RBI Paper Backs Use of DTI Ratio with Other Norms

RBI Paper Suggests Adding Debt-to-Income Ratio Limits for Retail Loans to Reduce Risks – Implications Analyzed

Source and Citation: Original reporting by ET Bureau, published January 20th, 2024 in Economic Times.

Table of Contents

Analysis of this News for a Layman

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has recently released a research paper examining the growth in retail lending. Retail lending, which involves loans extended to individual consumers rather than businesses, is under scrutiny. The paper proposes the inclusion of a debt-to-income (DTI) ratio limit in the assessment of retail borrowers to mitigate risks.

Understanding DTI

DTI measures the proportion of existing debt compared to a borrower’s income. For instance, if an individual earning ₹60,000 per month has existing loan payments totaling ₹30,000, their DTI is 50%. A higher DTI indicates increased risk associated with new loans.

The RBI paper suggests that incorporating DTI limits along with existing loan-to-value rules can act as a preventive measure against economic bubbles and crashes. Loan-to-value evaluates the amount of money lent against an asset such as a house.

In summary, the economists behind the paper argue that while current retail loan growth seems sustainable, there are underlying risks. Implementing more stringent rules can safeguard both banks and borrowers.

Impact on Retail Investors

The proposed changes in lending rules have nuanced implications for retail investors. On a positive note, stricter standards may prevent the formation of credit bubbles, subsequently avoiding broader stock declines. Rigorous loan vetting can also contribute to a reduction in non-performing assets over the long term, positively impacting share prices.

Moreover, the paper indicates that current retail growth appears sustainable, which is favorable for retail banking stocks such as HDFC Bank and lenders heavily involved in personal loans like Bajaj Finance. Housing finance companies can also benefit from robust mortgage activity with manageable risk.

However, in the short term, imposing stricter DTI and LTV ceilings may affect loan volumes sooner than anticipated. This could negatively impact the financial results of certain entities, prompting investors to closely monitor management outlook changes in upcoming result calls.

Prudent retail investors are advised to capitalize on stock price declines by accumulating high-quality retail lending names for the long term, expecting some interim volatility. Short-term traders should exercise caution and await further clarity from bank and NBFC management before making substantial directional positions.

Impact on Industries

Tighter retail lending standards can influence industries in three key ways. Firstly, reduced discretionary spending power may directly impact consumer sectors, including auto and home improvement. Companies like Maruti Suzuki and Asian Paints might experience demand pressures if access to easy credit diminishes. Monitoring for volume and margin changes over the next 6-12 months is crucial for investors.

Secondly, the housing sector may be affected by lower mortgage availability, particularly for affordable projects relying on credit for expansion. However, mainstream real estate is expected to remain resilient due to current strong dynamics and demographics. Small-cap developers may face setbacks, while established names continue to grow.

Finally, the proposed rules encourage a more targeted flow of retail credit to high-quality borrowers, benefiting financing companies with advanced credit algorithms like HDFC Bank and Bajaj Finance. Despite potential demand declines, these companies can maintain healthy long-term loan books, making them attractive to investors during broader market corrections.

In conclusion, the policy direction is promising for stability, with some anticipated short-term trade-offs in growth deceleration, favoring strong incumbent banks over peripheral players.

Long-Term Benefits & Negatives

Adopting the suggested DTI rules has the potential to prevent reckless lending over the long term. Healthier personal balance sheets enhance household resilience to income shocks, reducing systemic vulnerability. Moody’s estimates indicate that India’s household debt to GDP will remain below 25% even in 2027, lower than the EM average of 35% and the advanced economy average nearing 75%. This conservative approach mitigates the impact of corrections compared to instances like the 2008 US housing bubble.

Furthermore, protecting bank asset quality is crucial in a country where state-owned lenders still hold over 60% system share. Stricter due diligence reduces risky unsecured products and addresses challenges arising from past PSU mergers.

