

31.03.2012

9.38

0.00

0.00

0.00

67

Chittorgarh

31.03.2010

9.41

0.00

0.00

6.38

68

Gwalior

31.03.2012

9.52

0.00

0.00

0.00

69

Karimnagar

31.03.2010

9.55

0.00

0.00

1.32

70

Gopalganj

31.03.2011

9.59

0.00

0.00

2.04

71

Panchmahals

31.03.2011

9.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

72

Raiganj

31.03.2010

9.62

0.00

0.00

1.73

73

Lalitpur

31.03.2010

9.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

74

Jhajjar

31.03.2011

9.63

0.00

0.00

7.26

75

Rohika

31.03.2010

9.65

0.00

0.00

0.00

76

Kadapa

31.03.2011

9.67

0.00

0.00

2.58

77

Bulandshahar

31.03.2010

9.71

0.00

0.00

2.94

78

Keonjhar

31.03.2011

9.73

0.00

0.00

2.03

79

Sriganganagar

31.03.2011

9.74

0.00

0.00

6.69


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

80

Shimoga

31.03.2010

9.75

0.00

0.00

1.15

81

Yeotmal

31.03.2011

9.81

0.00

0.00

0.00

82

Bijapur

31.03.2011

9.83

0.00

0.00

11.00

83

Rohtak

31.03.2010

9.84

0.00

0.00

6.25

84

Dehradun

31.03.2011

9.85

0.00

0.00

0.00

85

Siddhi

31.03.2011

9.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

86

Raichur

31.03.2011

9.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

87

Belgaum

31.03.2010

9.92

0.00

0.00

2.52

88

Burdwan

31.03.2010

9.97

0.00

0.00

1.93

89

Bidar

31.03.2010

10.01

0.00

0.00

5.56

90

Bhavnagar

31.03.2011

10.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

91

North Kanara

31.03.2010

10.02

0.00

0.00

5.29

92

Ambikapur

31.03.2011

10.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

93

Jogindra

31.03.2011

10.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

94

Davangere

31.03.2010

10.11

0.00

0.00

3.41

95

Mahendragarh

31.03.2010

10.11

0.00

0.00

4.19

96

Malda

31.03.2011

10.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

97

Banswara

31.03.2011

10.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

98

Ahmedabad

31.03.2010

10.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

99

Baran

31.03.2010

10.39

0.00

0.00

2.18

100

Berhampur

31.03.2011

10.63

0.00

0.00

2.57

101

Sonepat

31.03.2010

10.67

0.00

0.00

4.83

102

Chhattarpur

31.03.2011

10.68

0.00

0.00

0.39

103

Amravati

31.03.2011

10.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

104

Etah DCB

31.03.2012

10.73

0.00

0.00

0.07

105

Angul United

31.03.2011

10.77

0.00

0.00

2.49

106

Ludhiana

31.03.2011

10.81

0.00

0.00

2.15


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

107

Hassan

31.03.2011

10.84

0.00

0.00

0.00

108

Satna

31.03.2011

10.86

0.00

0.00

0.00

109

Garwal (Kotdwar)

31.03.2011

10.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

110

Bagalkot

31.03.2010

10.91

0.00

0.00

0.00

111

Dungarpur

31.03.2010

10.93

0.00

0.00

1.03

112

Amreli

31.03.2010

11.02

0.00

0.00

0.80

113

Beed

31.03.2011

11.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

114

Akola

31.03.2011

11.05

0.00

0.00

4.81

115

Ujjain

31.03.2010

11.06

0.00

0.00

2.68

116

Mathura

31.03.2011

11.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

117

Nayagarh

31.03.2010

11.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

118

Jalaun

31.03.2010

11.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

119

Jalandhar

31.03.2010

11.14

0.00

0.00

5.42

120

Bhind

31.03.2010

11.15

0.00

0.00

1.21

121

Barmer

31.03.2010

11.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

122

Ernakulam

31.03.2010

11.36

0.00

0.00

0.00

123

Adilabad

31.03.2010

11.39

0.00

0.00

0.00

124

Kakinada

31.03.2010

11.45

0.00

0.00

2.71

125

Pune

31.03.2011

11.52

0.00

0.00

0.00

126

Darjeeling

31.03.2011

11.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

127

Sawai Madhopur

31.03.2011

11.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

128

Begusarai

31.03.2011

11.63

0.00

0.00

0.37

129

Mainpuri

31.03.2011

11.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

130

Kapurthala

31.03.2011

11.83

0.00

0.00

0.00

131

Coimbatore

31.03.2010

11.84

0.00

0.00

0.00

132

Howrah

31.03.2011

11.96

0.00

0.00

0.00

Sub total -CRAR 9 to 12%

0.00

0.00

209.90


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

133

Rajgarh

31.03.2011

12.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

134

Narsinghpur

31.03.2011

12.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

135

Sehore

31.03.2011

12.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

136

Badaun

31.03.2011

12.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

137

Hanumangarh

31.03.2010

12.11

0.00

0.00

0.18

138

Valsad

31.03.2010

12.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

139

Indore

31.03.2010

12.18

0.00

0.00

0.00

140

Mandsaur

31.03.2010

12.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

141

Patliputra

31.03.2010

12.25

0.00

0.00

1.04

142

Bellary

31.03.2011

12.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

143

Panna

31.03.2011

12.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

144

Sirohi

31.03.2010

12.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

145

Bareilly

31.03.2010

12.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

146

Bikaner

31.03.2010

12.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

147

Jodhpur

31.03.2011

12.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

148

Sikar

31.03.2010

12.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

149

Thane

31.03.2011

12.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

150

Gondia

31.03.2011

12.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

151

Khammam

31.03.2010

12.63

0.00

0.00

0.00

152

Kodagu

31.03.2011

12.74

0.00

0.00

0.00

153

Ropar

31.03.2011

12.79

0.00

0.00

0.00

154

Bankura

31.03.2010

12.81

0.00

0.00

0.00

155

Lakhimpur Kheri

31.03.2011

12.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

156

Surat

31.03.2011

12.92

0.00

0.00

0.00

157

Bhandara

31.03.2011

13.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

158

Alwar

31.03.2010

13.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

159

Uttarkashi

31.03.2011

13.13

0.00

0.00

0.00


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

160

Bharuch

31.03.2011

13.16

0.00

0.00

0.00

161

Erode

31.03.2011

13.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

162

Gumla-Simdega

31.03.2010

13.27

0.00

0.00

0.15

163

Shahjahanpur

31.03.2011

13.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

164

Khagaria

31.03.2011

13.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

165

Panipat

31.03.2010

13.47

0.00

0.00

0.00

166

Khandwa

31.03.2011

13.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

167

Singhbhum

31.03.2012

13.61

0.00

0.00

0.00

168

Khargone

31.03.2010

13.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

169

Chikmagalur

31.03.2011

13.99

0.00

0.00

0.00

170

Rajkot

31.03.2011

14.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

171

Nizamabad

31.03.2010

14.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

172

Latur

31.03.2011

14.14

0.00

0.00

0.00

173

Satara

31.03.2011

14.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

174

Ghaziabad

31.03.2011

14.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

175

Hyderabad

31.03.2010

14.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

176

Dhar

31.03.2010

14.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

177

Tehri Garhwal

31.03.2010

14.82

0.00

0.00

0.00

178

Guntur

31.03.2010

14.91

0.00

0.00

0.00

179

Shajapur

31.03.2011

14.97

0.00

0.00

0.00

180

Saharanpur

31.03.2010

15.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

181

Balaghat

31.03.2010

15.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

182

Vidisha

31.03.2011

15.96

0.00

0.00

0.00

183

Eluru

31.03.2010

15.98

0.00

0.00

0.00

184

Almora

31.03.2011

16.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

185

Krishna

31.03.2010

16.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

186

Mysore

31.03.2011

16.04

0.00

0.00

0.00


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

 

Chamrajnagar

 

 

 

 

 

187

Ara

31.03.2010

16.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

188

Betul

31.03.2010

16.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

189

Rampur

31.03.2010

16.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

190

Bijnore

31.03.2011

16.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

191

Moradabad

31.03.2011

16.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

192

Jamnagar

31.03.2010

16.81

0.00

0.00

0.00

193

Nalgonda

31.03.2010

17.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

194

Rajnandgaon

31.03.2010

17.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

195

Roorkee (Haridwar)

31.03.2010

17.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

196

Samastipur

31.03.2011

17.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

197

Durg

31.03.2011

17.82

0.00

0.00

0.00

198

Mahabubnagar

31.03.2010

18.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

199

Ratlam

31.03.2010

18.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

200

Nainital

31.03.2010

18.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

201

Sagar

31.03.2010

18.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

202

Pithoragarh

31.03.2010

19.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

203

Etawah

31.03.2011

19.53

0.00

0.00

0.00

204

Nellore

31.03.2011

19.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

205

Pilibhit

31.03.2010

20.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

206

Muzaffar Nagar

31.03.2011

21.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

207

Chamoli

31.03.2010

21.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

208

Srikakulam

31.03.2011

21.84

0.00

0.00

0.00

209

Kangra

31.03.2011

23.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

210

Udhamsinghnagar

31.03.2010

23.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

211

Hamirpur

31.03.2010

23.29

0.00

0.00

0.00

212

Siwan

31.03.2010

23.54

0.00

0.00

0.00


Licensed Banks with CRAR above 7%
CCB- wise likely additional capital required to achieve 4%, 7% and 9% by 2012-13,
2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively

(` crore)

Sr. No.

Name of the CCB

Reference date of Inspection

CRAR (%) (Base Position)

Likely additional capital required for achieving

4% CRAR by 2012-13

7% CRAR by 2014-15

9% CRAR by 2016-17

213

Vizianagaram

31.03.2011

23.60

0.00

0.00

0.00

214

Mandla

31.03.2012

24.39

0.00

0.00

0.00

215

Meerut

31.03.2011

24.66

0.00

0.00

0.00

216

Dhanbad

31.03.2010

24.74

0.00

0.00

0.00

217

Raipur

31.03.2011

25.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

218

Jhabua

31.03.2010

25.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

219

Gulbarga

31.03.2011

25.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

220

Chennai

31.03.2011

26.12

0.00

0.00

0.00

221

Nawanshahr

31.03.2011

26.12

0.00

0.00

0.00

222

Medak

31.03.2010

26.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

223

Gadchiroli

31.03.2010

26.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

224

National Bettiah

31.03.2011

26.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

225

Giridih

31.03.2012

30.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

226

Ranch-Khunti

31.03.2012

39.72

0.00

0.00

0.00

227

Magadh

31.03.2011

50.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

228

Bhagalpur

31.03.2011

55.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

229

Dumka

31.03.2010

61.84

0.00

0.00

0.00

Sub total -CRAR above 12%

0.00

0.00

1.36

TOTAL

0.00

37.24

781.07


Annexure - 6.6

Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

Likely assistance required – CCB upto ` 1 crore, per PACS <` 25 lakh

1

Jabalpur

31.03.2011

6.15

0.02

121

100549

0.02

2

2

Etah

31.03.2012

10.73

0.07

139

74341

0.05

10

3

Hanumangarh

31.03.2010

12.11

0.18

190

120000

0.09

15

4

Dakshin Dinajpur

31.03.2011

6.61

0.05

139

14348

0.04

36

5

Chhattarpur

31.03.2011

10.68

0.39

113

106988

0.34

36

6

Amreli

31.03.2010

11.02

0.8

331

54278

0.24

148

7

Gumla-Simdega

31.03.2010

13.27

0.15

270

8882

0.05

166

8

Begusarai

31.03.2011

11.63

0.37

257

19916

0.14

187

9

Surendranagar

31.03.2012

4.80

0.64

278

29133

0.23

219

Likely assistance required – CCB ` 1 - ` 5 crore, per PACS <` 25 lakh

1

Burdwan

31.03.2010

9.97

1.93

576

325372

0.34

59

2

Vidyasagar

31.03.2011

9.25

1.92

981

318454

0.20

60

3

Belgaum

31.03.2010

9.92

2.52

715

388343

0.35

65

4

Dungarpur

31.03.2010

10.93

1.03

101

130000

1.02

79

5

Karimnagar

31.03.2010

9.55

1.32

127

151561

1.04

87

6

Angul United

31.03.2011

10.77

2.49

183

267981

1.36

93

7

Kakinada

31.03.2010

11.45

2.71

293

256048

0.92

106

8

Chum

31.03.2011

9.03

2.83

159

230000

1.78

123

9

Bhind

31.03.2010

11.15

1.21

168

95560

0.72

127

10

Shimoga

31.03.2010

9.75

1.15

161

79409

0.71

144

11

Ujjain

31.03.2010

11.06

2.68

172

167714

1.56

160


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS
(`)

12

Warangal

31.03.2010

6.88

2.85

69

171042

4.13

167

13

Ludhiana

31.03.2011

10.81

2.15

364

127391

0.59

169

14

Kadapa

31.03.2011

9.67

2.58

407

152367

0.63

169

15

Bulandshahar

31.03.2010

9.71

2.94

166

152800

1.77

193

16

Akola

31.03.2011

11.05

4.81

835

236437

0.58

203

17

Aska

31.03.2012

7.23

2.74

192

129076

1.43

212

18

Raibareili

31.03.2012

7.03

2.45

142

99239

1.73

247

19

Keonjhar

31.03.2011

9.73

2.03

44

77937

4.61

260

20

Berhampur

31.03.2011

10.63

2.57

257

97100

1.00

264

21

Baran

31.03.2010

10.39

2.18

150

78000

1.45

279

22

Chittoor

31.03.2010

8.92

2.97

76

90400

3.91

329

23

Shivpuri

31.03.2011

7.14

3.19

89

88246

3.59

362

24

Jhansi

31.03.2011

9.34

1.9

59

44452

3.23

428

25

Aligarh

31.03.2012

6.04

4.05

113

93678

3.58

432

26

Agra

31.03.2011

7.54

3.13

144

70296

2.18

446

27

Pratapgarh

31.03.2012

5.78

3.34

174

74301

1.92

450

28

Mandya

31.03.2011

9.14

4.97

229

106296

2.17

468

29

Boudh

31.03.2010

5.07

2.95

66

61071

4.48

484

30

Firozabad

31.03.2011

9.28

2.45

81

49534

3.02

494

31

Dausa

31.03.2010

8.45

3.09

129

61249

2.39

504

32

Mahendragarh

31.03.2010

10.11

4.19

23

80572

18.22

520

33

Jaisalmer

31.03.2011

8.50

1.58

84

30000

1.89

528

34

Davangere

31.03.2010

10.11

3.41

182

61247

1.87

557

35

Datia

31.03.2010

5.34

4.25

78

70667

5.45

602


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to achieve 9% CRAR by 2016-17 as per Model-I (` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

36

Sonepat

31.03.2010

10.67

4.83

34

75865

14.19

636

37

Purulia

31.03.2011

4.73

4.3

168

57000

2.56

755

38

Bundi

31.03.2010

7.20

4.07

123

41036

3.31

991

39

Banki

31.03.2012

8.25

3.81

98

38419

3.88

991

40

Banda

31.03.2011

7.74

3.68

88

28561

4.18

1289

41

Raiganj

31.03.2010

9.62

1.73

303

13353

0.57

1294

42

Chitradurga

31.03.2011

8.00

4.06

135

31068

3.01

1307

43

Patliputra

31.03.2010

12.25

1.04

331

5437

0.31

1906

44

Purnea

31.03.2012

5.64

1.92

595

9699

0.32

1983

45

Nalanda

31.03.2010

7.92

1.3

249

3097

0.52

4185

46

Gopalganj

31.03.2011

9.59

2.04

234

3869

0.87

5267

47

Vaishali

31.03.2011

9.34

1.13

290

1360

0.39

8282

Likely assistance required – CCB ` 1 - ` 5 crore, per PACS <` 25 lakh

1

Jalgaon

31.03.2012

3.29

7.21

877

264349

0.82

273

2

Kutch

31.03.2012

4.22

5.06

380

13811

1.33

3663

3

Sasaram-Babhua

31.03.2011

4.06

5.77

397

2388

1.45

24146

4

Motihari

31.03.2011

5.59

7.78

409

3207

1.90

24260

5

Jaipur

31.03.2011

9.16

5.55

282

160000

1.97

347

6

Udaipur

31.03.2011

8.74

5.37

266

146000

2.02

368

7

Jalandhar

31.03.2010

11.14

5.42

247

82543

2.19

657

8

Sriganganagar

31.03.2011

9.74

6.69

296

110000

2.26

608

9

Dharmapuri

31.03.2010

8.79

6.4

252

361851

2.54

177

10

United Puri Nimpara

31.03.2011

4.48

5.3

207

105354

2.56

503

11

Chittorgarh

31.03.2010

9.41

6.38

208

182000

3.07

351


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

12

Ajmer

31.03.2010

5.71

5.33

166

92324

3.21

577

13

North Kanara

31.03.2010

10.02

5.29

163

111276

3.24

475

14

Bidar

31.03.2010

10.01

5.56

171

194333

3.25

286

15

Thoothukudi

31.03.2011

6.00

5.28

152

113847

3.47

464

16

Jhunjhunu

31.03.2010

7.67

5.86

161

100010

3.64

586

17

Nawadah

31.03.2011

-1.31

7.12

187

2076

3.81

34286

18

Villupuram

31.03.2010

8.60

9.83

238

169134

4.13

581

19

Mirzapur

31.03.2011

6.28

6.34

148

82839

4.28

765

20

Morena

31.03.2011

7.91

6.01

136

174848

4.42

344

21

Tonk

31.03.2012

6.40

7.95

173

76820

4.59

1035

22

Lucknow

31.03.2012

4.90

5.24

95

33835

5.52

1549

23

Khurda

31.03.2011

7.97

9

157

93525

5.74

963

24

Visakhapatnam

31.03.2011

9.21

5.96

98

155223

6.08

384

25

Jhalawar

31.03.2011

8.43

9.3

150

88258

6.20

1054

26

Ramanathapuram

31.03.2011

7.20

9.29

131

55535

7.09

1672

27

SAS Nagar

31.03.2011

8.97

5.86

67

20246

8.75

2896

28

Bhawanipatna

31.03.2010

5.70

9.49

103

23267

9.21

4079

29

Mayurbhanj

31.03.2010

7.13

7.42

52

82355

14.27

901

30

Ambala

31.03.2011

8.44

9.87

45

36104

21.94

2734

Likely assistance required – CCB ` 1 - ` 5 crore, per PACS ` 25- ` 50 lakh

31

Rohtak

31.03.2010

9.84

6.25

22

115236

28.39

542

Likely assistance required – CCB `10- `50 crore, per PACS upto `25 lakh

1

Tiruvannamalai

31.03.2010

7.69

14.23

159

263786

8.95

540


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

2

Salem

31.03.2011

7.90

25.02

380

440732

6.58

568

3

Bijapur

31.03.2011

9.83

11

245

176393

4.49

624

4

Virudhunagar

31.03.2011

4.91

12.24

182

165167

6.73

741

5

South Canara

31.03.2011

7.28

28.11

174

351517

16.16

800

6

Banaskantha

31.03.2011

9.35

11.48

1187

127852

0.97

898

7

Tamluk Ghatal

31.03.2011

5.18

19.62

393

206594

4.99

950

8

Bhilwara

31.03.2010

6.04

11.86

281

117000

4.22

1013

9

Chhindwara

31.03.2010

4.33

11.13

145

108123

7.68

1030

10

Hooghly

31.03.2011

7.88

16.05

342

154414

4.69

1039

11

Anantapur

31.03.2010

7.68

15.07

98

134578

15.38

1120

12

Madurai

31.03.2011

7.61

19.97

263

175271

7.59

1139

13

Cuttack

31.03.2012

5.55

49.84

467

434549

10.67

1147

14

Balasore Bhadrak

31.03.2010

7.64

27.98

251

211785

11.15

1321

15

Kanyakumari

31.03.2011

5.21

25.98

114

180150

22.79

1442

16

Tiruchirapalli

31.03.2010

6.70

36.16

347

250205

10.42

1445

17

Bharatpur

31.03.2011

0.12

20.63

360

142417

5.73

1449

18

Kanchipuram

31.03.2011

7.27

34.72

283

225567

12.27

1539

19

Kurnool

31.03.2010

5.27

14.88

97

91494

15.34

1627

20

Nadia

31.03.2012

5.55

16.23

364

95664

4.46

1696

21

Sabarkantha

31.03.2010

7.44

18.79

582

104609

3.23

1796

22

Thanjavur

31.03.2011

5.43

18.67

233

103601

8.01

1802

23

Nanded

31.03.2011

6.10

23.62

981

127474

2.41

1853

24

Nagaur

31.03.2010

1.84

23.2

284

123650

8.17

1877

25

Pudukottai

31.03.2010

7.18

12.1

136

63475

8.90

1906


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

26

Raisen

31.03.2010

5.26

15.37

113

79859

13.60

1924

27

Tirunelveli

31.03.2011

5.14

28.05

159

136220

17.64

2059

28

Osmanabad

31.03.2012

-3.92

31.62

467

143654

6.77

2201

29

Hoshangabad

31.03.2011

4.79

17.77

150

79844

11.85

2226

30

Dindigul

31.03.2011

5.81

33.11

197

146973

16.81

2253

31

Vellore

31.03.2011

5.78

38.5

185

169000

20.81

2278

32

Bolangir

31.03.2012

5.18

24.03

222

104029

10.83

2310

33

Moga

31.03.2010

6.27

20.29

169

85275

12.00

2379

34

Mugberia

31.03.2010

4.19

19.66

163

82048

12.06

2397

35

Pali

31.03.2011

4.93

17.78

213

71910

8.35

2473

36

Ghazipur

31.03.2012

-28.39

40.77

182

160529

22.40

2540

37

Hoshiarpur

31.03.2011

7.61

27.17

289

101029

9.40

2690

38

Jalpaiguri

31.03.2011

2.80

12.02

206

44593

5.83

2695

39

Muktsar

31.03.2010

8.48

15.59

144

55757

10.83

2797

40

Ratnagiri

31.03.2011

6.48

21.23

382

73838

5.56

2876

41

Cuddalore

31.03.2010

6.30

33.32

166

112279

20.07

2968

42

Faizabad

31.03.2012

-19.85

32.93

185

100869

17.80

3265

43

Balageria

31.03.2011

-1.88

30.96

130

93618

23.82

3308

44

Murshidabad

31.03.2012

4.02

19.02

452

53525

4.21

3553

45

Amritsar

31.03.2012

4.64

34.18

194

87985

17.62

3885

46

Bhatinda

31.03.2011

5.29

32.5

186

81568

17.47

3984

47

Prakasam

31.03.2011

4.89

32.35

168

79004

19.26

4095

48

Jalna

31.03.2012

-10.01

43.78

565

93708

7.75

4672

49

Fazilka

31.03.2011

5.75

21.76

120

46402

18.13

4689


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

50

Ahmednagar

31.03.2010

9.27

38.66

1325

67893

2.92

5694

51

Taran Taran

31.03.2011

5.02

21.96

186

37930

11.81

5790

52

Chandrapur

31.03.2010

7.29

29.06

561

47663

5.18

6097

53

Raigarh

31.03.2010

9.18

10.73

171

16069

6.27

6676

54

Ferozepur

31.03.2012

4.51

30.44

241

41158

12.63

7395

55

Fatehgarh Sahib

31.03.2011

5.06

24.98

112

31265

22.30

7990

56

Gurdaspur

31.03.2012

4.97

37.2

215

36693

17.30

10139

57

Sitamarhi

31.03.2011

3.71

10.33

326

3294

3.17

31356

58

Mehsana

31.03.2010

4.45

20.54

731

746

2.81

275372

Likely assistance required – CCB `10- `50 crore, per PACS `25 - `100 lakh

1

Kaithal

31.03.2011

8.54

13.27

34

104238

39.04

1273

2

Sundergarh

31.03.2011

6.88

16.85

44

130681

38.29

1289

3

Karnal

31.03.2011

7.81

24.06

49

