Developing Credit Rating Model for Real Estate Sector

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA

Under the able guidance of

Ms. Salila George General Manager

and Mr. Santosh Bhattacharjee Assistant General Manager

Credit Risk Management Group

Date: June 10, 2006

Submitted by

Nitin N. Kavadia PGDBM (2005-07)

T.A. Pai Management Institute, Manipal

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely acknowledge the immense help provided by my guides General Manager Ms.

Salila George and Asst. General Manager Mr. Santosh Bhattacharjee. They were

instrumental in clearing my doubts and sharing their insight on the subject. I also

acknowledge the suggestions and help provided by Management Trainees-CRMG Mr.

Gaurav Rateria and Mr. Akshay Chitgopekar. I would like to thank Asst. General

Manager Mrs. Preeti Yardi- Project Appraisal Department and Dypt. General Manager

Mrs. RV Paranjpe- Mumbai BO in identifying and collecting data from various database

sources.

I also appreciate the support of the Library staff in providing me with all the library

facilities and the officers of the training section, H.R.D for their continuous support.

I would also like to thank Mr. Jain, General Manager Finance – Raheja Constructions

Company and Mr. Kanhu Charan Khatai, Civil Engineer for sparing their precious time

to discuss on the practical aspects of Real Estate industry in India.

Nitin N. Kavadia

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project aims to develop a credit rating model for the Real Estate sector. The

scope of the project is to develop a framework, which provides internal credit rating to

the 'Project Loan Proposals' from the Real Estate industry. The model is developed using

the GMGS-Project model as the base. Thus the major categories of the risks remain the

same. The model is designed on a modular structure, which helps in categorizing similar

nature of risk in a single module

The risks inherent to a Real Estate Project are identified by studying the characteristics of

the Real Estate Industry through the following sources:

1. Cris-Infac Reports on Construction Industry

2. 5- Memorandums of the projects rated by the division

3. Interview of Real Estate industry professionals

4. Interview of employees at IDBI who have worked on the Real Estate projects

5. Draft Report of DSK builder submitted to SEBI for IPO listing.

The study reveals two major risks in any Real Estate project: Land title risk and

Execution risk. Both the risks are further sub-divided and included under the major risk

heads of the model. The risk exposures are accounted through qualitative and quantitative

parameters. Both the type of parameters are used for comprehensive evaluation of the

project.

The scales for the parameters are identified on the basis of their relative importance to

the Real Estate project. Scoring for the quantitative parameters is absolute whereas

scoring for qualitative parameters is judgmental and is the sole prerogative of the Credit

Officer evaluating the specific project. The scores for the individual modules are

calculated by summing up the scores of the individual parameters. The final score is the

calculated by the sum of the weighted score of each module. The weights to the modules

are assigned on the basis of the GMGS model, with slight modification to account for the

unique nature of the Real Estate Industry.

Finally a thirteen-grade system is followed and the grading pattern for the overall

score is determined.

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL ESTATE PROJECT CREDIT RATING MODEL......................................................................................5

1.1 About the rating model .................................................................................... 5

1.2 Applicability of the rating model ..................................................................... 5

2. BROAD FRAMEWORK OF THE RATING MODEL.....................6

3. OPERATING METHOD FOR THE RATING MODEL..................8

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Activation and deactivation of modules / sub-modules / parameters................. 8 3.3 Weightage and Maximum Score .................................................................... 10

3.4 Filters ........................................................................................................... 12

4. PARAMETER DESCRIPTION AND SCORING...........................16

4.1 Industry......................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Developer / Promoter.................................................................................... 32 4.3 Management quality ...................................................................................... 38

4.4 Significant Project Party ............................................................................... 43 4.4.1 Civil Contractor................................................................................... 43 4.4.2 Architect/Structural Engineers/Consultants ...................................... 48

4.5 Project Risks ................................................................................................. 50 4.5.1 General................................................................................................. 51 4.5.2 Complexities......................................................................................... 56 4.5.3 Construction ........................................................................................ 59 4.5.4 Principal anchor/anchors .................................................................... 62 4.5.5 Operation ............................................................................................. 63

4.6 Financial Analysis......................................................................................... 65 4.6.1 Future projections ............................................................................... 66 4.6.2 Actuals versus projections................................................................... 69 4.6.3 Past financial performance.................................................................. 71 4.6.4 Definition of ratios for all sub-modules .............................................. 73

5. THE GRADING SYSTEM USED BY THE CREDIT RATING MODEL.....................................................................................................84

6. ANNEXURES ....................................................................................87

5

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REAL ESTATE PROJECT CREDIT

RATING MODEL

1.1 About the rating model A credit rating model has been developed for project loans for the Real Estate sector.

This rating model covers the risks affecting Real Estate projects, such as land acquisition

risk and the execution risks. Execution risk in real estate development mainly includes

construction risk, regulatory risk, permission/building standards and environmental risk.

These risks have been categorized under the following heads in the model: industry risks,

developer risks, management quality risks, construction risks, operations risks and

financial risks during the developmental, construction, operations phases.

1.2 Applicability of the rating model The rating model is designed for rating Real Estate project loans and will essentially

cover loans extended to following nature of projects:

• Housing projects

• Township projects; and

• Development projects including commercial premises, hotels, resorts, hospitals,

educational institutions and recreational facilities.

Real Estate projects can be categorized on the basis of revenue generating structure.

• Advance payment structure: The projects generate revenue through the advances

paid by the customer during the construction phase. Mainly housing and township

projects are based on advance payment structure.

• Lease rental payment structure: The projects generate revenue through the lease

rental paid by the company after the completion of the project. Mainly

commercial projects are marked mainly by lease rental payment structure.

The rating model caters to both the types of structures.

6

2. BROAD FRAMEWORK OF THE RATING MODEL The risks perceived in financing Real Estate projects have been categorised into various

modules and sub-modules. The credit rating for a borrower will be done by scoring each

parameter in these modules / sub-modules, based on the scales mentioned.

A diagrammatic representation of the credit rating model is given below.

A brief description of the modules / sub-modules in the rating model is mentioned below:

Industry: Captures the risks arising from the industry to which the borrower belongs;

Developer/Promoter: Captures the risks arising from the promoters of the project;

Industry Significant Project Party

Financial Analysis

Developer Management Quality

Project Risk

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Past financial

– 6c

Actuals versus

projections – 6b

Future Projections – 6a

Operation –5e

Construction –

5d

Principal Anchor –

5c

Complexity –

5b

General Risk -

5a

EPC Contractor 4a

Architect/Structural consultant

4b

7

Management Quality: Captures the risks arising due to the management quality of the

project company responsible for executing the project;

Significant Project Party: Captures the risks arising out of the significant party, which

provides financial or technical support to the project. The significant party and the risks

arising from it are as follows:

Contractor: Captures the risks arising from the choice of the EPC contractor(s),

the strengths of the EPC contractor(s) and the quality of the EPC contract; and

Architect/Structural engineer/Consultant: Captures the risks arising from the

strengths of the party.

Project Risks: Captures the risks which are specific to the project being undertaken:

General: Captures the risks which are present in a project right from the

developmental phase (conception of the idea), till the construction and the

operation and maintenance phase;

Complexities: Captures the risks arising due to the complexities in-built in the

construction of the project;

Principal Anchor: Captures the risks arising due to the past performance of the

lessee.

Construction: Captures the construction / completion risks involved in project;

and

Operations & Maintenance: Captures the risks faced by the project once it

commences commercial operations.

Financial Analysis: Assesses the profitability, capitalisation / solvency, liquidity and

cash flow adequacy that affect the financial health of the borrower. This module has

been further divided into 3 sub-modules:

Future projections: Involves estimation of the level of future cash flows of the

borrower, and capturing the risks arising from the level of future cash flows;

Actuals versus projections: Involves the comparison of the financial

performance of the borrower for the latest financial year as compared to the

projections prepared for that year; and

Past financial performance: Involves an in-depth analysis of the past financial

performance of the borrower.

8

3. OPERATING METHOD FOR THE RATING MODEL

3.1 Introduction The credit rating model operates in a logical sequence of events. This sequence has to be

followed each time the rating model is used for appraising a loan facility. The sequence,

which is followed, is broadly outlined below:

• Clearing filters in the credit rating model;

• Undertaking the appraisal by completing all the modules in the credit rating

model. Modules, sub-modules and parameters in the model will be activated / de-

activated as per the relevant phase of the appraisal.

Though the broad sequence of operation remains the same, some elements would change

depending upon the relevant appraisal phase.

3.2 Activation and deactivation of modules / sub-modules / parameters

The activation and deactivation of modules / sub-modules / parameters depends on the

stage of appraisal of the project. There are three stages of appraisal, namely, initial

appraisal, construction phase, and operations phase. The credit officer should choose the

respective stage of appraisal to evaluate the credit rating of the borrower.

Table 1: Purely Housing project

Phase

Module/sub module Initial Construction Operation

Industry √ √ x

Developer/Promoter √ √ X

Management

Quality √ √ X

Significant Project

Party √ √ X

Civil Contractor √ √ X

Architect/consultant √ √ X

9

Project √ √ x

General √ √ X

Complexities √ √ X

Construction X √ X

Principal Anchor X X X

Operation X X X

Financial Analysis √ √ X

Past Performance X X X

Actual vs Projected X X X

Future projection √ √ X

Table 2: Purely Commercial Project given on lease or Combination of housing &

commercial entities i.e. township project

Phase

Module/sub module Initial Construction Operation

Industry √ √ √

Developer/Promoter √ √ X

Management

Quality √ √ X

Significant Project

Party √ √ X

Civil Contractor √ √ X

Architect/consultant √ √ X

Project √ √ √

General √ √ √

Complexities √ √ X

Construction X √ X

Principal Anchor X √ √

10

Operation X X √

Financial Analysis √ √ √

Past Performance X X √

Actual vs Projected X X √

Future projection √ √ √

In the ‘Management Quality’ module, the following parameters will be deactivated

because the project in the initial appraisal phase there is no actual information to assess

the management of the project company on these parameters.

• Corporate governance;

• Diversion of funds;

• Transactions with group companies;

• Conduct of borrower’s account;

• Labour and employee relations;

• Honouring of commitments;

• Quality of financial statements;

In the ‘Construction’ sub-module of the ‘Project risks’ module, the parameter ‘ Have cost

overruns in the past been successfully funded’ will get activated only if there is a cost

overrun. The construction phase, because the testing or the start-up of the plant can be

commenced only when the construction of the plant is fully complete.