However, increased diligence efforts may raise costs and create capacity issues if implemented hastily. Balancing the rollout is essential, considering that retail loans have served as a significant profit engine for major PSU banks throughout the COVID period. Jeopardizing volume without replacing corporate project financing could prove counterproductive, necessitating a balanced approach.

Monitoring alternate credit channels is imperative to contain shadow banking risks. Tighter lending standards in mainstream institutions may divert borrowers towards lightly regulated fintech or microfinance options if left unchecked. Therefore, policy contours should be coordinated across domains, potentially expanding DTI coverage to NBFCs.

Short-Term Benefits & Negatives

In the short run, the implementation of debt-to-income guidelines primarily acts as a preventative buffer against overheating rather than addressing current troubles. Retail asset quality on bank books has actually improved during the COVID period, and credit costs remain contained. Disciplined lending practices have been enforced in the last decade due to rising NPAs and risk-averse governance.

While limited immediate positives are expected beyond a sentiment uplift for financial stocks, the paper hints at hidden risks in the system. Identifying and defining these segments becomes a priority for regulators before broad-based moves.

Defining precise ceiling levels is crucial to avoid discouraging lenders from engaging in healthy market share battles in productive retail areas like mortgages and durable loans. Arbitrary stringency could lead to unintended demand constriction without meaningful stability improvements. A consultative approach is advisable before finalization.

Adapting monitoring systems alone requires investment, especially for smaller lenders lacking statistical databases. Near-term costs may outweigh actual gains, necessitating staggered adoption coordinated with existing surveillance upgrades like account aggregators. Simultaneously attempting multiple policy moves risks overregulation, a potential pitfall for banking systems undergoing reform.

Potential Impact of RBI Paper on Debt-to-Income Ratio for Retail Loans:

Indian Companies:

Gainers (5-10 Companies):

HDFC Bank: As a leading retail lender with a robust credit risk assessment framework, stricter DTI norms could play to their advantage by filtering out riskier borrowers and further strengthening their asset quality.
Kotak Mahindra Bank: Similar to HDFC Bank, stricter DTI checks could benefit Kotak Mahindra Bank’s focus on secured retail loans and its reputation for prudent lending practices. This could potentially lead to higher market confidence and potentially a premium valuation.
Bajaj Finance: With a significant presence in unsecured retail lending, tighter DTI regulations could initially cause a dip in loan disbursements. However, it could also improve their portfolio quality and long-term profitability by weeding out over-leveraged borrowers. This could be seen positively by the market in the long run.
LIC Housing Finance: As a specialized housing finance company, stricter DTI norms could lead to a more cautious and quality-focused loan book. This could improve their risk profile and potentially attract investors seeking stable and reliable assets.
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services: Similar to Bajaj Finance, M&M Finance might experience a temporary setback in loan disbursements due to stricter DTI checks. However, the resulting improvement in portfolio quality could benefit them in the long run and potentially enhance their market sentiment.

Losers (5-10 Companies):

Small Finance Banks (SFBs): SFBs rely heavily on unsecured retail loans to a segment often not covered by traditional banks. Tighter DTI norms could significantly restrict their loan origination and impact their profitability. This could lead to negative market sentiment and potentially lower valuations.
Microfinance Institutions (MFIs): Similar to SFBs, MFIs focus on high-interest unsecured loans to individuals with limited credit history. Stricter DTI checks could significantly impact their business model and profitability. This could lead to negative market sentiment and potentially impact their access to capital.
Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) focusing on unsecured loans: NBFCs with a significant exposure to unsecured retail loans could face similar challenges as SFBs and MFIs, potentially leading to negative market sentiment and impacting their access to capital.
Consumer Durables Companies: With stricter DTI norms potentially leading to lower loan disbursements for discretionary purchases like cars and appliances, consumer durables companies could see a decline in demand. This could negatively impact their market sentiment and valuations.
Real Estate Developers: Tightened DTI checks could lead to fewer home loan approvals, potentially impacting real estate developers’ sales and revenue. This could have a negative impact on their market sentiment and potentially lower valuations.

Global Companies: