Executive Summary-new 1
-
Upload
saradha-raghu -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Executive Summary-new 1
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
1/58
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1 . 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
In todays scenario, the banking sector is one of the fastest growing sectors and a
lot of funds are invested in Banks. Also todays banking system is becoming more
complex. There are so many models of evaluating the performance of the banks, but I have
chosen the CAMEL Model to evaluate the performance of the banks. It measures the
performance of the banks from each parameter i.e. Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings
and Liquidity.
1.1.1 CAMEL Framework
CAMEL norms are the supervisory framework consisting of risk-monitoring factors
used for evaluating the performance of banks. This framework involves the analysis of six
groups of indicators reflecting the health of financial institutions.
The indicators are as follows:
C - Capital adequacy
A - Asset quality
M - Management soundness
E - Earnings & profitability
L - Liquidity
1
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
2/58
1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE
The whole banking scenario has changed in the very recent past on the
recommendations of Narasimham Committee. Further BASEL II Norms were introduced
to internationally standardize processes and make the banking industry more adaptive to
the sensitive market risks. Amongst these reforms and restructuring the CAMELS
Framework has its own contribution to the way modern banking is looked up on now. The
attempt here is to see how various ratios have been used and interpreted to reveal a banks
performance and how this particular model encompasses wide range of parameters making
it a widely used and accepted model in todays scenario. The project attempts to analyze
the performance of State bank of India on the basis of CAMELS model and gives
suggestions on the basis of the finding of the analysis. The overall strategy of State bank of
India is also studied to gain a better understanding of the working of the bank and to
identify its strength and weakness.
1.2.1 BASEL II Accord
It is the bank capital framework sponsored by the world's central banks designed topromote uniformity, make regulatory capital more risk sensitive, and promote enhanced
risk management among large, internationally active banking organizations. The revised
accord (Basel II) completely overhauls the 1988 Basel Accord and is based on three
mutually supporting concepts, or "pillars, of capital adequacy.
Basel II uses a "three pillars" concept:
(1) Minimum capital requirements (addressing risk),
(2) Supervisory review and
(3) Market discipline to promote greater stability in the financial system.
2
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
3/58
1.2.1.1 The First Pillar
The first pillar deals with maintenance of regulatory capital calculated for three
major components of risk that a bank faces: credit risk, operational risk and market risk.
Developed for each risk category by each individual bank. The first pillars are an explicitly
defined regulatory capital requirement, a minimum capital-to-asset ratio equal to at least
8% of risk-weighted assets. Credit Risk can be calculated by using one of three approaches.
1. Standardized Approach
2. Foundation IRB (Internal Ratings Based) Approach
3. Advanced IRB Approach
1.2.1.2 The Second Pillar
Second, bank supervisory agencies, such as the Comptroller of the Currency, have
authority to adjust capital levels for individual banks above the 8% minimum when
necessary. It deals with the regulatory response to the first pillar, giving regulators much
improved 'tools' over those available to them under Basel I. It also provides a framework
for dealing with all the other risks a bank may face, such as systemic risk, pension risk,
concentration risk, strategic risk, reputation risk, liquidity risk and legal risk, which the
accord combines under the title of residual risk. It gives banks a power to review their riskmanagement system.
1.2.1.3 The Third Pillar
The third supporting pillar calls upon market discipline to supplement reviews by
banking agencies. The third pillar greatly increases the disclosures that the bank must
make. This is designed to allow the market to have a better picture of the overall risk
position of the bank and to allow the counterparties of the bank to price and deal
appropriately. The new Basel Accord has its foundation on three mutually reinforcing
pillars that allow banks and bank supervisors to evaluate properly the various risks that
banks face and realign regulatory capital more closely with underlying risks.
3
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
4/58
1.3 COMPANY PROFILE
1.3.1 An overview of the State Bank of India
The origin of the State Bank of India goes back to the first decade of the
nineteenth century with the establishment of the Bank of Calcutta in Calcutta on 2 June
1806. Three years later the bank received its charter and was re-designed as the Bank of
Bengal. A unique institution, it was the first joint-stock bank of British India sponsored by
the Government of Bengal. The Bank of Bombay (15 April 1840) and the Bank of Madras
(1 July 1843) followed the Bank of Bengal. These three banks remained at the apex of
modern banking in India till their amalgamation as the Imperial Bank of India on 27
January 1921.
Primarily Anglo-Indian creations, the three presidency banks came into existence
either as a result of the compulsions of imperial finance or by the felt needs of local
European commerce and were not imposed from outside in an arbitrary manner to
modernize India's economy. Their evolution was, however, shaped by ideas culled from
similar developments in Europe and England, and was influenced by changes occurring in
the structure of both the local trading environment and those in the relations of the Indian
economy to the economy of Europe and the global economic framework.
Establishment
The establishment of the Bank of Bengal marked the advent of limited liability,
joint-stock banking in India. So was the associated innovation in banking, viz. the decision
to allow the Bank of Bengal to issue notes, which would be accepted for payment of public
revenues within a restricted geographical area. This right of note issue was very valuable
not only for the Bank of Bengal but also its two siblings, the Banks of Bombay andMadras. It meant an accretion to the capital of the banks, a capital on which the proprietors
did not have to pay any interest.
The concept of deposit banking was also an innovation because the practice of
accepting money for safekeeping (and in some cases, even investment on behalf of the
4
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
5/58
clients) by the indigenous bankers had not spread as a general habit in most parts of India.
But, for a long time, and especially up to the time that the three presidency banks had a
right of note issue, bank notes and government balances made up the bulk of the investible
resources of the banks.
The three banks were governed by royal charters, which were revised from time to
time. Each charter provided for a share capital, four-fifth of which were privately
subscribed and the rest owned by the provincial government. The members of the board of
directors, which managed the affairs of each bank, were mostly proprietary directors
representing the large European managing agency houses in India. The rest were
government nominees, invariably civil servants, one of whom was elected as the president
of the board.
Business
The business of the banks was initially confined to discounting of bills of
exchange or other negotiable private securities, keeping cash accounts and receiving
deposits and issuing and circulating cash notes. Loans were restricted to Rs.one lakh and
the period of accommodation confined to three months only. The security for such loans
was public securities, commonly called Company's Paper, bullion, treasure, plate, jewels,
or goods 'not of a perishable nature' and no interest could be charged beyond a rate of
twelve per cent. Loans against goods like opium, indigo, salt woolens, cotton, cotton piece
goods, mule twist and silk goods were also granted but such finance by way of cash credits
gained momentum only from the third decade of the nineteenth century. All commodities,
including tea, sugar and jute, which began to be financed later, were either pledged or
hypothecated to the bank. Demand promissory notes were signed by the borrower in favor
of the guarantor, which was in turn endorsed to the bank. Lending against shares of the
banks or on the mortgage of houses, land or other real property was, however, forbidden.