3.3 Weightage and Maximum Score

Table 3: Purely Housing project

Phase Initial Construction Operation

Module/sub module Score % Score % Score %

Industry 52 15 52 15 52 X

Developer/Promoter 64 15 64 12.5 64 X

11

Management

Quality 22 5 64 5 22 x

Significant Project

Party

Civil Contractor 64 15 64 12.5 64 X

Architect/consultant 20 5 20 2.5 20 X

Project

General 58 20 58 18 58 X

Complexities 34 10 34 9 34 X

Construction 52 x 52 10.5 52 X

Principal Anchor 20 x 20 x 20 X

Operation 22 x 22 x 22 X

Financial Analysis

Past Performance 92 x 92 x 92 X

Actual vs Projected 60 x 60 x 60 X

Future projection 40 15 40 15 40 X

Table 2: Purely Commercial Project given on lease or Combination of housing & commercial entities i.e. township project

Phase Initial Construction Operation

Module/sub module Score % Score % Score %

Industry 50 15 50 15 50 15

Developer/Promoter 64 15 64 10 64 X

Management

Quality 22 5 64 5 22 X

Significant Project

Party

Civil Contractor 62 15 62 10 62 X

Architect/consultant 20 5 20 2.5 20 X

Project

12

General 58 20 58 20 58 20

Complexities 34 10 34 10 34 X

Construction 52 x 52 10 52 X

Principal Anchor 22 x 22 2.5 22 15

Operation 22 x 22 x 22 30

Financial Analysis

Past Performance 10

Actual vs Projected 5

Future projection 40 15 40 15 40 5

There may be cases when the developer himself is contractor then the weightage of the

developer/promoter module should be the addition of the wiehtages assigned to promoter

and contractor modules.

3.4 Filters

Purpose of filters

Filters are used as a means to check if the borrower has satisfied certain minimum

requirements to avail of a loan. If the borrower has satisfied all the filters, then the credit

officer can proceed with the proposal.

Importance of filters during re-appraisal

If the borrower does not satisfy any one of the filters, during re-appraisal, then it may be

difficult to recall the loan as it may have already been sanctioned and disbursed. In such

an instance, the borrower will be penalised in order to bring out the element of risk

associated with the particular filter, which has not been satisfied. This will result in a

downward revision in the existing credit rating of the borrower.

Description of filters

The section below describes the filters, which are used in the credit rating model during

various phases of appraisal.

13

1. Is the level of promoters' equity contribution above IDBI’s benchmark (25 per

cent)?

The promoters' contribution reflects the commitment of the promoters to the project.

During the initial appraisal, if the total equity contribution of the promoters is less than 25

per cent of the total project cost, then the proposal will be rejected.

2. Has the promoter / EPC contractor defaulted to any bank / IDBI / financial

institution?

The promoter and the civil contractor are entities, who have significant influence over the

project, during the construction phase. It is necessary to ensure that each of the above

entities has not defaulted on its obligations to any bank / financial institution / IDBI.

3. Do the promoter / EPC contractor have a past criminal record?

The promoter / EPC contractor should not have any history of criminal activities. This is

because a history of criminal activities reflects negatively on the integrity, ethical stance

and values system of these entities.

4. Is the promoter / EPC contractor on the RBI defaulters list / IDBI caution list?

The RBI circulates a list of willful defaulters’ once every six months to all banks and

financial institutions. Similarly, the Corporate Support Department of IDBI periodically

generates an internal caution list, which consists of borrowers who might be close to

default. The presence of any of the above-mentioned entities in either of these lists could

be detrimental to the project.

5. Is the net worth of the promoter or promoter group (where the promoters are

not companies) adequate?

It is essential to assess the total tangible net worth of each individual promoter or a group

of promoters, as they provide financial support to the project in the form of equity

contribution and funding for cost overruns. For this filter, the net worth of the promoter

group should be considered only if the promoters are a collection of individuals / Hindu

Undivided Families (‘HUF’) / partnerships. If the promoter is a company, then only the

net worth of the promoter should be considered and not that of the group to which the

14

company belongs. The total tangible net worth of each individual promoter or the group

of promoters should be at least thrice the equity contribution required.

6. Is there any litigation / stay order against the construction or operation of the

project?

The presence of any existing litigations / stay orders against the construction or the

operation of the project could hamper the timely completion / smooth operation of the

project. Therefore any project, which is under litigation, should be rejected during the

initial appraisal.

7. Would this exposure exceed IDBI’s prudential lending limits?

As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), all forms of exposures by

lenders including equity exposures to a single company should not exceed 15 per cent of

the net worth of the lender. Similarly, the total exposure to a particular group of

borrowers’ for non-infrastructure project loans should be within 40 percent of IDBI’s net

worth. For infrastructure related assistance, an additional 10 percent exposure is

permitted. Besides the above, IDBI has taken the initiative to limit exposure to a

particular industry to a maximum of 20 per cent of its total portfolio as on a particular

date.

8. Is the title of the land clear and free from encumbrances?

The major risk in any Real Estate project is the availability of land with clear title and

free from any encumbrances like tax or duty payment etc. IDBI's legal department vets

the title of the land. Thus before sanctioning the loan the land for the project should be

completely free from any legal hassles. If the title is not clear the project should be

rejected in the initial appraisal.

9. If the developer has identified the land, then a memorandum of understanding

(‘MoU’) or Power of Attorney for development of land signed between the landowner

and the project company

15

10. Have any of the promoters approached IDBI / other institutions for a one-time

settlement (‘OTS’) in the past?

If a promoter has approached any lender for an OTS in the past, it is an outcome of

default on a loan facility to a lender. If any of the promoters of the project have a history

of OTS in the past, then the loan proposal should be rejected during the appraisal in the

initial appraisal.

11. Has the borrower complied with all IDBI norms?

IDBI has certain eligibility norms or criteria for loan assistance, which needs to be

satisfied prior to accepting a loan application. These criteria are specific for different

loan products. The credit officer should ensure that these criteria have been complied

with before initiating an appraisal of the borrower. If any of the criteria have not been

satisfied, then the proposal should be rejected during the initial appraisal.

16

4. PARAMETER DESCRIPTION AND SCORING

4.1 Industry Industry analysis forms the core of macro economic analysis in a rating system. It is one

of the key determinants of the level and the volatility of the present and the future

earnings for any business, and consequently the level of cash generated to service debt

obligations. This will also help to assess the management quality of borrowers in terms of

their strategies, plans and proposed actions for the future in light of future economic and

industry trends, which ultimately determine the borrower’s earnings potential.

The Indian real estate market had been growing at an annual rate of 30% with steady

growth in Commercial, residential properties, hospitals, hotels, industrial buildings etc. In

the commercial space, the business opportunity is led by the unprecedented outsourcing

activity happening from India. The who's who of the IT world - Microsoft, Oracle, Dell,

Intel, GE,

Cognizant, etc. have set-up their offshore centres in India. Studies reveal that the

residential industry will also get a major boost as it gears up to house the new prosperous

workforce of the IT and BPO industries. The retail industry is also expected to get

increasingly organized, which would further increase the demand for real estate.

Commercial Real Estate

India is a pre-eminent destination for off shoring of IT and BPO services. The Indian IT

and BPO industry generated exports of USD 12.5 bn. (RS. 550 bn.) during the year 2003-

04. Going forward, India is expected to maintain its lead over other countries such as

China, Ireland and Philippines. As per Nasscom-McKinsey Report, I T & BPO services

revenues are expected to reach a level of USD 77 bn. (Rs. 3388 bn.) by year 2008.

According to their estimates ITES industry in India will provide additional jobs for over

1.1 million people by 2008, which translates into space requirement of approx. 100

million sq. ft. The Indian IT and IT-enabled services industry is on track to meet the

aspirations that were set. In fact, the industry has grown at a CAGR of 46% in the last 4

years, exceeding the 38% target set in the report. The Indian ITES industry, for example,

has grown at over 100% CAGR over the last 5 years and currently employs over 100,000

people.

17

Opportunities in the BPO industry are expected to open up in several industry verticals

such as financial services, healthcare, utilities, airlines, retailing, pharmaceuticals,

automotive and telecom industries. The expected growth of about 40% in the IT and BPO

industry will create a substantial demand for world-class infrastructure. An independent

study by Cushman and Wakefield in 2002, estimated that approximately 40 mn sq. ft. of

space would be required across the six key cities of Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore,

Hyderabad, Chennai and Gurgaon until 2007. In 2003, the IT industry accounted for 8.5

mn sq. ft., or more than 80% of office space absorption in 2003 as against 43% in 2000.

Residential Real Estate

The residential property market constitutes almost 75% of the real estate market in India

in terms of value. As per the Tenth Five Year Plan there is a shortage of 22.4 million

dwelling units out of which more than 70% dwelling units are for middle and low income

brackets. Additional requirement of housing per year during the plan period 2002-2007

has been estimated at 4.5 million units per year. The Indian Government's habitat policy

envisages that by the year 2012 the housing shortage should be removed and everybody

should have a house of his own. To meet this target the estimated investment involved is

approx. Rs. 400,000 crores upto 2012.

The residential property market is growing all over the country. Increase in disposable

incomes, a pro-housing tax regime, and low interest rates have served to generate more

demand for mid and high-value apartments. According to a CRISIL Research, India's

Home financing market is expected to grow by almost 30% this year resulting in more of

the lower middle class population being able to buy houses. Due to the high demand of

land across the country, residential prices are moving up, seeing peripheral metro

locations on the rise because of the scarcity of land in central locations. So, development

of planned satellite towns and suburbs is on the rise too. Besides, growth in IT and BPO

industry in India would require investment of USD 25bn (Rs. 1,100 bn.) over the next

five-year period (PWC estimates).

A significant aspect of the Indian residential real estate segment is that, compared to

other countries India has a fairly low mortgage penetration (2% in India compared to

18

51% in USA), which is an indicator of huge potential for growth. There is also shortage

for housing in India, which will lead to tremendous potential in that segment too.

Retail Real Estate

This growth of the retail industry is credited to the increasing urban population, and the

increase in the middle class population. The social factors like the dual household income

culture has enhanced the spending power and these spends have moved into more

lifestyle products and esteem enhancing services. The media and the advertising world

have played a pivotal role in increasing consumption and altering the mix of

consumption. The lifestyle shift has resulted in development of the international formats

in retailing suited to Indian conditions. The most prominent has been the emergence of

malls, which not only fulfil the shopping requirement of the customers but also provide

them with a shopping experience. A growth in consumption levels, changing lifestyles,

the availability of quality real estate and significant investments in malls are expected to

result in an increase in the size of the organized retail business in India. The organized

retail market in India is expected to increase its share of the total retail market from 2%

as of 2004 to reach 5-6% by 2007. (Source: BW Marketing Whitebook, 2005)

The number of malls in India is expected to increase from approximately 50 as of the end

of 2004 to around 250 by the end of 2006. (Source: BW Marketing Whitebook, 2005,

attributed to KSA Technopark)

Main characteristics of the Indian real estate industry

The Indian real estate market is still in its infancy, largely unorganised and dominated by

a large number of small players, with very few corporates or large players having

national presence. The Indian real estate market, as compared to the other more

developed Asian and Western markets is characterized by smaller size and higher prices.

1. Highly fragmented market dominated by regional players

Rapid growth in the last decade has seen the emergence of larger players that have

differentiated themselves through superior execution and branding. The larger players are

able to capitalize on their early mover advantage. However, these players continue to

19

operate in local/regional markets. While these players are now initiating efforts to

develop a broader presence, their 'home' markets continue to support the majority of their

profitability.

2. Local know-how critical success factor in the development phase

One of the key reasons for emergence of local leaders is the criticality of local know how

and relationships in ensuring successful and timely development. Each development is

dependent on a number of local clearances (e.g. municipal corporation, water, electricity)

that requires strong experience and relationships.

3. High transaction costs and significant cash transactions

The industry has been burdened with high transaction cost in the form of stamp duty that

varies across the country (state wise).

These transaction costs have resulted in poor liquidity in this market. These transaction

costs have led to significant cash transactions to reduce the stamp duty burden.

4. Residential development largely financed through mortgage loans

Most developers use mortgage for their residential projects. Apart for mortgages, the

other key sources of funding are through high net worth individuals and large property

brokers.

Foreign direct investment in real estate

In March 2005, Government has permitted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) under

automatic route in real estate industry. This will help to organise the real estate industry,

bridge demand and supply gap, create more professionalism, bring superior technology,

induce healthy competition and ensure availability of funds. This will help growth of

country's GDP. A large number of companies are looking at the opportunity to invest in

India. Some of the foreign players who have already tied up with Indian developers are

Lee Kim Tah Holdings, CESMA International Pvt. Ltd., Evan Kim, Keppel Land from

Singapore,

Salim group from Indonesia, Edaw Ltd. from USA, Emaar from Dubai, IJM, Ho Hup

Construction Co. from Malaysia, etc.

A number of real estate venture capital funds are looking at opportunities in India. Some

private funds have applied to SEBI for approval and few of them have already received

20

the approval and started investing in real estate. This will ensue more availability of

funds to the developers and faster growth of real estate industrys. Some examples are

HDFC Real Estate Fund, ICICI - Tishman Speyer, Ascends India IT Park Fund, Kotak

Mahindra Realty Fund, Kshitij Venture Fund, IDFC, Edelweiss Capital, etc.

Outlook of housing segment

In today's scenario the real estate industry is seeing a giant leap in terms of both new real

estate development and the need for quality housing. In view of the large-scale

development across the all-major cities of the country, the real estate industry is in a

prime position among various segments of the economy. The metros and mini metros are

fast making a transition from old cities into new age business destinations and this has

been brought about by factors such as population growth, growth of industries and the

overall increasing economic growth that the country has seen.

Housing and construction activity assumed predominance, particularly since 1980. Many

townships have come up in the last decade. There is always unfulfilled demand for

housing as it is one of the basic needs of ever increasing population of our country. High

rate of population has also resulted in the growth of high-rise buildings as the cost of land

is ever increasing.

One of the major price drivers is the rising income of professionals and businessmen. The

high-income group is now graduating to luxury and super-luxury apartments of Rs. 1

crore plus. 'Live it up today' is no longer restricted to the IT class more professionals look

forward to a lifestyle of luxury that includes a swimming pool for each apartment, energy

saving devices, high-end security systems, centralised and fully air-conditioned spaces, et

al. The high prices have had a domino effect with relatively lower end properties also

being priced more than there worth. Since the professional class is also growing and

willing to pay for facilities, prices in Pune are expected to rise continuously.

Another driver of prices is the switchover of the middle-class from the leasing option to

the purchase option. More and more buyers are coming forward with open minds and

purchasing what ever suits them or fits them best. Once they find a property of their

choice, they are willing to pay a premium on it if required. Mumbai is more prone to this

because of huge commuting distances in the North-South corridor.

21

The demand momentum is likely to be maintained due to the increasing middle class

families, large student community influx and the growing IT & BPO industry. Prices

across the metros & mini metros are likely to continue to maintain a steady increase due

to the large-scale imbalance in the demand: supply ratio.

4.1.1 Regulatory framework and government policies (Scale: 0-16)

This parameter assesses the impact of Government regulations/legislations/directives,

which may impact the real estate industry. These can be in form of tax and duties related

issues, concessions, subsidies and other regulations. The changes in regulations, the

impact of these changes on the industry and the degree of control on the real estate

industry are captured in this parameter. The following sub-parameters are considered

while scoring:

1) Relaxation of norms for FDI – "The Government is allowing FDI up to 100% under

the automatic route in townships, housing, built-up-infrastructure and construction

development project (which would include, but not to be restricted to housing,

commercial premises, hotels, resorts, hospitals, educational institutions and recreational

facilities), subject to following guidelines:

Min. area to be developed:

• In case of developing serviced housing plots – min. land area 100 hectares

• In case of construction development project – min. built-up area 50,000 sq m.

• In case of combination of project any of the two conditions will suffice.

• Min capitalization of US $10 million for wholly owned subsidiaries and US $ 5

million for JV with an Indian company. The funds will have to be brought in within 6

months of the commencement of the business.

• Original investment cannot be repatriated before a period of 3 years before the

completion of min. capitalization. However, the investor may be permitted to exit with

the approval of the government through Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB).

• At least 50% of the project must be developed within a period of 5 years, from the

date of obtaining all the statutory clearances."1

22

FDI in Real Estate industry can result in the following advantages

• Influx of capital in the industry, which is expected to attract investments at a CAGR

of 5%1 over the next 3 years.

• Introduction of new technology and subsequent improvement in quality of real

estate assets.

According to industry sources the cap on the "min land to be developed" might prove to

be a deterrent in observing the complete impact of the FDI policy because of the scarcity

in the supply of land. Thus, further relaxation on the above guidelines would be

favourable for real estate industry.

2) Impact of direct/ indirect tax laws:

1. Indirect Tax Laws: Service tax levied was increased in the previous budget.

This would result in increasing construction cost. The multiplicity of tax still persists

in Real Estate industry in the form of property tax, entertainment tax etc. this also

adds to the unfavourability of indirect tax laws to real estate industry.

2. Direct Tax Laws: Fiscal incentives are given in the form of tax breaks for

developers, tax incentives and rebates to middle and higher income households, home

building for low income households and funding supports to government bodies. The

impact of tax laws can be summarized by a factor called Boost to spend on housing

(BSH).

1 'Annual Review Construction', Feb- 2006, Cris Infac, Page B-8

23

The graph clearly shows the improvement in BSH after the changes in the general

taxation structure in which the tax-exempt limit was raised from Rs. 50,000 in 2004-05 to

Rs. 1,00,000 in 2005-06.

3) Emphasis on growth of industry in the Union/ State/ Municipality Budget:

Amendments done to the ULCRA, CRZ, Building and Construction workers’ cess act,

Transfer of property act (registration and stamp duty) and property tax. Recognising real

estate construction as industry will help in organizing the industry and availability of

institutional finance.

4) Any other regulation/incentives: Monetary policies initiated by RBI have an impact

on the real estate industry. RBI has increased the risk exposure weightage for real estate

industry from 125 to 150 points. This indicates the sensitivity of the industry to risk.

Higher the risk weightage more risky the industry.

5) Monetary policy: The benign interest rates over the past 4 years have increased the

demand for housing. Thus any change in the interest rate would definitely affect the

demand. The interest rate is firming up off late, but they are no too radical to affect the

demand in negative direction.

6) Entry policies: Change in the number of permits/clearances required for the kick-off

and operation of the project. There are no formal entry policies laid down in the industry

due to its non-industry status.

7) Level of privatization: The proportion of private players in the industry is very high

as compared to the government players like HUDA, MAHDA etc. Increase or decrease in

number of private players wouldn't unfavourable for the industry. Thus this parameter is

neutral to the industry evaluation.

24

4.1.2 Cascading effect of output from industries (Scale: 0-4)

This parameter is introduced to capture the dependence of other industries on Real Estate

industry. Following facts about Real Estate enunciates the importance of the industry in

the Indian economy.

• Real Estate accounts for 5.1% of the GDP at constant prices and 6.2% at current

prices.

• It affects many industries such as cement, steel, plumbing, electricity, ceramic ware,

paints etc and consumer durable industry such as woodwork, fitting etc. According to

Cris Infac it has linkages to over 251 industries making its coefficient of linkages to the

rest of the economy very high.

• Housing construction is labour intensive and because of its linkages it generates lots

of employment. Due to its large employment generation potential it ranks fifth in terms

of employment generation multiplier. The labourers have high Marginal propensity to

consume thus the income multiplier effect of housing industry to the economy is around

five.

This parameter must be assessed based on the following sub-parameters:

1) Dependence of other industries on Real Estate industry

2) Industrial category of the industry: This sub parameter assesses whether the industry

belongs to the core sector. Real estate industry forms the core sector of the economy

because of the reasons mentioned above.

3) Income multiplier effect on the economy

4) Employment generating potential

25

4.1.3 Cyclicality of the industry (Scale: 0-4)

PBDIT (NNRT) as % of sales

0

5

10

15

20

25

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

(Source: Prowess)

The graph depicts a cyclical trend in the Real Estate industry, which ranges from 4 to 5

years. Real estate industry inherently is not cyclical because the demand for housing

arises from the basic human necessities i.e. food, clothing and shelter. However, due to

the nature of product, real estate is considered as an investment good, which brings in the

element of speculation. Speculation, as a part of demand, is the main reason for the rise

and fall of real estate prices and thus the cyclical nature of the industry. According to

current estimates there is about 25% speculation in the total demand for real estate.

According to industry sources the rise in speculation above this levels will be a cause of

concern as there might be chances of formation of Real Bubble.

The performance of the economy also has a direct impact on the industry as its

importance is already established with the economy in the previous parameter.

Cyclicality affects the earnings stability of the borrower. Cyclicality would be

particularly harmful to medium-size and smaller players as they would not possess the

adequate level of financial strength to bear a recessionary phase.

26

Rating of this parameter has been done based on the volatility of the industry PBDIT

margins over period of 15 years. The level of cyclicality should be assessed by:

If the cyclicality trend occurs every 3 years, the industry is perceived to be highly

cyclical. Similarly, if the cyclicality trend is witnessed every 4-6 years, the industry

should be perceived to be moderately cyclical. Industry with low cyclicality is which

where a cyclicality trend is witnessed every 7 years or more.