178935

49.10

1345

4

Koraput

31.03.2011

6.65

27.23

55

196605

49.51

1385

5

Gurgaon

31.03.2011

8.07

17.44

33

111087

52.85

1570

6

Bhiwani

31.03.2010

6.38

27.7

41

124290

67.55

2228

7

Jind

31.03.2010

3.78

25.49

30

110975

84.96

2297

8

Rewari

31.03.2010

5.38

17.18

26

72310

66.09

2376

9

Fatehabad

31.03.2011

4.55

24.14

30

96652

80.45

2497

10

Hisar

31.03.2012

4.01

46.85

47

160062

99.68

2927

11

Sirsa

31.03.2011

4.21

23.57

36

79876

65.48

2951

12

Kurukshetra

31.03.2011

4.83

27.02

62

82061

43.58

3293

13

Panchkula

31.03.2011

5.15

10.41

11

22032

94.61

4724


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

14

Faridkot

31.03.2011

1.48

28.3

79

53849

35.83

5256

15

Mansa

31.03.2010

0.56

35.42

107

50620

33.11

6998

16

Bhopal

31.03.2010

6.70

20.94

35

21663

59.83

9666

17

Baramulla

31.03.2012

-7.24

33.37

63

23082

52.97

14457

18

Wyanad

31.03.2011

3.53

21.71

31

11899

70.04

18247

Likely assistance required – CCB above `50 crore, per PACS < `25 lakh

1

Patiala

31.03.2011

5.27

53.33

298

150871

17.90

3535

2

Sangrur

31.03.2011

4.16

63.65

273

129250

23.32

4925

3

Birbhum

31.03.2012

-19.66

71.08

318

110700

22.35

6421

4

Kolhapur

31.03.2011

-11.49

275.06

1848

346018

14.88

7949

5

Solapur

31/03/2011

4.49

282.18

1186

238637

23.79

11825

6

Wardha

31.03.2012

-18.36

84.7

400

60533

21.18

13993

7

Aurangabad

31.03.2011

4.07

62.72

695

40216

9.02

15596

Likely assistance required – CCB above `50 crore, per PACS `25 - `100 lakh

1

Palakkad

31.03.2010

4.07

66.1

91

1782645

72.64

371

2

Kannur

31.03.2010

5.93

66.52

144

787568

46.20

845

3

Kozhikode

31.03.2012

5.85

83.85

104

844920

80.63

992

4

Malappuram

31.03.2011

3.33

97.69

120

894428

81.41

1092

5

Kollam

31.03.2011

2.94

84.9

124

616104

68.47

1378

6

Pathanamthitta

31.03.2010

1.16

52.02

104

305000

50.02

1706

7

Idukki

31.03.2010

3.34

71.41

73

365413

97.83

1954

8

Alappuzha

31.03.2011

-2.05

130.36

187

434676

69.71

2999

9

Kasargod

31.03.2010

1.85

51.79

63

132050

82.21

3922

10

Sambalpur

31.03.2012

-1.50

92.13

164

177986

56.18

5176


Per PACS/Borrower likely additional capital mobilization by 2016-17

Sr. No.

Name of the

Reference
date of Inspection

CRAR

Likely additional
capital mobilization to
achieve 9% CRAR by
2016-17 as per Model-I
(` Crore)

No. of PACS

Borrowing members of
PACS
(No.)

Likely additional capital mobilization

Per PACS (` lakh)

Per Borrowing
member of PACS (`)

11

Varanasi

31.03.2012

-47.59

58.97

229

105134

25.75

5609

12

Anantnag

31.03.2012

-140.11

81.76

130

99680

62.89

8202

13

Azamgarh

31.03.2012

-91.87

66.14

254

64820

26.04

10203

14

Allahabad

31.03.2012

-27.39

97.7

271

92688

36.05

10541

15

Buldana

31.03.2012

-15.55

205.93

567

166220

36.32

12389

16

Gorakhpur

31.03.2012

-55.39

108.94

287

87884

37.96

12396

17

Sitapur

31.03.2012

-113.88

97.38

204

50657

47.74

19224

18

Nagpur

31.03.2012

-15.77

151.49

585

47733

25.90

31737

19

Fatehpur

31.03.2012

-57.26

106.36

115

32101

92.48

33131

20

Jammu

31.03.2012

-33.85

200.8

374

56903

53.69

35289

21

Basti

31.03.2012

-73.94

59.02

199

16552

29.66

35659

22

Thiruvananthapuram

31.03.2011

4.42

140.5

105

734266

133.81

1914


Annexure- 6.7

Illustrations of merger of banks with other banks in geographically contiguous area

(Amt ` lakh)

Sr.
No.

Name of CCB

No. of Branch es excl HO)

Districts
covered

Refer
ence date of Inspe
ction

Owned funds (capital funds)

Risk
Weig
hted Assets

Net Worth

CR
AR %

 

Profit
(+) /
Loss
(-)

Accum
ulated
Losses

Total dep
osits
Outsta
nding

Loans & Adva
nces Outs
tanding

Total Busi
ness

Total invest ments

1

West Bengal

Jalpaiguri

 

9

 

Jalpaiguri, part of Darjeeling
& Coochbehar

31.03.2011

382

13655

382

2.80

17

0

14753

12761

27514

4583

Darjeeling

8

part of Darjeeling

31.03.2011

732

6346

840

11.53

198

0

6839

5615

12453

2325

Merged

17

 

 

1114

20001

1222

5.57

215

0

21592

18376

39967

6908

Murshidabad

14

Murshidabad

31.03.2012

1004

24959

799

4.02

24

569

27383

15987

43370

15116

Nadia

17

Nadia

31.03.2011

1595

28751

1583

5.55

146

0

37035

14099

51135

29132

Merged

31

 

 

2599

53710

2382

4.84

170

569

64418

30086

94505

44248

Purulia

7

Purulia

31.03.2011

316

6687

316

4.73

27

27

225

9271

9497

136

Bankura

17

Bankura

31.03.2010

3796

29633

5289

12.81

674

4449

47044

24464

71508

38562

Merged

24

 

 

4112

36320

5605

11.32

701

4476

47269

33735

81005

38698

Dakshin

7

Dakshin

31.3.2011

565

8538

565

6.61

206

0

8560

8198

16758

2665

Dinajpur

 

Dinajpur

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raiganj

8

Uttar Dinajpur

31.03.2010

2048

21295

1675

9.62

149

0

30501

21968

52469

16774

Merged

15

 

 

2613

29833

2240

8.76

355

0

39061

30166

69217

19439

Mugberia

10

Purba medinipur

31.3.2010

949

22676

949

4.19

45

0

24495

13452

37947

18745

Tamluk Ghatal

17

31.3.2011

1403

27071

1403

5.18

32

0

30501

21968

52469

1674

Merged

27

 

 

2352

49747

2352

4.73

77

0

54996

35420

90416

20419

2

Kerala

Kollam

58

Kollam

31.03.2011

3102

105603

3101

2.94

456

0

133557

96898

230456

40649

Thiruvananth apuram

71

Thiruvanan
tapuram

31.03.2011

8712

196993

7898

4.42

274

0

235768

184789

420556

62135

Merged

129

 

 

11814

302596

10999

3.90

730

0

369325

281687

651012

102784


Illustrations of merger of banks with other banks in geographically contiguous area

(Amt ` lakh)

Sr.
No.

Name
of CCB

No. of
Branch es (excl
HO)

Districts
covered

Refer
ence
date of
Inspe
ction

Owned
funds
(capital
funds)

Risk
Weig
hted Assets

Net
Worth

CRAR %

Profit (+) / Loss
(-)

Accum
ulated Losses

Total
depo
sits Outsta
nding

Loans &
Advan
ces Outst
anding

Total
Busi
ness

Total
invest ments

3

Punjab

Fasilka

28

Ferozepur

31.03.2011

2150

37412

2184

5.75

26

0

22795

37544

60340

5943

Muktsar

23

Muktsar

31.03.2010

2567

30258

4582

8.48

42

0

10770

10770

21541

3129

Merged

51

 

 

4717

67670

6766

6.97

68

0

33565

48314

81881

9072

Taran Taran

41

Tarntaran

31.03.2011

1876

37355

1876

5.02

147

0

26165

37003

63167

6669

Kapurthala

40

Kapurthala

31.03.2011

5870

49631

7953

11.83

408

0

68591

37045

105636

53140

Merged

81

 

 

7746

86986

9829

8.90

555

0

94756

74048

168803

59809

Bathinda

41

Bathinda

31.03.2011

2718

51375

2788

5.29

44

0

38507

49455

87962

13557

Mansa

22

Mansa

31.03.2010

151

27050

151

0.56

-782

782

13125

13125

26250

33300

Merged

63

 

 

2869

78425

2939

3.66

-738

782

51632

62580

114212

46857

Fatehgarh Saheb

25

Fatehgarh Sahib

31.03.2011

17921

42313

2141

42.35

150

0

21757

42344

64100

5596

Ropar

26

Ropar

31.03.2011

3627

30667

5422

11.83

206

0

30315

25322

55636

20053

SAS
Nagar

21

SAS Nagar

31.03.2011

1961

21858

2295

8.97

59

0

29823

16722

46545

20427

Merged

72

 

 

23509

94838

9858

24.79

415

0

81895

84388

166281

46076

Faridkot

25

Faridkot

31.03.2011

407

27489

407

1.48

-120

439

15082

26718

41800

3930

Moga

48

Moga

31.03.2010

2065

32942

2065

6.27

42

0

27244

27244

54488

12750

Merged

73

 

 