Indians were the principal borrowers against deposit of Company's paper, while
the business of discounts on private as well as salary bills was almost the exclusive
monopoly of individuals Europeans and their partnership firms. But the main function of
5
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
6/58
the three banks, as far as the government was concerned, was to help the latter raise loans
from time to time and also provide a degree of stability to the prices of government
securities.
Major change in the conditions
A major change in the conditions of operation of the Banks of Bengal, Bombay
and Madras occurred after 1860. With the passing of the Paper Currency Act of 1861, the
right of note issue of the presidency banks was abolished and the Government of India
assumed from 1 March 1862 the sole power of issuing paper currency within British India.
The task of management and circulation of the new currency notes was conferred on the
presidency banks and the Government undertook to transfer the Treasury balances to the
banks at places where the banks would open branches. None of the three banks had till then
any branches (except the sole attempt and that too a short-lived one by the Bank of Bengal
at Mirzapore in 1839) although the charters had given them such authority.
The State Bank of India was thus born with a new sense of social purpose aided by
the 480 offices comprising branches, sub offices and three Local Head Offices inherited
from the Imperial Bank. The concept of banking as mere repositories of the community's
savings and lenders to creditworthy parties was soon to give way to the concept of
purposeful banking sub serving the growing and diversified financial needs of planned
economic development.
Branches
The corporate center of SBI is located in Mumbai. In order to cater to different
functions, there are several other establishments in and outside Mumbai, apart from the
corporate center. The bank boasts of having as many as 14 local head offices and 57 Zonal
Offices, located at major cities throughout India. It is recorded that SBI has about 10000
branches, well networked to cater to its customers throughout India.
ATM Services
SBI provides easy access to money to its customers through more than 8500 ATMs
in India. The Bank also facilitates the free transaction of money at the ATMs of State Bank
6
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
7/58
Group, which includes the ATMs of State Bank of India as well as the Associate Banks
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Indore, etc. You
may also transact money through SBI Commercial and International Bank Ltd by using the
State Bank ATM-cum-Debit (Cash Plus) card.
The eight banking subsidiaries are:
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ)
State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH)
State Bank of India (SBI)
State Bank of Indore (SBIR)
State Bank of Mysore (SBM) State Bank of Patiala (SBP)
State Bank of Saurashtra (SBS)
State Bank of Travancore (SBT)
1.3.2 Vision and Values
Vision statement
To be amongst most trusted power utility company ofthe country by providing
environment friendly power on most cost effective basis, ensuring prosperity for
its stakeholders and growth with human face.
Values
Excellence in customer service
Profit orientation
Belonging and commitment to the bank.
1.3.3 Achievements/ recognition
Business Standard has been awarded the Banker of the Year Award to Shri
O.P.Bhatt.
7
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
8/58
June 08 Awards & Recognitions CNN IBN Network 18 has selected Shri
O.P.Bhatt as Indian of the Year Business 2007.
Asian Centre for Corporate Governance & Sustainability and Indian Merchants
Chamber has awarded the Transformational Leader Award 2007.
State Bank of India ranked as NO.1 in the 4Ps B & M & ICMR Survey on India's
Best Marketed Banks in August-2009.
Shri Om Prakash Bhatt declared as one of the '25 Most Valuable Indians' By The
Week Magazine For 2009.
State Bank of India has been adjuged The Best Bank 2009 By Business India in
August-2009.
It bagged Most Preferred Bank and Most Preferred Brand for Home Loan at
CNBC Awaaz Consumer Awards.
It became the only Indian bank to get listed in the Fortune Global 500 List.
SBI was at the 70th slot in the top 1000 bank survey by Banker Magazine.
It was awarded Golden award for being among the two most trusted banks in India
by Readers Digest.
SBI is ranked 6th in the Economic Times Market Cap List.
SBI ranked as no.1 in the 4Ps B & M & ICMR Survey on India's Best Marketed
Banks (August-2009)
1.3.4 SWOT Analysis
STRENGTHS
8
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
9/58
SBI has 49% CASA deposits which is the highest among the banks. State bank of
India has the history of great resource raising ability. Their CASA deposits are in
advantage. The dependence on external resource is minimal.
W E A K N E S S E S
Stand alone Credit Ratings downgraded from C- to D+ (C denotes adequate
intrinsic Financial Strength and D suggests Modest intrinsic financial strength,
requiring outside support at times)
Ratings lowered due to SBIs Low Tier 1 Capital (7.6% as on June 11) below GOI
Committed Level of 8% and increasing high stressed asset quality (3.52% June11)
it is estimating that stress case may go up to 12.07% under pessimistic conditions.
Its a warning bell rather than disrupting Systematic Stability.
OPPORTUNITIES
The Banks/NBFC companies have been attempting to diversify their resources base
by increasingly accessing the capital markets and secondary market for its
resources.
THREATS
Advent of MNC banks
Customer Relationship Management
Private bank venturing into the rural
1.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
CAMEL rating system (Keeley and Gilbert)
This study uses the capital adequacy component of the CAMEL rating system to
assess whether regulators in the 1980s influenced inadequately capitalized banks to
9
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
10/58
improve their capital. Using a measure of regulatory pressure that is based on publicly
available information, he found that inadequately capitalized banks responded to regulators'
demands for greater capital. This conclusion is consistent with that reached by Keeley
(1988). Yet, a measure of regulatory pressure based on confidential capital adequacy
ratings reveals that capital regulation at national banks was less effective than at state-
chartered banks. This result strengthens a conclusion reached by Gilbert (1991)
Banks performance evaluation by CAMEL model (Hirtle and Lopez)
Despite the continuous use of financial ratios analysis on banks performance
evaluation by banks' regulators, opposition to it skill thrive with opponents coming up with
new tools capable of flagging the over-all performance ( efficiency) of a bank. This
research paper was carried out; to find the adequacy of CAMEL in capturing the overall
performance of a bank; to find the relative weights of importance in all the factors in
CAMEL; and lastly to inform on the best ratios to always adopt by banks regulators in
evaluating banks' efficiency. In addition, the best ratios in each of the factors in CAMEL
were identified. For example, the best ratio for Capital Adequacy was found to be the ratio
of total shareholders' fund to total risk weighted assets. The paper concluded that no one
factor in CAMEL suffices to depict the overall performance of a bank. Among other
recommendations, banks' regulators are called upon to revert to the best identified ratios in
CAMEL when evaluating banks performance.
CAMEL model examination (Rebel Cole and Jeffery Gunther)
To assess the accuracy of CAMEL ratings in predicting failure, Rebel Cole and
Jeffery Gunther use as a benchmark an off-site monitoring system based on publicly
available accounting data. Their findings suggest that, if a bank has not been examined for
more than two quarters, off-site monitoring systems usually provide a more accurate
indication of survivability than its CAMEL rating.
The lower predictive accuracy for CAMEL ratings "older" than two quarters causes
the overall accuracy of CAMEL ratings to fall substantially below that of off-site
monitoring systems. The higher predictive accuracy of off-site systems derives from both
their timeliness-an updated off-site rating is available for every bank in every quarter-and
10
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
11/58
the accuracy of the financial data on which they are based. Cole and Gunther conclude that
off-site monitoring systems should continue to play a prominent role in the supervisory
process, as acomplement to on-site examinations.
Check the Risk taken by banks by CAMEL model
The deregulation of the U.S. banking industry has fostered increased competition in
banking markets, which in turn has created incentives for banks to operate more efficiently
and take more risk. They examine the degree to which supervisory CAMEL ratings reflect
the level of risk taken by banks and the risk-taking efficiency of those banks (i.e., whether
increased risk levels generate higher expected returns). Their results suggest that
supervisors not only distinguish between the risk-taking of efficient and inefficient banks,
but they also permit efficient banks more latitude in their investment strategies than
inefficient banks.
Bank soundness - CAMEL ratings Indonesia (Kenton Zumwalt)
This study uses a unique data set provided by Bank Indonesia to examine the
changing financial soundness of Indonesian banks during this crisis. Bank Indonesia's non-
public CAMEL ratings data allow the use of a continuous bank soundness measure rather
than ordinal measures. In addition, panel data regression procedures that allow for the
identification of the appropriate statistical model are used. They argue the nature of the
risks facing the Indonesian banking community calls for the addition of a systemic risk
component to the Indonesian ranking system. The empirical results show that during
Indonesia's stable economic periods, four of the five traditional CAMEL components
provide insights into the financial soundness of Indonesian banks. However, during
Indonesia's crisis period, the relationships between financial characteristics and CAMEL
ratings deteriorate and only one of the traditional CAMEL componentsearnings
objectively discriminates among the ratings.
CHAPTER 2
THE MAIN THEME OF THE PROJECT
2.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY
11
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
12/58
2.1.1The CAMEL framework
During an on-site bank exam, supervisors gather private information, such as
details on problem loans, with which to evaluate a bank's financial condition and to
monitor its compliance with laws and regulatory policies. A key product of such an exam is
a supervisory rating of the bank's overall condition, commonly referred to as a CAMELS
rating. The acronym "CAMEL" refers to the five components of a bank's condition that are
assessed: Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, and Liquidity.
In 1994, the RBI established the Board of Financial Supervision (BFS), which
operates as a unit of the RBI. The entire supervisory mechanism was realigned to suit the
changing needs of a strong and stable financial system. The supervisory jurisdiction of the
BFSwas slowly extended to the entire financial system barring the capital market
institutions and the insurance sector. Its mandate is to strengthen supervision of the
financial system by integrating oversight of the activities of financial services firms.
The BFS has also established a sub-committee to routinely examine auditing
practices, quality, and coverage. In addition to the normal on-site inspections, Reserve
Bank of India also conducts off-site surveillance which particularly focuses on the risk
profile of the supervised entity. The Off-site Monitoring and Surveillance System
(OSMOS) were introduced in 1995 as an additional tool for supervision of commercialbanks. It was introduced with the aim to supplement the on-site inspections. Under off-site
system,12 returns (called DSB returns) are called from the financial institutions, which
focus on supervisory concerns such as capital adequacy, asset quality, large credits and
concentrations, connected lending, earnings and risk exposures (viz. currency, liquidity and
interest rate risks). In 1995, RBI had set up a working group under the chairmanship of Shri
S. Padmanabhan to review the banking supervision system.
The Committee certain recommendations and based on such suggestions a ratingsystem for domestic and foreign banks based on the international CAMELS model
combining financial management and systems and control elements was introduced for the
inspection cycle commencing from July 1998. It recommended that the banks should be
rated on a five point scale (A to E) based on the lines of international CAMELS rating
model. All exam materials are highly confidential, including the CAMELS.
12
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
13/58
2.1.1.1 Capital Adequacy
A Capital Adequacy Ratio is a measure of a bank's capital. It is expressed as a
percentage of a banks risk weighted credit exposures. Also known as ""Capital to Risk
Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR). Capital adequacy is measured by the ratio of capital to
risk-weighted assets (CRAR). A sound capital base strengthens confidence of depositors.
This ratio is used to protect depositors and promote the stability and efficiency of financial
systems around the world.
Capital base of financial institutions facilitates depositors in forming their risk
perception about the institutions. Also, it is the key parameter for financial managers to
maintain adequate levels of capitalization. Moreover, besides absorbing unanticipated
shocks, it signals that the institution will continue to honor its obligations. The most widely
used indicator of capital adequacy is capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (CRWA).
According to Bank Supervision Regulation Committee (The Basel Committee) of Bank for
International Settlements, a minimum 8 percent CRWA is required. Capital adequacy
ultimately determines how well financial institutions can cope with shocks to their balance
sheets. Thus, it is useful to track capital-adequacy ratios that take into account the most
important financial risksforeign exchange, credit, and interest rate risksby assigning
risk weightings to the institutions assets.
2.1.1.2 Asset Quality:
Asset quality determines the robustness of financial institutions against loss of
value in the assets. The deteriorating value of assets, being prime source of banking
problems, directly pour into other areas, as losses are eventually written-off against capital,
which ultimately jeopardizes the earning capacity of the institution. With this backdrop, the
asset quality is gauged in relation to the level and severity of non-performing assets,
13
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
14/58
adequacy of provisions, recoveries, distribution of assets etc. Popular indicators include
nonperforming loans to advances, loan default to total advances, and recoveries to loan
default ratios. The solvency of financial institutions typically is at risk when their assets
become impaired, so it is important to monitor indicators of the quality of their assets in
terms of overexposure to specific risks, trends in nonperforming loans, and the health and
profitability of bank borrowers especially the corporate sector. Share of bank assets in
the aggregate financial sector assets: In most emerging markets, banking sector assets
comprise well over 80 per cent of total financial sector assets, whereas these figures are
much lower in the developed economies. Furthermore, deposits as a share of total bank
liabilities have declined since 1990 in many developed countries, while in developing
countries public deposits continue to be dominant in banks. In India, the share of banking
assets in total financial sector assets is around 75 per cent, as of end-March 2008. There is,
no doubt, merit in recognizing the importance of diversification in the institutional and
instrument-specific aspects of financial intermediation in the interests of wider choice,
competition and stability. However, the dominant role of banks in financial intermediation
in emerging economies and particularly in India will continue in the medium-term; and the
banks will continue to be special for a long time. In this regard, it is useful to emphasize
the dominance of banks in the developing countries in promoting on-bank financial
intermediaries and services including in development of debt-markets. Even where role of
banks is apparently diminishing in emerging markets, substantively, they continue to play a
leading role in non-banking financing activities, including the development of financial
markets. One of the indicators for asset quality is the ratio of non-performing loans to total
loans (GNPA). The gross non-performing loans to gross advances ratio is more indicative
of the quality of credit decisions made by bankers. Higher GNPA is indicative of poor
credit decision-making.
NPA: Non-Performing Assets
Advances are classified into performing and non-performing advances (NPAs) as
per RBI guidelines. NPAs are further classified into sub-standard, doubtful and loss assets
based on the criteria stipulated by RBI. An asset, including a leased asset, becomes
nonperforming when it ceases to generate income for the Bank.
14
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
15/58
2.1.1.3 Management Soundness
Management of financial institution is generally evaluated in terms of capital
adequacy, asset quality, earnings and profitability, liquidity and risk sensitivity ratings. In
addition, performance evaluation includes compliance with set norms, ability to plan and
react to changing circumstances, technical competence, leadership and administrative
ability. In effect, management rating is just an amalgam of performance in the above-
mentioned areas. Sound management is one of the most important factors behind financial
institutions performance. Indicators of quality of management, however, are primarily
applicable to individual institutions, and cannot be easily aggregated across the sector.
Furthermore, given the qualitative nature of management, it is difficult to judge its
soundness just by looking at financial accounts of the banks. Nevertheless, total
expenditure to total income and operating expense to total expense helps in gauging the
management quality of the banking institutions. Sound management is key to bank
performance but is difficult to measure. It is primarily a qualitative factor applicable to
individual institutions. Several indicators, however, can jointly serveas, for instance,
efficiency measures doas an indicator of management soundness. The ratio of non-
interest expenditures to total assets (MGNT) can be one of the measures to assess the
working of the management. . This variable, which includes a variety of expenses, such as
payroll, workers compensation and training investment, reflects the management policy
stance.
2.1.1.4 Earnings & Profitability
Earnings and profitability, the prime source of increase in capital base, is
examined with regards to interest rate policies and adequacy of provisioning. In addition, it
also helps to support present and future operations of the institutions. The single best
indicator used to gauge earning is the Return on Assets (ROA), which is net income after
taxes to total asset ratio. Strong earnings and profitability profile of banks reflects the
15
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
16/58
ability to support present and future operations. More specifically, this determines the
capacity to absorb losses, finance its expansion, pay dividends to its shareholders, and build
up an adequate level of capital. Being front line of defense against erosion of capital base
from losses, the need for high earnings and profitability can hardly be overemphasized.
Although different indicators are used to serve the purpose, the best and most widely used
indicator is Return on Assets (ROA). However, for in-depth analysis, another indicator Net
Interest Margins (NIM) is also used. Chronically unprofitable financial institutions risk
insolvency. Compared with most other indicators, trends in profitability can be more
difficult to interpretfor instance, unusually high profitability can reflect excessive risk
taking.
ROA-Return on Assets
An indicator of how profitable a company is relative to its total assets. ROA gives
an idea as to how efficient management is at using its assets to generate earnings.
Calculated by dividing a company's annual earnings by its total assets, ROA is displayed as
a percentage. Sometimes this is referred to as "return on investment".
ROA tells what earnings were generated from invested capital (assets). ROA for
public companies can vary substantially and will be highly dependent on the industry. This
is why when using ROA as a comparative measure, it is best to compare it against a
company's previous ROA numbers or the ROA of a similar company. The assets of the
company are comprised of both debt and equity. Both of these types of financing are used
to fund the operations of the company.
The ROA gives investors an idea of how effectively the company is converting themoney it has to invest in tone income. The higher the ROA number, the better, because the
company is earning more money on less investment. For example, if one company has a
net income of $1 million and total assets of $5 million, its ROA is 20%; however, if
another company earns the same amount but has total assets of $10 million, it has an ROA
of 10%. Based on this example, the first company is better at converting its investment into
16
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
17/58
profit. When you really think about it, management's most important job is to make wise
choices in allocating its resources. Anybody can make a profit by throwing at on of money
at a problem, but very few managers excel at making large profits with little investment.
2.1.1.5 Liquidity
An adequate liquidity position refers to a situation, where institution can obtain
sufficient funds, either by increasing liabilities or by converting its assets quickly at a
reasonable cost. It is, therefore, generally assessed in terms of overall assets and liability
management, as mismatching gives rise to liquidity risk. Efficient fund management refers
to a situation where a spread between rate sensitive assets (RSA) and rate sensitive
liabilities (RSL) is maintained. The most commonly used tool to evaluate interest rate
exposure is the Gap between RSA and RSL, while liquidity is gauged by liquid to total
asset ratio. Initially solvent financial institutions may be driven toward closure by poor
management of short-term liquidity. Indicators should cover funding sources and capture
large maturity mismatches. The term liquidity is used in various ways, all relating to
availability of, access to, or convertibility into cash.
Resiliency is the speed with which prices return to equilibrium following a large trade.
Examples of assets that tend to be liquid include foreign exchange; stocks traded in the
Stock Exchange or recently issued Treasury bonds. Assets that are often illiquid include
limited partnerships, thinly traded bonds or real estate.
Cash maintained by the banks and balances with central bank, to total asset ratio
(LQD) is an indicator of bank's liquidity. In general, banks with a larger volume of liquid
assets are perceived safe, since these assets would allow banks to meet unexpectedwithdrawals.
Credit deposit ratio is a tool used to study the liquidity position of the bank. It is
calculated by dividing the cash held indifferent forms by total deposit. A high ratio shows
17
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
18/58
that there are more amounts of liquid cash with the bank to meet its clients cash
withdrawals.
2.1.1.6 Sensitivity to Market Risk
It refers to the risk that changes in market conditions could adversely impact
earnings and/or capital. Market Risk encompasses exposures associated with changes in
interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, equity prices, etc. While all of
these items are important, the primary risk in most banks is interest rate risk (IRR), which
will be the focus of this module. The diversified nature of bank operations makes them
vulnerable to various kinds of financial risks. Sensitivity analysis reflects institutions
exposure to interest rate risk, foreign exchange volatility and equity price risks (these risks
are summed in market risk). Risk sensitivity is mostly evaluated in terms of managements
ability to monitor and control market risk. Banks are increasingly involved in diversified
operations, all of which are subject to market risk, particularly in the setting of interest
rates and the carrying out of foreign exchange transactions. In countries that allow banks to
make trades in stock markets or commodity exchanges, there is also a need to monitor
indicators of equity and commodity price risk.
2.1.1.7 Interest Rate Risk Basics
In the most simplistic terms, interest rate risk is a balancing act. Banks are trying to
balance the quantity of reprising assets with the quantity of reprising liabilities. For
example, when a bank has more liabilities reprising in a rising rate environment than assets
reprising, the net interest margin (NIM) shrinks. Conversely, if your bank is asset sensitive
18
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
19/58
in a rising interest rate environment, your NIM will improve because you have more assets
reprising at higher rates.
An extreme example of a reprising imbalance would be funding 30-year fixed-rate
mortgages with6-month CDs. You can see that in a rising rate environment the impact on
the NIM could bed evastating as the liabilities reprise at higher rates but the assets do not.
Because of this exposure, banks are required to monitor and control IRR and to maintain a
reasonably well-balanced position.
Liquidity risk is financial risk due to uncertain liquidity. An institution might lose
liquidity if its credit rating falls, it experiences sudden unexpected cash outflows, or some
other event causes counterparties to avoid trading with or lending to the institution. A firm
is also exposed to liquidity risk if markets on which it depends are subject to loss of
liquidity. Liquidity risk tends to compound other risks. If a trading organization has a
position in an illiquid asset, its limited ability to liquidate that position at short notice will
compound its market risk. Suppose a firm has offsetting cash flows with two different
counterparties on a given day. If the counterparty that owes it a payment defaults, the firm
will have to raise cash from other sources to make its payment. Should it be unable to do
so, it too we default. Here, liquidity risk is compounding credit risk.
Accordingly, liquidity risk has to be managed in addition to market, credit and
other risks. Because of its tendency to compound other risks, it is difficult or impossible to
isolate liquidity risk. In all but the most simple of circumstances, comprehensive metrics of
liquidity risk don't exist. Certain techniques of asset-liability management can be applied to
assessing liquidity risk.
If an organization's cash flows are largely contingent, liquidity risk may be assessed
using some form of scenario analysis. Construct multiple scenarios for market movements
and defaults over a given period of time. Assess day-today cash flows under each scenario.
Because balance sheets differed so significantly from one organization to the next, there is
little standardization in how such analyses are implemented.
19
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
20/58
Regulators are primarily concerned about systemic implications of liquidity risk.
Business activities entail a variety of risks. For convenience, we distinguish between
different categories of risk: market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, etc. Although such
categorization is convenient, it is only informal. Usage and definitions vary. Boundaries
between categories are blurred. A loss due to widening credit spreads may reasonably be
called a market loss or a credit loss, so market risk and credit risk overlap. Liquidity risk
compounds other risks, such as market risk and credit risk. It cannot be divorced from the
risks it compounds.
An important but somewhat ambiguous distinguish is that between market risk and
business risk. Market risk is exposure to the uncertain market value of a portfolio. Business
risk is exposure to uncertainty in economic value that cannot be marked-to market. The
distinction between market risk and business risk parallels the distinction between market-
value accounting and book-value accounting. The distinction between market risk and
business risk is ambiguous because there is a vast "gray zone" between the two. There are
many instruments for which markets exist, but the markets are illiquid. Mark-to-market
values are not usually available, but mark-to model values provide a more-or-less accurate
reflection of fair value. The decision is important because firms employ fundamentally
different techniques for managing the two risks. Business risk is managed with along-term
focus. Techniques include the careful development of business plans and appropriate
management oversight. Book-value accounting is generally used, so the issue of day-to-day
performance is not material.
2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
20
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
21/58
2.3 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
To evaluate the financial performance of State Bank of India by using
CAMELS model technique.
To analyze three banks to get the desired results by using CAMEL as a tool
of measuring performance.
To analyze the banks performance through CAMEL model and give
suggestion for improvement if necessary.
21
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
22/58
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
Time and resources constraints.
The study was completely done on the basis of ratios calculated from the balance
sheets.
It has not been possible to get a personal interview with the top management
employees of SBI.
It has not been possible to get sensitive real data on actual CAMELS analysis
performed by the RBI on State bank of India.
22
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
23/58
2.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It
may be understood as a science of studying how the research has to be done scientifically.
From this we analyze and study the various steps that ate generally adopted by the research
and study the research problem along with the logic behind them.
RESEARCH
Research is common parlance refers to search for knowledge. One can also define
research as a scientific and systematic search for pertinent information on a specific topic.
23
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
24/58
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Design is a framework or plan for a study that guides the collection and
analysis of the data. A research design is the arrangement of conditions for collection and
analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with
economy in procedure. The design used in the study is quantitative and analytical.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
The period for evaluating performance through CAMELS in this study is four
years, i.e. from financial year 2008-09 to 2010-11. The data is collected from various
sources as follows.
Primary data:
A Primary data is a data, which is collected for the first time for a particular interest
to have more information. Primary data was collected from the company balance sheets
and company profit and loss statements and interaction with the employees of State Bank
of India.
Secondary data:
Secondary data are those which have already been collected by someone else and
which have already passed through the statistical processes.
Secondary data on the subject was collected from Business journals, Business
dailies, company prospectus, company annual reports and RBI websites.
TOOLS USED
The tools used are
CAMEL Analysis
Trend Analysis
Comparative Analysis
24
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
25/58
Trend Analysis
Trend Analysis is the practice of collecting information and attempting to spot a
pattern, or trend, in the information. In some fields of study, the term "trend analysis" has
more formally-defined meanings. Although trend analysis is often used to predict future
events, it could be used to estimate uncertain events in the past. Considering the base year
as 2008.
2.6 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
ANALYSIS
Analysis is the process of placing the data in the ordered form, combining them
with the existing information and extracting the meaning from them. Only analysis brings
out the information from the data.
INTERPRETATION
Interpretation is the process of relating various factors with other information. It
brings out the relation between the findings to the research objectives and hypothesis
framed for the study in the beginning.
25
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
26/58
STATISTICAL TOOLS
To analyze the data the following tools were applied:
CAMEL Analysis
Trend Analysis
Comparative Analysis
2.6.1 CAMEL Analysis
Table no: 2.6.1.1 Capital Risk Adequacy Ratio
Capital risk adequacy ratio is used to protect depositors and promote the stability
and efficiency of financial systems around the world.
Capital Risk Adequacy Ratio= Capital fund of the bank/ Risk weighted assets*100
Year Capital Fund (Tier 1
and Tier 2)
Risk weighted asset Ratio %
2007 4882.29 - -
2008 10368 72761 14.252009 2339.92 82148 13.39
2010 4882.27 33918.87 13.40
2011 3399.45 25376.24 14.39
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.1 Capital adequacy ratio
26
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
27/58
Interpretation:
Capital risk adequacy ratiohas reduced from the year 2009 to 2011 from 14.25 %
to 11.98%. It is expressed as a percentage of a bank's risk weighted credit exposures.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.2 Debt to Equity Ratio
Debt to Equity Ratio(%) = (Borrowings / Total Shareholders Equity)
Years Total liability Share holders equity Debt Equity ratio%
2008 721526 6583266.4 10.96
2009 964432 7528743.1 12.81
2010 10534 86415 12.19
2011 12237 85159 14.37
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.2 Debt to Equity Ratio
27
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
28/58
Interpretation:
The debt equity ratio has increased from 2008 to 2009 and decreased and
again increased in the year 2011 from 10.91 % (2008) to 14.37 % (2011).