4.1.4 Industry financials (Scale: 0-4)

The industry financial figures should be benchmarked against IDBI’s norms for those financial parameters in order to assess the relative performance of the industry as against IDBI’s standards. Methodology for calculation of industry averages:

Industry aggregate financial statements i.e. profit and loss account and balance sheet should be obtained from Prowess and converted into a standardized format for financial analysis. This format is given in Appendix A.

Subsequently ratios should be calculated for the parameters mentioned in the paragraph below in the same method as those calculated for individual borrowers, for ease of comparison. The methodology for computing these ratios has been defined in the ‘Financial Analysis’ module. The following industry averages are to be computed and benchmarked against IDBI standards, after undertaking the trend analysis exercise as described in the ‘Financial Analysis’ module.

• Profitability:

Earnings before Interest, Tax and Depreciation (‘EBIDTA’) Margin;

Net Profit Margin (‘NPM’); and

Return on Capital Employed (‘RoCE’).

• Capitalisation / Solvency:

Total Debt / Equity (‘TDE’).

• Liquidity:

Current Ratio (‘CR’). The financial analysis for the sector is performed using the Prowess data for the past 5

years. The following inferences can be drawn from the ratios:

27

1. The average receivable, payable and inventory days are very high more than one year,

which is, justified because of the long gestation period of the real estate projects which

normally last for more than two years.

2. The CF-ICR trend gives an insight on the functioning of the industry. Normally at the

start of a project the cash flows are negative as the advance received for the project or for

sub-contract are 25 to 20% of the total revenue. As the project nears the completion the

receivables and thus the current assets increase exponentially, due to the realisation of the

rest 75 to 80% of the revenue in the next financial year. Thus the cash flow becomes

positive and the CF-ICR ratios become more than 1.

3. For correct financial analysis of any company functioning in Real Estate sector its

advisable to take the average of past 4 to 5 years, as this is the average time period for the

completion of any real estate project. This can also be seen from the CF-ICR values of

the industry, which takes a time period of 5 years to become more than 1.

Ratios 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Growth in Total Income 6.42% 32.14% 9.31% 27.12% -9.93% Growth in EBIDTA -16.70% 72.53% 83.60% 6.49% -10.56% Growth in NOCF 377.08% -- 83.24% -53.46% 651.65% GPM 13.11% 16.75% 12.83% 7.64% 9.12% NPM 6.63% 3.43% 1.19% -1.12% -1.17% RoCE 7.88% 5.76% 4.82% 4.31% 4.41% CF-ICR 5.44 0.89 0.75 0.38 0.85 CF-DSCR 5.44 0.89 0.75 0.38 0.85 TDE (treating Def. Tax as liability) 5.51 7.10 6.98 7.63 6.53 TDE (not treating Def. Tax as liability) 5.47 7.05 6.92 7.58 6.53 CLTNW 0.86 0.58 0.68 0.99 0.80 Current Ratio 1.43 1.53 1.54 1.52 1.51 Current Assets to Total Income 2.29 2.82 3.29 3.38 4.19 Average Receivable Days 557.71 611.66 805.50 827.69 1205.16 Average Payable Days 187.78 186.84 219.63 210.26 265.78 Average Inventory Days 480.86 516.55 577.95 547.80 655.84

28

4.1.5 Industry Structure (Scale 0-6)

An organised and competitive industry structure always helps in the healthy growth of

the industry. This parameter is assessed using the following sub-parameters:

• Extent of competition: This is evaluated on the basis of entry barriers, bargaining

power of suppliers of raw material and customers, pricing flexibility, reputation equity.

Ineffective entry barriers results into many small players crowding the sector. Real Estate

industry is labour intensive. The industry is also region/city specific i.e. each region has

its own set of builders and there are few national players on the marquee. Both these

factors have resulted into crowding of the industry with many developers and contractors.

• Unorganised market structure: The industry is highly fragmented. According to

Cris Infac report the presence of unorganized players in housing sector is almost 70 to

80%. However, more and more organized players are entering into the market due to the

growth potential in the market and easy availability of institutional finance for real estate

projects in the past few years. One indication on this front is the fact that percentage of

formal houses i.e. readymade houses has increased from 35% in 2002-03 to 69% in 2005-

06. (Source: Cris Infac)

Both these factors point to the fact that Real Estate industry is unorganized with

overcrowding of players. However, consolidation is taking place in the industry with the

opening up of FDI. Players like DLF are trying to operate on a pan India basis.

4.1.6 Demand-supply gap (Scale: 0-12)

The demand-supply dynamics in an industry determines to a very large extent the

direction of growth of the industry. This assumes a high level of importance because the

demand and supply dynamics would capture issues like pricing, marketing strategy,

future demand and supply growth based on determinants, and the overall strategy of

players in the industry.

The demand –supply dynamics for Real Estate varies from region to region. For industry

module macro-economic parameters are used to explain the demand-supply interaction.

The project specific demand-supply dynamics would be evaluated in the Project module

where micro-economic factors would be taken into account.

29

There are some unique features of real estate, which has resulted into unconventional

factors influencing the normal demand supply dynamics for e.g. speculation. The features

being:

Ø Durability: The piece of real estate lasts for more than 10 to 15 years.

Ø Immobility

Ø High Transaction cost

Ø Heterogeneity: Each piece of real estate is different from the other in terms of

location, construction etc. thus pricing cannot be homogeneous.

Ø Long delay between the demand and the supply.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_economics#Demand_for_housing)

Demand factors for the housing sector:

• Rising Income

• Demographics: population, urbanization and nuclerisation of families etc.

• Tax incentives

• Lowering interest rates and increasing tenure of the loan

• Rising penetration for housing finance

• Speculation

Demand factors for the commercial sector:

• Number of industries/sectors driving the demand

• Growth in each sector over the past 3 years

• Forecasted growth in each sector.

48% CAGR growth rate for the IT/ITES sector which is driving 75% demand for the

office space.

Demand factors for the retail sector:

• Number of industries/sectors driving the demand

• Growth in each sector over the past 3 years

• Forecasted growth in each sector.

30

Organised retail is increasing at CAGR of 43%. The change in perception of brands,

rising disposable income, growth in retail malls, entry of international players are the

key drivers for the growth of organized retail.

(Source: Cris Infac)

Supply Factors:

• Cost of raw materials: Building materials, labour, electricity, etc.

• Office vacancy rate.

• Regulations: Real estate is a state matter where each state has its own regulation for

the developers, transfer of property, ownership of property and the terms of relationship

between the tenants and landlords.

o ULCRA: This act was passed to prevent the hoarding of the land and increase the

supply of land, by imposition of ceiling on ownership and possession of vacant land.

However, the act failed in its objective and accounted for only 47550 acres of the

available 550000 acres of vacant land in 64 cities. Thus creating a shortage of supply.

In order to release the remaining land the act was repealed in 1999 by an ordinance

and ULCRA replaced the initial ordinance.

o CRZ notification: This regulation imposed restriction on construction activities in

the Coastal Regulation Zone.

o Building and Construction workers cess act: This act is to provide for the levy and

collection of cess on the construction cost incurred by the developer/owner in order to

increase the resources of the construction workers’ welfare board.

o Transfer of Property act: This includes the registration act and the stamp duty.

Stamp duty varies from state to state and is as high as 14% in some of the states. This

is said to be the main reason for avoiding the registration of land.

o Property Tax: Charged by the Municipal Corporation for the basic upkeep of the

facilities. This is to be paid by the owner.

o Rent Control Act: It encompasses the issues such chargeable rents, recovery and

possession of property and tenancy rights. This act is cited as the chief reason for

decrease in supply of housing stock because of its main premise i.e. “neither the

tenant nor the landlord owns the property”. (Source: Cris Infac)

31

Analysis: The supply constraints and the increasing end-user demand have resulted

into shortage of supply. The supply constraint is the result of the archaic regulations

mentioned above.

4.1.7 Volatility of raw material prices (Scale: 0-4)

Real estate industry cost structure is marked 50 to 60% by the cost of the land. Thus the

cost of other raw materials like cement and steel does not have significant impact on the

cost structure of the project. However, cement and steel have a history of volatility

because of their cyclical nature. And this volatility does impact the project cost to a

certain degree. Thus volatility of raw material prices cannot be completely discarded

from the real estate industry.

32

4.2 Developer / Promoter

A Real Estate Project involves following entities, responsible for its successful execution

and implementation:

1. Land Owner: Many projects are executed where the landowner brings in the land

and contracts the developer/contractor to develop the property.

2. Developer: Developer develops the complex (residential/township/commercial) on

the land owned by the landowner (third party) or himself. In many cases the developer

himself constructs the complex and does involve a civil contractor for the same.

3. Contractor: Undertakes construction of the complex on a contractual basis with the

landowner or developer.

4. Consultant/Architect/Structural Engineers: Provide the technical inputs, in terms

of feasibility, in-time completion, design etc., to the developer

In this module the developer/promoter is assessed as he is one of the entities responsible

for successful completion of the project and thus factors in a major risk element for the

project. Hence it becomes more important to assess the quality of promoters through

parameters such as financial health and technical capabilities. For the purpose of

appraisal, the word ‘promoter/developer’ refers to an entity that has 5 per cent or more

equity stake in the project and has a significant participation in the day-to-day

management of the project. In this module the following parameters must be evaluated

for each promoter based on the scales provided in Annexure 2. This module will be

assessed separately for each promoter.

4.2.1 Analysis of financial health of promoter (Scale: 0-12)

The analysis of the past financial performance of the promoter is used to capture the operational and financial performance of the promoter. In this parameter the credit officer must evaluate the promoter on the following sub-parameters:

• Profitability (using EBIDTA margin, NPM and RoCE);

• Solvency (using TDE and Contingent Liabilities / Total Tangible Net Worth (‘CLTNW’)); and

33

• Cash flow (‘CF’) adequacy (using CF Interest Coverage Ratio (‘ICR’) and CF Debt Service Coverage Ratio (‘DSCR’)).

The methodology for computing these ratios has been defined in the ‘Financial Analysis’

module. The financial analysis of the promoter should be conducted over a 4-year

period, using the trend analysis method defined in the ‘Financial Analysis’ module. The

profitability ratios and the TDE ratio must be compared to industry averages, while the

CLTNW and the CF adequacy ratios must be compared to IDBI benchmarks. Each ratio

must then be scored as per the scales provided in the Annexure 2.