2472

60431

2472

4.09

-78

439

42326

53962

96288

16680

4

Rajasthan

Bundi

12

Bundi

31.03.2010

734

10194

793

7.20

60

297

9434

8732

18165

3377

Kota

12

Kota

31.03.2010

1245

12607

1245

9.88

322

0

19065

10188

29254

10596

Baran

10

Baran

31.03.2010

1429

11633

1429

12.29

12

0

11938

10554

22492

4771

Jhalawar

15

Jhalawar

31.03.2011

2180

25867

2220

8.43

68

0

17673

15579

33251

10098

Merged

49

 

 

5588

60301

5687

9.27

462

297

58110

45053

103162

28842

Alwar

16

Alwar

31.03.2010

2919

22279

2673

13.10

79

0

24923

17205

42128

11119

Bharatpur

15

Bharatpur

31.03.2011

22

17679

44

0.12

2

718

16712

16900

33612

4704

Dausa

7

Dausa

31.03.2010

662

7838

741

8.45

9

0

11484

6650

18135

6117

Merged

38

 

 

3603

47796

3458

7.54

90

718

53119

40755

93875

21940


Illustrations of merger of banks with other banks in geographically contiguous area

(Amt ` lakh)

Sr.
No.

Name
of CCB

No. of
Bran
ches
(excl
HO)

Districts
covered

Refe
rence
date of
Inspe
ction

Owned
funds
(capital
funds)

Risk
Weig
hted Assets

Net
Worth

CRAR %

 

Profit
(+) / Loss
(-)

Accum
ulated
Losses

Total
depo
sits Outsta
nding

Loans &
Adva
nces
Outst
anding

Total
Busi
ness

Total
invest
ments

 

Ajmer

14

Ajmer

31.03.2010

1568

14954

857

10.49

129

816

16427

11625

28053

8696

Bhilwara

17

Bhilwara

31.03.2010

1042

17248

788

6.04

11

0

24896

12160

37056

14739

Chittorgarh

18

Chittorgarh & Pratapgarh

31.03.2010

2506

24201

2385

10.35

65

0

29727

20269

49996

14945

Merged

49

 

 

5116

56403

4030

9.07

205

816

71050

44054

115105

38380

Churu

10

Churu

31.03.2011

1355

15005

1392

9.03

78

0

14021

12905

26927

8120

Nagaur

16

Nagaur

31.03.2010

465

21526

533

2.16

-428

729

21217

18858

40075

6339

Hanumangarh

15

Hanumangarh

31.03.2010

2920

23322

2949

12.52

47

0

19215

19731

38946

8952

Merged

41

 

 

4740

59853

4874

7.92

-303

729

54453

51494

105948

23411

Jhunjunu

14

Jhunjunu

31.03.2010

1043

13598

1381

7.67

30

0

14574

12280

26854

5697

Sikar

21

Sikar

31.03.2010

4688

23551

4118

19.91

232

0

33511

22161

55673

19569

Merged

35

 

 

5731

37149

5499

15.43

262

0

48085

34441

82527

25266

Jaipur

21

Jaipur

31.03.2011

2874

31383

3367

9.16

177

0

39529

25433

64961

28561

Tonk

12

Tonk

31.03.2011

1045

17318

-2232

6.04

-1601

581

13359

19290

32649

3879

Sawai Madhopur

16

S.Madhopur & Karoli

31.03.2011

2011

17382

2117

11.57

347

0

16158

15116

31275

6579

Merged

49

 

 

5930

66083

3252

8.97

-1077

581

69046

59839

128885

39019

Pali

29

Pali

31.03.2011

1654

34477

1654

4.80

296

0

41363

27549

68913

33617

Sirohi

12

Sirohi

31.03.2010

1282

10396

1213

12.33

41

0

12538

8894

21433

6446

Jalore

12

Jalore

31.03.2011

2848

32043

2806

8.89

1185

0

23744

33567

57311

9167

Merged

53

 

 

5784

76916

5673

7.52

1522

0

77645

70010

147657

49230

Udaipur

17

Udaipur & Rajsamand

31.03.2011

1655

1655

1655

100.00

57

0

28711

14648

43360

21400

Dungarhpur

10

Dungarhpur

31.03.2010

830

7597

1039

10.93

30

0

16552

4739

21292

5717

Banswara

10

Banswara

31.03.2011

1358

13120

1999

10.35

507

0

14851

11074

25925

9667

Merged

37

 

 

3843

22372

4693

17.18

594

0

60114

30461

90577

36784

Sri Ganganagar

22

Sri Ganganagar

31.03.2010

4184

43937

4361

9.52

124

0

27265

39018

66283

15507


Illustrations of merger of banks with other banks in geographically contiguous area

(Amt ` lakh)

Sr.
No.

Name
of CCB

No. of Bran
ches (excl
HO)

Districts
covered

Refer
ence
date of
Inspe
ction

Owned
funds
(capital
funds)

Risk