TABLE NO 2.6.1.3 Advances to assets ratio
Advances to assets ratio (%) = (Advance /total asset)
Year Advances Total asset Advances to assets
ratio%
2008 416,768 721,526 57.76
2009 542,503 964,432 56.252010 631,914 1,053,413 60.0
2011 756,719 1223736 61.8
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.3 Advances to assets ratio
28
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
29/58
Interpretation:
The advance to asset ratio has seen decrease from 2008 to 2009 but then
increased from 56.25 % to 61.8 % steadily in 2011.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.4 Govt.securities to Total investments ratio
Govt.securities to Total investments ratio (%) = Govt securities / Total investments
Year G-sec Total investments G-sec to
investments ratio
5435.71
2008 4849.32 189,501 74.26
2009 226217 275,953 81.98
2010 104018398 285,790 79.32
2011 100218617 295600 78.05
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.4 Govt.securities to Total investments ratio
29
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
30/58
Interpretation:
The govt.securities to investment ratio increases from 2008 to 2009 as74.26% to
81.98% and decreases in the next two years from 79.32% to 78.05%.
A-ASSET QUALITY
TABLE NO 2.6.1.5 Gross NPA ratio
Gross NPA ratio(%) = (Gross NPA/Total Loan)
Year Gross NPA Total loan Gross NPA ratio
2007 158.89 4222.7 3.04
2009 179.13 5494.4 2.86
2010 12347 4048.19 3.05
2011 25326 7721.34 3.28
Source: Secondary Data
30
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
31/58
Chart: 2.6.1.5 Gross NPA ratio
Interpretation:
The asset quality ratio has decreased from 3.045 to 2.86% in the first two years
but has increased in the last two year from 3.05% to 3.28% from 2010 to 2011.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.6 Net NPA ratio
Net NPA ratio (%)= (Net NPA/ Total Loan)
Year Net NPA Total Loan Net NPA ratio
2008 7424.33 4170.97 1.78
2009 9552 5336.31 1.79
2010 10870.17 6319 1.72
2011 12347 7574.85 1.63
Source: Secondary Data
31
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
32/58
Chart: 2.6.1.6 Net NPA ratio
Interpretation:
The net NPA ratio has increased from the year 2008 to 2009 as 1.78 to 1.79
Again it has decreased from 2010 to 2011 to 1.63.
M-MANAGEMENT QUALITY
TABLE NO 2.6.1.7 Total Advance to Total Deposit Ratio
Total Advance to Total Deposit Ratio = (Total Advance/ Total Deposit)* 100
Year Total Advance Total Deposit Total Advance to
Total Deposit Rat
32
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
33/58
2008 416,768 537,403 77.55
2009 542,503 742,073 73.10
2010 631,914 804,116 78.58
2011 756719 933932 81.02
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.7 Total Advance to Total Deposit Ratio
Interpretation:
The net total advance to total deposit ratio has decreased from the year 2008
to 2009 from 77.55%. Then increased from 78.58% to 81.02% in the year 2010 to 2011.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.8 Business per employee ratio
Business per employee ratio (%) = Total Income / No.of Employees
Year Total Income No.of Employees Business per
employee ratio
2008 58,348 179205 3.26
2009 76,479 205896 3.71
33
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
34/58
2010 85,962 200299 4.30
2011 96,329 222933 4.36
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.8 Business per employee ratio
Interpretation:
Business per employee ratio kept on increasing from 2008 to 2011 from
3.26% to 4.36%.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.9 Profit per employee ratio
Profit per employee ratio (%) = Net Profit / No.of Employees
Year Net Profit No.of Employees Profit per employee
ratio
2008 6,729 179205 3.75
2009 9,121 205896 4.43
2010 9,166 200299 4.58
2011 7,370 222933 3.30
34
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
35/58
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.9 Profit per employee ratio
Interpretation:
Profit per employee ratio increased from 2008 to 2010 as 3.75% to 4.58% and
decreased in the year 2011 as3.30%.
E-EARNING PERFORMANCE
TABLE NO 2.6.1.10 Dividend Payout Ratio
Dividend Payout Ratio = (dividend / net profit)
Year dividend Net profit DividendPayout Ratio
2008 1,357 6,729 20.17
35
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
36/58
2009 1,841 9,121 20.18
2010 1,904 9,166 20.77
2011 1,905 7,370 25.85
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.10 Dividend Payout Ratio
Interpretation:
Dividend payout ratio increased continuously from 2008 to 2011 from 20.17% to
25.85%
TABLE NO 2.6.1.11 Return on Assets
Return on Assets (%) = Net Income after Tax x 100/ Average Total Assets
Year Net income Total assets Return on assets
2008 6,729 721,526 1.02
36
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
37/58
2009 9,121 964,432 1.04
2010 9,166 1,053,413 0.87
2011 8,264 1223736 0.7
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.11 Return on Assets
Interpretation:
The return on asset ratio has increased from 2008 to 2009 from 1.02% to1.04% .Then
decreased from 0.87% to 0.7% from 2010 to 2011.
37
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
38/58
TABLE NO 2.6.1.12 Return on Equity
Return on Equity (%) = Net Income after Tax x 100/ Average Total Equity
Funds
Year Net income Total equity fund Return on equity2008 6729.12 631.47 10.65
2009 9121.23 634.88 14.36
2010 9166.05 634.88 14.43
2011 7370.35 635 11.6
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.12 Return on Equity
Interpretation:
The return on equity ratio has seen a increase from the year 2008 to 2009 from
10.65% to 14 .36% whereas it has reduced in the next year and decreased from 2010 to
2011 from 14.435 to 11.60%.
38
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
39/58
TABLE NO 2.6.1.13 Liquidity asset to Total Asset Ratio
Liquidity asset to Total Asset Ratio (%) = Liquidity Asset/ Total Asset
Year Liquidity asset to
Total Asset Ratio
Total Asset Liquidity asset to
Total Asset Ratio
2008 54673.84 721,526 7.58
2009 59120.58 964,432 6.13
2010 65408.6 1,053,413 6.20
2011 98817.45 1223736 8.07
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.13 Liquidity asset to Total Asset Ratio
Interpretation:
Liquidity asset to total asset ratio decreased from 7.58% to 6.13% in the year 2008 to
2009 and then increased from 2010 to 2011 from 6.2% to 8.07%.
TABLE NO 2.6.1.14 Liquidity asset to Total Deposit Ratio
39
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
40/58
Liquidity asset to Total Deposit Ratio (%) = Liquidity Asset/ Total deposit
Year Liquidity asset Total Deposit Liquidity asset to
Total Deposit Ratio
2008 54673.84 537,403 10.17
2009 59120.58 742,073 7.97
2010 65408.6 804,116 8.13
2011 98817.45 933932 10.58
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.1.14 Liquidity asset to Total Deposit Ratio
Interpretation:
Liquidity asset to total deposit ratio decreased from 10.17% to 7.97% in the year
2008 to 2009 and increased in the year 2011 to 10.58%.