4.2.2 Group performance (Scale: 0-8)

The performance of the group to which the promoter belongs will impact the ability of

the promoter to honour commitments to the project. For example, if the group has a

number of loss making companies, the promoter might not be successful in providing the

desired financial support to the project. Also, there might be instances of funds diversion

from the project company to support some poorly performing group companies. Hence it

is important to assess the performance of the group to which the promoter belongs. The

key areas of concern are:

• Non-performing companies within the group;

• Group companies with a negative net worth; and

• Financial position of the flagship company / companies of the group.

Each of the above sub-parameters is rated individually. The first two sub-parameters

must be rated as per the scales provided in Annexure 2. For the third sub-parameter, the

credit officer must perform the financial analysis of the flagship company / companies. In

order to assess the financial health of the flagship company / companies of the group the

credit officer must assess the following key ratios:

− Profitability (using EBIDTA margin, NPM and RoCE);

− Solvency (using TDE and CLTNW); and

− CF adequacy (using CF ICR and CF DSCR).

34

The final score for this parameter will be computed in the following manner:

• Compute the arithmetic mean of the scores for the first two sub-parameters;

• Compute the score for the third sub-parameter;

• The sum of the above two scores shall constitute the score for this parameter.

4.2.3 Project management skills (Scale: 0-8)

The project management skills of the promoter will determine the probability of

successful implementation of the project. A promoter with a good track record in project

implementation is likely to be more successful in implementing the new project than a

promoter with inadequate skills and experience in project management. In this parameter

the credit officer must assess the project management / implementation skills of the

promoter in projects undertaken. The following sub-parameters should be evaluated:

1) Adherence to time schedules of the past and the ongoing projects

2) Usage of scientific tools viz. Work break down method, PERT/CPM and MS Project.

3) Composition of projects undertaken: This will capture experience of developer in

undertaking complex and varied construction projects.

4.2.4 Relevance of experience to project (Scale: 0-6)

The promoter’s past experience and the current type of project undertaken determine the

relevance of the promoter’s experience to the project. For example, for developing a

project in the hotel segment, a promoter with past experience in developing a

restaurant/entertainment center would be given a higher score than a promoter with past

experience in developing a housing complex. The key issues which a credit officer must

consider while assessing this parameter are:

• Number of similar types of the projects: If the developer has developed more than one

similar project he should be given a higher weightage.

• Number of projects in the city/region: Real estate industry being very region specific,

local know-how is key determining criteria for successful completion of the project.

35

Thus a promoter developing his first project in the city would be rated lower than a

promoter developing his second or third project in the city/region.

4.2.5 Strategic initiatives in the past (Scale: 0-2)

The promoter may have taken some strategic initiatives in the past, which may have had a

positive or a negative impact on the performance of the promoter’s business. Such

strategic efforts illustrate the initiatives taken by the management to grow, meet new

challenges, to face competition and to set operational standards in the past. The success

in such initiatives is demonstrated in the financial performance of the promoter. These

strategic efforts by the promoter have an impact on the future growth and performance of

the project. The promoter shall be given a score based on the level of strategic initiative

and success.

For example, the initiative taken by Raheja group of builders in developing a discount

mall, which is deviating from the norm of developing high-end malls, may prove

beneficial for the growth as discount mall concept goes well with the middle class psyche

of lower price and quality shopping of branded products.

4.2.6 Group strategy and commitment to project (Scale: 0-4)

In this parameter the credit officer must assess whether the project in consideration is in

line with the core business and overall strategy of the promoter’s group. This will help

the credit officer in determining the importance of the project to the promoter group and

its commitment towards its successful implementation of the project. For example, if the

Larsen & Toubro Group, whose core line of business is engineering and construction,

were to undertake a project to construct a road they would be given a higher score on this

parameter than the Reliance Group, whose core lines of business are textiles and

petrochemicals.

The other issue to be addressed in this parameter is the future strategy of the group and its

impact on the project. The future strategy and plans of the group give direction to the

efforts of the group and hence will have a significant impact on the project, during the

construction and operations & maintenance phases.

36

4.2.7 Conduct of promoter’s account (Scale: 0-8)

This parameter assesses the promoter’s reputation in the context of honouring financial

and non-financial commitments to its lenders in normal and difficult times. The sub-

parameters on which the borrower must be assessed are:

• Timely payment of interest and principal to IDBI (for an existing borrower); and

• Payments to other financial institutions / banks.

If the promoter is not an existing borrower, then the assessment would be in the context

of honouring financial and non-financial commitments to other financial institutions /

banks.

4.2.8 Past Project Quality Record (Scale 0-8)

The quality of past project is considered to be a major factor in assigning quality rating

for the future projects, as the reputation of the developer in terms of delivering quality

product is always benchmarked against his past work.

1. Safety measures taken at the construction sites and the number of accidents on

site in the past.

2. Quality standards being followed: ISO certification, BIS standards etc. Using

standardized raw materials reduces the cost and increases the quality of

construction.

4.2.9 Reputation (Scale 0-4)

In Real Estate industry reputation of the developer or builder plays a significant role in

driving the demand for the project under consideration. Thus it is included as a separate

parameter and will be evaluated using the following sub-parameters.

• Dispute and Litigation (Civil court cases) track record is the means through which

contract composition and clarity, adherence to the agreement with the customers for the

past project and thus customer satisfaction can be evaluated.

• Stay orders in the past on the construction

• Market position will be given by the relative number of projects of the company

as compared to that of the company which has developed more number of projects than

37

the company under appraisal: Real Estate industry is marked by fragmentation and is

region specific. Thus there is no company, which can be termed as market leader in terms

market share. This trend is observed worldwide where the maximum market share is in

tune of 1%. Thus comparison based on market share will not give the correct picture.

Companies from different locations cannot also be used for comparison. For e.g.

Hiranandani construction group has predominance in Mumbai and Ansal Properties in

Delhi, rendering their comparison illogical. Thus one criteria that can be used for

comparison is the number of projects completed by the company as compared to its rival

in the same city/region

38

4.3 Management quality

The management of the project company makes the basic policy decisions, arranges the

financing, provides information to lenders and investors and is responsible for the overall

monitoring and administering of the project. For the project to be successful, the

management team must be experienced, have good working relationships with lenders,

workers, suppliers, customers etc and implement strong internal controls for the effective

and efficient operations of the project. This module assesses the management quality and

to an extent the willingness of the borrower to repay its debt obligations through

parameters such as the technical expertise of management personnel, corporate

governance, labour and employee relations, timely honouring of financial and other

commitments etc.

The scales for rating the parameters given in the module are provided in Annexure 3.

4.3.1 Technical expertise of key personnel (Scale: 0-12)

This parameter assesses the technical expertise of key management personnel. The level

of technical expertise of the personnel determines the skill of the human resources to

operate efficiently, solve problems and complete difficult tasks in a time bound manner.

The borrower should be evaluated on the following two sub-parameters:

• Qualifications of key personnel (assess the level of theoretical knowledge in the same

sector); and

• Hands-on experience of the key personnel (extent of practical working experience in

the sector): This can be evaluated by the number of years, the person under

consideration, has spent in the Real Estate industry.

The sum of the scores of the above sub-parameters should be the final score to evaluate

this parameter.

4.3.2 Presence of collaboration / joint venture (Scale: 0-4)

The presence of collaboration or a joint venture enhances the management’s ability either

to market the product or to strengthen its financial position. Besides, a technical tie-up

39

can prove beneficial to the firm in terms of having a competitive advantage over its peers.

An organisation with a collaboration / joint venture will receive a score of 4, while an

organisation with no collaboration / joint venture will receive a score of 0. Company like

DLF is an example which will receive 4 in this parameter.

4.3.3 Organisation structure (Scale: 0-4)

A broad based organisation structure delegates responsibility by function to various

people. This avoids the risk of concentration of power in the hand of a key individual(s).

A well-defined organisation structure also emulates the future strategy of the company

and hence it indicates the direction in which the company is headed. In this parameter the

credit officer should evaluate the organisation structure based on the following sub-

parameters:

• Clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities of personnel (to avoid over

dependence on one or two personnel and to ensure that key tasks are assigned to key

personnel);

• Structured and articulated process flows within the organisation; and

• Well-defined succession plan to assess the presence of a well-defined succession plan

and not the quality of the successors.

4.3.4 Corporate governance (Scale: 0-8)

The borrower may undertake certain initiatives, which underline the management’s

commitment towards the setting of and following certain well-accepted standards and

practices. This might help the borrower to become efficient in operations or might help

to establish a good standard of management and administration. If the borrower has

undertaken such initiatives, then scores should be assigned as per the type of initiatives

undertaken. This parameter cannot be assessed during the initial appraisal of the project,

since the company is not in operation. However, it must compulsorily be evaluated at

each subsequent appraisal. The borrower should be scored on the following sub-

parameters:

• Broad-based board composition (for example having independent directors with full

voting rights);

40

• Presence of disaster management / contingency plans;

• Presence of an audit committee; and

• Strong reporting and control systems: Now a days many big construction companies

are using IT for efficient intra-organsiation reporting and documentation, thus

enhancing their control systems. Presence of IT infrastructure can be one of the

factors to evaluate this parameter.

4.3.5 Diversion of funds (Scale: 0-8)

Diversion of funds for uses other than those that are earmarked for is an indication of the

borrower’s deviation from pre-set norms or agreements with the provider of funds.

Diversion of funds is a serious issue because a project might suffer from lack of funds

due to a diversion. There are two issues, which must be assessed by the credit officer:

• Diversion of short-term funds for long-term uses; and

• Siphoning of funds to group companies / affiliates.

4.3.6 Transactions with group companies (Scale: 0-2)

This parameter is relevant for organisations that purchase and sell raw materials to group

companies. The dichotomy in this parameter is that there can be overinvoicing and

mismanagement of inventory on one hand; while on the other hand, the raw materials

could be an economic resource of input for a group company. The credit officer needs to

assess whether the transaction is at arm’s length. This can be done by assessing whether

purchases / sales are carried out at market rates. This parameter can be given a score of 2

if there are no transactions with group companies or if there are transactions with group

companies at arm’s length. Alternatively, if there are transactions with group companies,

which are not at arm’s length, this parameter will get a score of 0.

4.3.7 Conduct of borrower’s account (Scale: 0-8)

This parameter assesses the borrowers’ willingness and ability to honour financial and

non-financial commitments to IDBI in normal and difficult times. This parameter cannot

be assessed during the initial assessment for making a lending decision, as the borrower

is not an existing borrower of IDBI and hence no information will be available to score

41

this parameter. However this parameter must be compulsorily chosen for each

subsequent appraisal. The areas on which the borrower must be assessed are:

1) Timely re-payment of interest and principal to IDBI;

2) Timely submission of information such as quarterly progress reports, audited

accounts, reports from independent consultants / engineers (during the

construction phase) and other information, as and when required; and

3) Timely completion of security documentation, renewals of insurance policies

covering security pledged with the bank.

If the borrower has defaulted on the repayment of interest or principal, the credit officer

should automatically assign a score of ‘0’ to this parameter, irrespective of whether the

information requirements and security documentation has been provided on time.

4.3.8 Labour and employee relations (Scale: 0-4)

The management of labour is a crucial determinant of management quality since labour is

a key input for Real Estate project. The quality of labour employed, the ability to retain

employees, non-occurrence of labour disputes and presence of employee welfare schemes

are some of the determinants of good labour and employee relations and hence must be

assessed while scoring this parameter.

4.3.9 Honouring of commitments (Scale: 0-8)

This parameter reflects the borrower’s commitment with respect to honouring financial

and non-financial commitments to lenders (other than IDBI), creditors, employees,

regulatory authorities etc. This parameter would not be assessed during the initial

appraisal since a new borrower cannot be assessed on this parameter during the initial

assessment for making a lending decision. However this parameter must be compulsorily

chosen for each subsequent appraisal. The areas on which the borrower must be assessed

are:

• Timely payment of dues to EPC contractor;

• Timely payment of dues to employees and labour force;

• Timely payment of regulatory dues such as taxes, duties etc; and

42

• Payment of interest and repayment of principal to other financial institutions /

banks.

4.3.10 Quality of financial statements (Scale: 0-4)

The quality of financial statements reflects on the integrity of the management. In this

parameter the credit officer should evaluate the accounting quality of the financial

statements in respect to the use AS7, the accepted accounting policies (‘GAAP’) for

"Construction Contract" i.e. "Percentage completion method" which is normally used in

the construction industry. The borrower should be evaluated on the following:

• Transparency of accounts, which is reflected in the extent and level of disclosures

made in the financial statements: For example when the company uses "Percentage of

completion method" for revenue recognition, the percentage of work for which revenue

is booked is given but along with that if the company also discloses the competent

authority by which the percentage was certified, it is considered as transparent

accounting practice.

• Presence of qualifications in the auditors’ report.

4.3.11 Foreign exchange management policy (Scale: 0-2)

This parameter is relevant for organisations that inherit foreign exchange risk by their

way of business transactions, i.e. imports of machinery etc. or through the presence of

foreign currency loans. In such cases, the management should have a well-defined

foreign exchange management policy in place, which includes documented hedging

strategies, rather than ad-hoc tactical solutions.

43

4.4 Significant Project Party

This module will evaluate the remaining two entities involved in any Real Estate project.

4.4.1 Civil Contractor

The main civil contractor should be considered for the appraisal. The contractor would

provide technical and operational support to the project. Thus, in view of it’s

significance to the project, it becomes very important to have strong contractual

relationships between the borrower and the contractor.

The scope of work of a civil contractor generally includes:

• Procuring;

• Constructing;

• Commissioning;

The contractor is responsible for all civil works including water, roads, drainage systems,

and electricity and plumbing works, which are part of construction activities. The

contractor is pivotal in completing the project within stipulated time schedule and

according to the design given by the architect.

In many cases the developer or promoter himself will be the constructing the project, thus

there will be no civil contractor in such cases. Civil contractor module will not be

activated in such cases and the weightage of the developer/promoter module will increase

by the percentage points assigned to the civil contractor module. In this module the

following parameters must be evaluated for each contractor based on the scales provided

in Annexure 4. This module will only remain active during the initial and construction

phases. It will be deactivated in the operations and maintenance phase.

4.4.1.1 Technical expertise and past track record (Scale: 0-12)

This parameter assesses the technical expertise of the contractor(s) and their level of past

experience. The level of technical expertise of the personnel determines the skill of the

human resources to operate efficiently, ensure proper construction as per requirements,

solve problems and complete difficult tasks in a time bound manner. The contractor

should be evaluated on the following two sub-parameters:

• Technical qualifications; and

44

• Hands-on experience in the past (extent of practical working experience): Number of

years of experience is one of the evaluation criteria.

The contractor(s) should be scored on each of the above sub-parameters. The sum total

of the scores of each of the above sub-parameters should be taken as the final score.

4.4.1.2 Financial health (Scale: 0-12)

The financial performance of the contractor should be analysed based on the profitability,

solvency and cash flow adequacy ratios of the contractor. The analysis of the financial

health must be done in the same way as that for a promoter and the methodology for

scoring the same has been provided in the ‘Promoter’ module as shown in Annexure 2.

4.4.1.3 Basis of selection (Scale: 0-2)

The contractor can be selected in the following manner:

• On a preferential basis; or

• By a competitive bidding process.

Under the preferential basis of selection of the contractor, there could be an underlying

risk that the selection of the contractor was not done in an objective manner. This could

be because of the contractor’s close links with the promoter company arising from a

familial or a fiduciary relationship. Such a method of selection could lead to the selection

of an inexperienced or technically incompetent contractor for the project.

However, in the Real Estate industry normally the contractor has a long-standing

relationship with the developer. Thus more weightage cannot be given to this parameter,

as the contractor on preferential basis cannot be considered technically incompetent.

The competitive bidding process (through invite of tenders) considers the following

parameters for the selection of the contractor:

• Contract price for the entire procurement and construction activities;

• Project and technical management capabilities of the contractor;

45

• Experience of the contractor;

• Scheduled completion of the project; and

• Extent of performance guarantees offered.

Thus, a contractor selected through the competitive bidding process will get a higher

score as compared to one selected on a preferential basis.

4.4.1.4 Quality of contract (Scale: 0-8)

The contract between the project company and the contractor is instrumental in

transferring the construction / completion risk from the management of the project

company to the contractor. This means that the contractor hands over the project to the

management of the company only after the successful construction within the timelines

agreed upon, for a fixed consideration agreed upon in advance.

Significant clauses present in the contract can be clubbed into the following areas:

• Scope of work: For example, overall responsibility for the co-ordination and

communication between the contractors, right to appoint approved sub-contractors

and consultants, tenure of the contract and provision for extending the validity of the

contract, determination of performance guarantees (operational and efficiency

parameters);

• Terms of payment: For example, advance payments, retention money, pattern of

payment, level of incentives; and

• Legal coverage: For example, liquidated damages / penalties for non-adherence to the

implementation schedule, non-performance with respect to guaranteed levels and

non-adherence to emission limits as guaranteed, limitation of liabilities, force majeure

risks, termination of the contract, insurance, arbitration and resolution of disputes;

The contract specific clause should be obtained from the legal department on case-to-case

basis. However, some common clauses in construction contracts are:

• Clause for liquidated damages/ bonus payment: already explained in legal

coverage.

46

• Suspension of work: In cases where the work has to be suspended for unavoidable

circumstances, then the contract should cater to this delay in work and the

payment discrepancies which arise thereon.

• Variation in estimated quantities: It is generally observed in the construction

industry that there is a mismatch between the technical calculations for the raw

material required and the actual usage. To share or transfer the risk of this

variation the contract should stipulate the price of the extra quantity of raw

material required than stated in the contract.

It is of utmost importance for the credit officer to ensure that the contract is:

• A Bankable contract; and

• A Balanced contract.

Bankable contract: The contract should lay down the role and responsibilities of each

party to the contract, to avoid confusion and conflict on breach of the terms of the

contract. Unclear terms and conditions of the contract can lead to litigations between the

project company and the contractor, thus stalling the construction o. A ‘bankable’ or an

‘enforceable’ contract will ensure that the contract is valid, legal and a binding obligation

for the parties involved in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified. The

credit officer, with assistance from IDBI’s legal department, should score the sub-

parameter based on the assessment of the ‘enforceability’ of the clauses (as mentioned

above and also those identified subsequently) contained in the contract.

Balanced contract: This means that transferring them to other parties adequately mitigates

all risks arising in the contract. For example, any penalties paid by the project company,

due to the lack of efficiency or non-performance of the contractor should be adequately

recovered from other parties (for example through an insurance cover). Thus, a

‘balanced’ contract, along with other agreements, ensures that all risks faced by the

project company during the construction phase are transferred / allocated in a ‘balanced’

manner, fixing responsibilities and ownership for these risks.

The sum of the scores given to each of the sub-parameters shall be taken as the final

score for this parameter.

47

4.4.1.5 Terms of payment (Scale: 0-4)

One of the most significant components of the project cost is the contract value payable

to the contractor for undertaking the construction of the project. The factors to be

considered by the credit officer while assessing the terms of payment to the contractor

should be, but not limited to:

• Extent of advance granted;

• Pattern of payments, i.e. either on proof of performance (shipping / construction /

services rendered) or on a pro-rated time basis (monthly, quarterly, half-yearly);

• Extent of money retained for meeting future unforeseen events; and

• Presence of escalation clauses in the contract price.

4.4.1.6 Project Management Skills (Scale 0-8)

This parameter should be graded in the same manner as for the developer's project

management skills. All the sub-parameters will remain the same. This parameter is

essential for the contractor, as it will determine the ability of the contractor to complete

the kind of project under consideration.

4.4.1.7 Project Quality record (Scale 0-8)

Same as developer

4.4.1.8 Reputation (Scale 0-4)

All the parameters are same as Developer's including the flowing parameter.

Liquidated Damages: The credit officer should also try to get information, if possible

about the quantum of liquidated damages given and the frequency of the same.

4.4.1.9 Labour relations (Scale 0-6)

Real estate projects are labour intensive, thus good labour relations play pivotal role in

timely completion of the project. The following factors can be used to evaluate the labour

relations:

• Number of cases in labour court in the past 3 years.

48

• Frequency of labour disputes

4.4.2 Architect/Structural Engineers/Consultants

The last entity involved in the Real Estate project is Architect/Structural

Engineers/Consultants. All of them are clubbed in one group, as their functionalities are

restricted to provide technical support to the developer in intialising, developing and

transferring the Real Estate property to the customers.

During evaluation every entity should be scored individually i.e. architect, structural

engineer and each consultant should be scored individually and then the mean score

should be assigned to this module.

4.4.2.1 Technical expertise and past track record (Scale 0-8)

This parameter assesses the technical expertise of the contractor(s) and their level of past

experience. The level of technical expertise of the personnel determines the skill of the

human resources to operate efficiently, ensure proper construction as per requirements,

solve problems and complete difficult tasks in a time bound manner. The contractor

should be evaluated on the following two sub-parameters:

• Technical qualifications; and

• Hands-on experience in the past (extent of practical working experience).

The contractor(s) should be scored on each of the above sub-parameters. The sum total

of the scores of each of the above sub-parameters should be taken as the final score.