2.6.2 TREND ANALYSIS
40
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
41/58
Table no 2.6.2.1 Balance sheet of State bank of India
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
Liabilities:
Total share capital 100 100.54 0 100.01
Equity share capital 100 100.54 0 100.01
Reserves 100 118.41 113.96 98.48
Net worth 100 118.18 113.80 98.54
Deposits 100 138.08 108.36 116.14
Borrowings 100 103.84 191.78 116.07
Total debt 100 135.08 113.90 116.14
Other liabilities &provisions
100 132.80 72.57 131.09
Total liabilities 100 133.66 109.23 116.17
Assets
Cash&balance withRBI
100 107.78 110.34 154.01
Balance withbanks,money at call
100 306.67 71.42 81.62
Advance 100 130.17 116.48 119.75
Investment 100 145.62 103.56 103.65
Gross block 100 115.74 113.73 111.47
Accumulateddepreciation
100 116.75 112.96 113.53
Net block 100 113.86 115.20 107.63
Capital work in
progress
100 112.46 112.04 112.55
other assets 100 84.95 93.05 124.68
Total assets 100 133.66 109.23 116.17
Interpretation:
41
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
42/58
The cash balance of State bank of India is in increasing trend. Investment is in
fluctuating trend i.e. increases and decreases. Share capital increases and goes to zero and
then again increases. Reserves is fluctuating, it increases and again decreases. The total
asset of the bank is fluctuating. The total liabilities also increase and then again decrease
and increase again.
2.6.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SBI,ICICI AND HDFC
42
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
43/58
Table no: 2.6.3.1 Capital Adequacy Ratio
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
SBI 13.47% 14.25% 13.39% 11.98%
ICICI 13.97% 15.53% 19.41% 19.54%
HDFC 13.60% 15.10% 17.40% 16.22%
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.1 Capital Adequacy Ratio
Interpretation:
Capital Adequacy Ratio of SBI increased from 13.47% to 14.25% and again
goes on decreases to 11.98% in the year 2011. ICICI is increasing from 13.97% to 19.54%
in the year from 2008 to 2011. HDFC is increased from 13.60% to 17.40% in the year 2008
to 2010 and again decreased to 16.22% in the year 2011.
Table no: 2.6.3.2 Gross NPA Assets
43
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
44/58
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
SBI 3.04 2.84 3.05 3.41
ICICI 3.3 4.32 5.06 5.41
HDFC 1.3 1.98 1.43 1.67Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.2 Gross NPA Assets
Interpretation:
Gross NPA asset of SBI decreased from 3.04% to 2.84% in the year 2008 to 2009
and again increased to 3.41%. ICICI keeps on increasing in nonperforming asset from 3.3%
to 5.41%. HDFC is fluctuating i.e. increases and decreases from 2008 to 2011.
Table no: 2.6.3.3 Net NPA Assets
44
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
45/58
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
SBI 1.78 1.76 1.72 1.91
ICICI 1.12 2.09 2.12 2.41
HDFC 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.32
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.3 Net NPA Assets
Interpretation:
Net NPA asset of SBI keeps on decreases for the first two years and increased to
1.91% in the year 2011. ICICI NPA keeps on increasing. HDFC is fluctuating i.e.
decreases and increases to 1.32%
Table no: 2.6.3.4 Total advance to Total deposit Ratio
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
45
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
46/58
SBI 6.32 7.2 7.26 7.24
ICICI 5.61 5.14 4.6 3.55
HDFC 5.18 5 4.24 4.65
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.4 Total advance to Total deposit Ratio
Interpretation:
Total advance to total deposit ratio of SBI is increases from 6.32% to 7.26%
in the year 2008 to 2010 and decreased to 7.24%. ICICI keeps on decreasing from 5.61% to
3.55%. HDFC decreases from 5.18% to 4.24% and increases to 4.65% in the year 2011.
Table no: 2.6.3.5 Asset turnover Ratio
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
SBI 126.62 143.77 144.37 116.07
46
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
47/58
ICICI 39.39 33.76 36.14 44.73
HDFC 46.2 52.9 67.6 84.4
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.5 Asset turnover Ratio
Interpretation:
Asset turnover ratio of SBI is fluctuating from 126.62% to 116.07% in the
year 2008 to 2011 and decreases to 116.97%. ICICI is also fluctuating i.e. decreases and
increases from 39.39% to 44.73%.HDFC keeps on increasing from 46.2% to 84.4% in the
year 2008 to 2011.
Table no: 2.6.3.6 Net profit margin
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
47
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
48/58
SBI 11.65 12.03 10.54 8.55
ICICI 10.51 9.74 12.17 15.91
HDFC 12.82 11.35 14.76 16.09
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.6 Net profit margin
Interpretation:
Net profit ratio of SBI is fluctuating i.e. increases and decreases from 11.65% to
8.55%.ICICI net profit if fluctuating ,decreased and increased from 10.51% to
15.91%.HDFC is fluctuating i.e. decreases and increases from 12.82% to 16.09%.
Table no: 2.6.3.7 Return on Asset
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
48
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
49/58
SBI 1.01 1.04 0.88 1.37
ICICI 1.12 0.98 1.13 1.23
HDFC 1.42 1.42 1.45 1.82
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.7 Return on Asset
Interpretation:
Return on asset of SBI is fluctuating, it increases and decreases from 2008 to 2011
as 1.01% to 1.37%. ICICI if fluctuating ,it decreases and increases from 1.12% to
1.23%.HDFC remains constant for two years as 1.42% and increases from 1.45% to 1.82%.
Table no: 2.6.3.8 Assessing Liquidity
PARTICULARS 2008 2009 2010 2011
SBI 77.55 73.11 78.58 81.03
ICICI 92.3 99.98 89.7 95.91
49
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
50/58
HDFC 62.74 69.24 75.17 76.7
Source: Secondary Data
Chart: 2.6.3.8 Assessing Liquidity
Interpretation:
Assessing the liquidity ratio of SBI is in fluctuating flow i.e. decreases from
73.11% and increases to 78.58%. ICICI liquidity also fluctuates i.e. increases, decreases
and again increases to 95.91% in the year 2011. HDFC liquidity is increases from 62.74%
to 76.7% in the year 2008 to 2011.
2.6.4 FINDINGS
Capital risk adequacy ratiohas reduced from the year 2009 to 2011 from 14.25 %
to 11.98%. It is expressed as a percentage of a bank's risk weighted credit
exposures.
50
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
51/58
The debt equity ratio has increased from 2008 to 2009 and decreased and again
increased in the year 2011 from 10.91 % (2008) to 14.37 % (2011).
The advance to asset ratio has seen decrease from 2008 to 2009 but then increased
from 56.25 % to 61.8 % steadily in 2011.
The govt.securities to investment ratio increases from 2008 to 2009 as74.26%
to 81.98% and decreases in the next two years from 79.32% to 78.05%.
The asset quality ratio has decreased from 3.045 to 2.86% in the first two years but
has increased in the last two year from 3.05% to 3.28% from 2010 to 2011.
The net NPA ratio has increased from the year 2008 to 2009 as 1.78 to 1.79
again it has decreased from 2010 to 2011 to 1.63.
The net total advance to total deposit ratio has decreased from the year 2008 to
2009 from 77.55%. Then increased from 78.58% to 81.02% in the year 2010 to
2011.
Business per employee ratio kept on increasing from 2008 to 2011 from 3.26%
to 4.36%.
Profit per employee ratio increased from 2008 to 2010 as 3.75% to 4.58%
and decreased in the year 2011 as3.30%.
Dividend payout ratio increased continuously from 2008 to 2011 from 20.17% to
25.85%
The return on asset ratio has increased from 2008 to 2009 from 1.02% to1.04%
.Then decreased from 0.87% to 0.7% from 2010 to 2011.
The return on equity ratio has seen a increase from the year 2008 to 2009
from 10.65% to 14 .36% whereas it has reduced in the next year and decreased
from 2010 to 2011 from 14.435 to 11.60%.
51
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
52/58
Liquidity asset to total asset ratio decreased from 7.58% to 6.13% in the year
2008 to 2009 and then increased from 2010 to 2011 from 6.2% to 8.07%.
Capital Adequacy Ratio of SBI increased from 13.47% to 14.25% and again goes
on decreases to 11.98% in the year 2011. ICICI is increasing from 13.97% to
19.54% in the year from 2008 to 2011. HDFC is increased from 13.60% to 17.40%
in the year 2008 to 2010 and again decreased to 16.22% in the year 2011.
Gross NPA asset of SBI decreased from 3.04% to 2.84% in the year 2008 to
2009 and again increased to 3.41%. ICICI keeps on increasing in nonperforming
asset from 3.3% to 5.41%. HDFC is fluctuating i.e. increases and decreases from
2008 to 2011.
Net NPA asset of SBI keeps on decreases for the first two years and increased
to 1.91% in the year 2011. ICICI NPA keeps on increasing. HDFC is fluctuating
i.e. decreases and increases to 1.32%
Total advance to total deposit ratio of SBI is increases from 6.32% to 7.26% in the
year 2008 to 2010 and decreased to 7.24%. ICICI keeps on decreasing from 5.61%
to 3.55%. HDFC decreases from 5.18% to 4.24% and increases to 4.65% in the
year 2011.
Asset turnover ratio of SBI is fluctuating from 126.62% to 116.07% in the year
2008 to 2011 and decreases to 116.97%. ICICI is also fluctuating i.e. decreases and
increases from 39.39% to 44.73%.HDFC keeps on increasing from 46.2% to 84.4%
in the year 2008 to 2011.
Net profit ratio of SBI is fluctuating i.e. increases and decreases from 11.65%
to 8.55%.ICICI net profit if fluctuating ,decreased and increased from 10.51% to
15.91%.HDFC is fluctuating i.e. decreases and increases from 12.82% to 16.09%.
Return on asset of SBI is fluctuating, it increases and decreases from 2008 to
2011 as 1.01% to 1.37%. ICICI if fluctuating ,it decreases and increases from
1.12% to 1.23%.HDFC remains constant for two years as 1.42% and increases from
1.45% to 1.82%.
52
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
53/58
Assessing the liquidity ratio of SBI is in fluctuating flow i.e. decreases from
73.11% and increases to 78.58%. ICICI liquidity also fluctuates i.e. increases,
decreases and again increases to 95.91% in the year 2011. HDFC liquidity is
increases from 62.74% to 76.7% in the year 2008 to 2011.
CHAPTER 3
SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.1 SUGGESTIONS
To further optimize Capital Adequacy
53
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
54/58
Export Credit Covered under ECGC(those which are not covered earlier) to reduce
the capital
requirement by Rs.10-14 Bn
SME activities up to Rs.10 mn under Credit Guaranteed Fund Trust for MSME canbe increased
from current Rs.310 bn to Rs. 650-700 bn. Hence any loans losses would be borne
by Guarantor.
Hopeful of capital infusion by Dec2011 or latest by March 2012 which will
increase
Tier 1 ratio 9%
3.2 CONCLUSION
ANNEXURE
54
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
55/58
FINDINGS
Currently SBIs Tier 1 capital position has remained lower than of 8%
SBIs Tier 1 Capital stood comfortable level of 9.57% until Q4 FY10. However in
March 11,
SBIs pension Liability amounting Rs.7900 Crs. Was taken through its capital
account, thus
resulting in the bank Tier 1 capital declining below 8% to 7.77% and further by 17
bps to 7.6% in
June 11.
The non-performing assets of SBI is the highest among public sector banks with
few exceptions.
The economic slowdown lack of coal for power projects, poor investments in
infrastructure by
Government can also affect the asset quality.
CRAMEL Model
Capital Adequacy
It is obvious that a Bank/Finance companies should keep more capital in reserves
for riskier assets.
55
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
56/58
The reported capital adequacy is in compliance with RBI requirements. Banks
minimum 9%(tier 1 capital %) and NBFC deposit taking 12% to 15% from March
12
Basel norms suggest CAR of 8%. RBI as proposed CAR of 9%by 2012. CAR is
one of the main criteria taken for rating.
Banking industry keeps 15-20%capital normally. Tier 1 capital is equity &
reserves. Tier 2is Bonds of five years and above. The rest is mobilized as resource.
Cash with RBI as Zero risk. Personal loans without security as175% risk. In case of
govt. banks management is not a concern.
Resource Raising Ability
The raising a resource funds is like a raw material to the Banks/ Finance company.
Reverse Repo, Call money, CDS,CASA, Bonds ,Other Borrowings
Management
The quality of a companys management, its business strategies and ability and
track record in
responding to changes in market conditions form a central input in the credit
assessment.
In the evaluation , the parentage of the organization is also important.
Shareholding Pattern & Structure
Market Share , Risk Management Systems ,Experience of Key Employees
As SBI is owned by the Government , the management co-related to the
Government. SBI has
59% shareholding by the Government and has long history. The market share of
SBI is 17% as a
whole and among Public Sector Banks it is 27%. SBI is a representative of allIndian Banks and
the Government.
Earnings
56
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
57/58
Distribution of Income basket. It is important for both shareholders and Bond
holders.
Key Ratios
Return on Net worth
Return on Average Assets
Interest Spread
PAT to total income
57
-
8/2/2019 Executive Summary-new 1
58/58