4.4.2.2 Past achievement in the relevant field (Scale 0-4)

Many architects/consultants win accolades for innovative work in their fields. There are

institutional awards also in the field of construction. Thus any award won by the

architects/consultants contracted by the project company gives, some credibility to their

choice as the project party. The credit officer can find about the achievements of the

project parties and give the scoring accordingly.

49

4.4.2.3 Relevance of experience to project (Scale 0-8)

The past experience and the current type of project undertaken determine the relevance of

the project patry's experience to the project. The key issues which a credit officer must

consider while assessing this parameter is number of similar types of the projects.

50

4.5 Project Risks

Project risks are those risks, which are specific to the project being undertaken. These

project risks are divided into the following sub-modules:

• General: General risks are those, which are present in a project right from the

developmental phase (conception of the idea), till the construction and the operation

and maintenance phase. Since general risks are present in all the phases of the project,

this sub-module will be activated during each phase of the project.

• Complexities: These are risks in the project, which arise due to the complexities in-

built in the construction of the project. Complexities can arise on account of the

design of the project, the justification of project cost or the extent of incompletion of

the project. The complexities in a project play a significant role in the manner in

which the construction of the project progresses and therefore these need to be

assessed closely. Complexities are only relevant till the completion of construction;

thus sub-module remains activated only during the initial appraisal and the

construction phases of the appraisal process.

• Construction: Construction risk is one of the most important risks in project financing.

This is because the project receives funding (both debt and equity) at the construction

stage and the level of success in constructing / completing the project on time and

within budget has a significant impact on the financial performance of the borrower

and its debt servicing capacity. Significant risks assessed during the construction

phase include (but are not limited to) the adherence to implementation schedule, level

of cost overruns and the successful funding of cost overruns. Construction risks need

to be assessed during the construction phase only and therefore this module shall be

activated during the construction phase only.

• Principal Anchor(s): Principal anchor risk is assessed for commercial projects given

on lease. This sub module is the evaluation of lessee acquiring more than 35% of the

space in the project. The principal anchor(s) will be the main source of revenue in the

51

form of lease rentals. Significant risks assessed for principal anchor are the financial r,

reputation, tenure of loan etc.

• Operations: Risks faced by the project once it starts commercial operations are

assessed in this sub-module. During the operations & maintenance phase the project

begins to function as a regular operating business. Risks to be assessed during

operations & maintenance phase would include the obtaining statutory clearances etc.

This sub-module shall be activated only after the completion of construction.

4.5.1 General

In this sub-module the following parameters must be evaluated as per scales provided in

Annexure 5A

1) Clear title of the land (Scale 0-4)

Clarity of title is vetted at the 'Filters' stage. However, many projects have a clear title to

land but do not have complete ownership of the land. For e.g. The MOU is such that one

portion of the land is released for development of one phase of the project. Rest of the

land will be released once the phase I of the project is completed. In such cases the score

given would be between 0 and 4 as the total land is not available for the project in the

initial stages and forms a risk to the completion of the project.

2) Price/ Rental risk (Scale 0-6)

Price for the real estate is location specific as demand and supply factors are governed by

the location of the project. One of the major supply factors is regulation, which is

State/Municipal Corporation specific. Thus any changes in regulation will affect the

supply. The demand is also driven by the local economic conditions. For e.g. Mumbai,

Delhi, Bangalore has high financial growth as compared to other cities due to the large

presence of companies. This leads to higher income and employment opportunities in

these cities and thus a higher demand for real estate. However, there is also speculation,

which drives demand and is principal in escalation of prices. Thus there always is price

risk. Following sub parameters should be used for scoring this parameter.

52

i. Speculation: Cities like Gurgaon where the Real Estate activities are at its peak;

speculation of about 30 to 40% is estimated. Such high levels of speculation is

detrimental to the project as there is a risk of price/rentals crashing down once the

speculation reaches unsustainable level. The credit officer should get the current

estimates of the speculation from the industry sources and should rate the parameter. If

the speculation is higher than sustainable level then a low score should be given.

ii. Relaxation of regulations: The local authorities govern Regualtions in Real Estate.

If the state or municipal corporation relaxes the regulations like Rent Control Act etc.,

which are the main reasons for creating the artificial shortage of supply of land, the

supply would increase resulting in supply of land nearby the project under consideration.

This might lead to fall in prices, as many new projects would compete with the project.

3) Location of the project (Scale 0-6)

Location of the project also bears the risk. For example a commercial project is in central

business district (CBD) or suburban business district (SBD) should be given more score

as the external infrastructure required for profitable operation of the commercial property

is developed in CBD.

4) Cost of project – IBDI benchmark (Scale 0-2)

The cost of the project is an important indicator of the inherent risk in a project. As it is

essential for projects of different magnitude to get approved by different levels of

authority, similarly it is also essential to give higher risk grade to projects having a higher

project cost as the quantum of money involved directly impacts the risks inherent in a

project. In this parameter the credit officer should evaluate the total project cost against

benchmarks defined in the scales.

5) Means of financing the debt (Scale 0-4)

In this parameter the credit officer must evaluate the other sources from which the

borrower has raised debt. Traditionally, it has been observed that most projects are

financed through consortiums since it may be difficult and risky for a single financial

institution to finance the entire debt requirement of a large project. Further, debt

requirements may also be met through secured / unsecured loans from group companies /

53

affiliates / unrecognised institutions. If the debt requirements are funded by financial

institutions / banks, it adds a level of credibility to the project. On the other hand,

unsecured loans from group companies may not be a reliable source of funds for the

entire life of the project, as these loans may be recalled at any time during the life of the

project. Hence it becomes important to assess the quality of debt i.e. source and tenure of

debt.

6) Vulnerability to force majeure risks (Scale 0-4)

Force majeure risks are those risks, which result from certain events beyond the control

of the project parties. These events commonly include:

• War (declared or undeclared) or other military activity;

• Strikes, lockouts and other labour disturbances;

• Riots or public disorder;

• Expropriation, requisition, confiscation or nationalisation;

• Changes in law;

• Blockades;

• Severe storms and other natural disasters; and

• Epidemics or quarantines.

Although in most projects the project company will seek to mitigate all force majeure

risks through contractual obligations and insurance protection, it is important to assess

the vulnerability of the project to such event risks. For example, the location of the

project could be a cause of concern if it is situated in areas prone to natural catastrophes

such as earthquakes or floods. Alternatively, it would be unreasonable to lend to a

project near the border or in a terrorist prone area, where the probability of destruction is

high, in the event of a war or a terrorist attack. In this parameter the credit officer must

score the vulnerability of the project to each of the above event risks on a 3-point scale,

not vulnerable, moderately vulnerable and highly vulnerable. The final score for the

parameter would be the rounded-off arithmetic mean of the scores of each of the above

sub-parameters.

54

7) Nature of project (Scale 0-2)

The repayment of loan, in case of Real Estate projects, is done either through advance

payment received by the customers or through lease rentals payment received from the

lessee. Advance payment structure is followed in the housing/township projects where

the buyers of residential complexes have to furnish certain advance at the time of booking

the house. Whereas, in lease rental structure, followed in commercial projects, lessee

furnishes the lease rentals once he has taken the charge of the property i.e. after the

construction of the project. Thus in case of housing projects the repayment of loan starts

within one or two years of the commencement of construction and in commercial projects

the same starts after the construction of the project and commencement of the operations

by the commercial player.

Commercial projects are more risky than housing project and should be given lesser

score.

8) Marketing Strategy (Scale 0-20)

The debt obligation of a borrower will be ultimately repaid by the future cashflow

generated by the operations of the borrower. The future cashflow generation is highly

dependent on the marketability of the Real Estate property. Therefore, the credit officer

should examine the property and its sustainability in the market in considerable detail by

critically examining the marketing strategy of the borrower. The credit officer should

specifically examine the sub-parameters mentioned below to assess the marketing

strategy of the borrower.

• Pricing Strategy: This parameter should assess the rationality behind the price of

the developed Real Estate property. Studying the micro demand and supply dynamics can

assess it. The rating officer should use the “Detailed Appraisal Note” to get the project

specific details. The demand factors change according to the nature of the project i.e.

housing, office space, hotel, mall etc.

Factors for housing complex:

• Availability of external infrastructure like schools, market place, parks etc.

• Sustainability

Factors for Office Space:

55

• Easy availability of manpower.

• Developed infrastructure for IT.

• Office vacancy rate.

Factors for mall:

• Nearness to future human catchments.

• Ample parking space.

• Frontage provided.

• Nature of Product: This parameter assesses the risk exposure in terms of customer

default. If the property is catering to only one type of customer i.e. IT office space then

the developer faces the risk of default from the customer, which in turn would affect the

repayment of loan. Thus a project, which derives demand from various categories of

customer, mitigates this risk for e.g. a township project or a commercial project including

mall and office space etc.

• Promotion strategy: Should be in sync with the positioning and targeting strategy.

A project taken under Slum Rehabilitation Act cannot be positioned and targeted to

middle class segment. It would be best suited for segment moving from ‘kuchha house to

pucca house’.

9) Systems for support facilities (Scale 0-4)

This parameter captures the use of organisation support systems that determine efficiency

of operations. The support systems would include payroll systems and accounting

packages, management information systems, project management systems etc. An

organisation that actively uses the latest systems would get a high score as compared to

one, which depends on manual processes / obsolete systems for support.

10) Reputation or established player (Scale 0-6)

As already mentioned Real Estate project are region specific. Thus, even an established

developer would find it difficult to initiate and execute a project in a new city. The local

contact required for all the clearances are built by many years of operation in the city.

Customers also take into consideration the reputation of the developer due to transfer of

56

ownership risk. Thus first project of the developer will be scored lower as compared to

his second or third project.

4.5.2 Complexities

In this sub-module the following parameters must be evaluated based on the scales

provided in Annexure 5 B.

1) Design of the project (Scale 0-12)

The promoter(s) ability to assess the technical feasibility of the project is one of the key

success factors of a project. Prior to the construction phase, the promoter(s) must

undertake extensive engineering studies to verify the design of the project. The detailed

design and engineering of the project provides a basis for estimating the precise level of

construction costs. The credit officer, while assessing the above parameter should

consider the following sub-parameters:

• Topography and terrain in relation to project requirement: This is a physical

check done by the Project Appraisal department. In many cases the land being developed

is undulating requiring additional leveling cost other than the construction cost estimated

by the developer. The scoring of this parameter is dependent on the report submitted by

the PAD and an undulating land will get lower score.

• Feasibility analysis: This parameter will evaluate the technical feasibility of the

project. Developers contract third party consultants and structural engineers to conduct

feasibility study for the project in terms of soil analysis, structural analysis,

environmental study etc. The credit officer should check for the feasibility through these

reports.

• Social factors: The design of the project should take into account any social

requirements, which would be required for restoring the balance in the lives of the people

directly, affected by the project. All of these environmental and social requirements add

to the cost of the project for example measures taken to ease the flow of traffic in front of

a shopping mall is the growing concern for the municipal corporation and the developer

should incorporate such measures in the design of the mall.

57

2) Extent of incompletion (Scale 0-8)

In this parameter the credit officer must rate the risk due to the extent of incompletion of

a project. Extent of incompletion refers to the amount of work remaining for completing

the construction of the project. Inherently, the maximum risk in the project lies at the

inception of the construction phase, since the entire project needs to be constructed from

scratch. As the project progresses and certain parts of the project are constructed the risk

starts to decline. If a project is 90 per cent complete, the risk is only to the extent of the

balance 10 per cent that remains to be completed. Hence a project, which is 90 per cent

complete, will get a higher score in this parameter, than a project, which is 50 per cent

complete, even if it is on schedule.

3) Revenue & Cost justification (Scale 0-10)

The developer submits the projected cash inflows and outflows for the project life. This

parameter assesses the cost and revenues of the project in terms of economic viability.

The loan officer should appraise the above based on the following sub-parameters with

the help of information given through Detailed Appraisal Note submitted by PAD.

• Comparison of cost determinant: Major cost in Real Estate project is land valuation.

It can be done by following two methods:

§ Discounted method: In this valuation method the future cash inflows in the

form of sales price of the flats or lease rentals for the commercial space are

discounted to the present value. The margin and the cost are subtracted from the

value to get the present value of the land.

§ Comparison method: The demand-supply dynamics of the location determines

the cost of land and the valuation is done on the prevalent market rate basis.

Basic construction cost, and consultancy and supervision charges forms the second part

of the cash outflow. Comparison of cost between two projects is difficult due to

individuality of the projects. This can be partially overcome by comparing two similar

projects located near each other and the unit for comparison can be taken as per square

foot of approved floor space area.

• Comparison of the occupancy levels with normal levels prevalent in the local

market. The developer assumes an occupancy level to make the predictions for the future

58

revenues. Thus it becomes necessary to validate the occupancy levels, as any decrease in

the actual levels as compared to the projected ones will result in lesser revenue

recognition.

• Comparison of the escalation of lease rentals with the market levels: In case of

commercial property given on lease, the developer predicts the future revenue based on

the lease rentals and the escalation of the same year-on-year basis. The escalation

percentage has to be benchmarked against the current market levels.

4) Project IRR (Scale 0-4)

One of the commonly used approaches to establish a project’s feasibility is to compare

the project’s IRR to the cost of capital for the project. This comparison will help the

credit officer to determine whether the project is generating a threshold level of return,

which is more than the cost of the capital invested in the project. If the comparison

points out that the IRR is higher than the cost of capital, then the project is feasible, as it

would give an investor returns, which adequately cover all costs, including the cost of

capital, invested in the project.

The cost of capital should be computed by using the Weighted Average Cost of Capital

(‘WACC’) the current practice in IDBI. The WACC gives a comprehensive figure for

the cost of capital by combining the cost of debt and cost of equity relative to their

individual shares in a project.

The cost of equity as per the CAPM is:

Ke = Rf + β * (Rm – Rf)

Where:

Ke = Cost of Equity;

Rf = Risk Free Rate of Return (usually the Yield To Maturity on a benchmark

government security);

Rm = Rate of return from investing in the stock market (usually measured using the

benchmark index such as the Bombay Stock Exchange Sensitive Index or the S&P 500);

and

β or beta = the covariance of stock returns to market returns.

59

The credit officer should first compute the project IRR from the projected cashflows and

then compute the cost of capital using the models as mentioned above. The scores for the

parameter would be allocated as per the scales in Annexure 5. If the IRR is less than the

cost of capital, then the project should be rejected.

4.5.3 Construction

In this sub-module the following parameters must be evaluated based on the scales

provided in Annexure 5 C.

1 Clearance risk (Scale 0-6)

Permits are required at the time of construction like water connection before and after

construction, dumping of excavated material, water disposal, etc. The risk of delay in

obtaining these clearances/permits from the local authority will result in time overrun of

the project.

2 Quality (Scale 0-4)

The borrower may undertake certain initiatives, which underline the management

commitment towards establishing and following certain well-accepted standards and

practices. This might help the borrower to become efficient in certain operations or

might help to establish a good standard of management and administration. If the

borrower has undertaken such initiatives, then scores should be assigned as per the type

of initiatives undertaken. The borrower should be scored on the following sub-

parameters:

§ Design as per seismic zones

§ Construction as per BIS & NBC standards

§ ISO 9001-2000 quality standards

3 Control & Safety systems (Scale 0-4)

This parameter assesses the effectiveness of the control and safety systems used by the

developer on the construction site. Any accident, in the past, on the construction site

60

would cause delay, causing time over run and thus add to the project completion risk. The

credit officer can score the parameter using the following two factors:

• Number of accidents on the construction site

• Frequency of the accidents

4 Cost overrun (Scale 0-8)

Cost overrun can be defined as the difference between the actual cost incurred and the

projected cost. Cost overrun could adversely affect the economic viability of the project,

as additional funds would be required to be brought in to cover such a contingency.

During each appraisal in the construction phase, the credit officer should compare the

actual cost spent to the cost originally projected and analyse the positive variances, if any.

Overrun in the project due to controllable factors is considered a serious development and

is indicative of management lacunae. Projects with a cost overrun become much riskier

and are hence scored lower as compared to projects with no overrun.

Taking into consideration the risk involved, it is imperative to assess whether the actual

cost of construction / completion is as originally projected. Cost overrun could arise due

to the following reasons:

• Controllable reasons: Those that are under the control of management e.g. Faulty

design

• External reasons: Those that are not under control of management e.g. raw

material prices.

5. Have the cost overrun in the past been successfully funded (Scale 0-8)

The successful funding of cost overruns by the management of the project company in

the past reflects the ability of the management to raise additional capital for the project

and thus strengthen their commitment to the completion of the project. In order to

mitigate this risk, lenders normally prescribe the arrangement of standby equity by the

promoters, as a pre-disbursement condition, in a form and manner acceptable to the

lenders, to be utilized towards overrun, if any.

The credit officer should make a note of any cost overruns that the project had in the past

and also whether such an overrun was funded in time. Projects, where a cost overrun was

61

funded on time, would be scored high as compared to those projects where the cost

overrun was not funded at all or was funded after a considerable delay.

6. Adherence to implementation schedule (Scale 0-6)

The progress of a project can be assessed by its adherence to the implementation schedule

as originally envisaged. The credit officer during the appraisal should score this

parameter on the percentage of delay as compared to the implementation schedule. A

high score would be awarded to the project if it adheres to the implementation schedule.

7. Other results of reports from independent/ lenders engineers/consultants

(Scale 0-4)

The independent engineers, who check the progress of the construction, submit reports to

the developer/lending institution. The scope of duties of the engineers include:

• Monitoring the construction progress (site visits);

• Attending the construction progress meetings;

• Preparation and submission of the completion report.

The scoring is based on the satisfactory review.

8. Managing price volatility of raw materials/ inputs. (Scale 0-6)

The risk of volatility in price of raw material like steel, cement etc. can be mitigated by a

long-term contract with the supplier. Credit officer should check for the contract with the

suppliers and the project mitigating the price risk through the above-mentioned clause

should be giver higher score.

9. Infrastructure availability (Scale 0-6)

The infrastructure around the project should be well developed as it helps in successful

completion of the project. For example any construction site should have at least two

approach roads for easy influx and out-flux of raw material. These roads will also be the

approach roads for the completed project. Any customer investing in the property takes

the above factor into consideration. Thus a project having only one approach road should

be given lesser score.

62

4.5.4 Principal anchor/anchors

This module should be initiated when principal anchor is occupying more than 35% of

space in the commercial project. The module should evaluate each anchor (if more than

one company occupies more than 35% of the commercial space) individually. For

example in a shopping mall if Pantaloons and BigBazzar occupy more than 80% of the

space then both will be considered as Principal Anchor and will be scores based on the

following sub-parameters:

1) Past Financial Analysis (Scale 0-4)

The analysis of the past financial performance of the promoter is used to capture the

operational and financial performance of the promoter. In this parameter the credit

officer must evaluate the promoter on the following sub-parameters:

• Profitability (using EBIDTA margin, NPM and RoCE);

• Solvency (using TDE and Contingent Liabilities / Total Tangible Net Worth

(‘CLTNW’)); and

• Cash flow (‘CF’) adequacy (using CF Interest Coverage Ratio (‘ICR’) and CF Debt

Service Coverage Ratio (‘DSCR’)).

The methodology for computing these ratios has been defined in the ‘Financial Analysis’

module. The financial analysis of the promoter should be conducted over a 3-year

period, using the trend analysis method defined in the ‘Financial Analysis’ module. The

profitability ratios and the TDE ratio must be compared to industry averages, while the

CLTNW and the CF adequacy ratios must be compared to IDBI benchmarks. Each ratio

must then be scored as per the scales provided in the Annexure 2.

2) Tenure of the lease (Scale 0-8)

The tenure of the lease should be equal to the time period for repayment of the loan. The

risk of non-repayment of loan would arise if the tenure of the lease were lesser than the

tenure of the loan. For example if the tenure of lessee is 5 years and tenure of the loan is

6 years then the risk of non-payment of loan installment in the 6th year might arise if new

lessee is not found during that time period.

63

3) Market position (Scale 0-4)

This parameter can be evaluated by comparing market share and turnover with the

corresponding industry leader. For e.g. while assessing an IT company Infosys can be

used the benchmark.

4) Honouring the commitments (Scale 0-6)

This parameter reflects the lessee's commitment with respect to honouring financial and

non-financial commitments to lessor. The lessee should be evaluated on the front of

timely payment of lease rentals.

4.5.5 Operation

This module will be functional for the commercial real estate, which is on lease basis.

1) Actual Performance (Scale 0-12)

The operating efficiency ratios are evaluated to evaluate the operational performance of

the lessee. Some of the operational ratios are: (Scale 0-4)

• Sales per square foot (retailing industry)

• Average room rate (hospitality industry)

• Revenue per employee (software industry)

2) Clearances (Scale 0-4)

Many commercial activities require clearances from the state/local authority for e.g.

liquor permit for pubs in the hotels etc. Credit officer should check for such clearances as

it would affect the future operations of the project.

3) Comparison of the projected occupancy level with the actual. (Scale 0-4)

This parameter is important for malls and office space where there is more than one

lessee. The developer makes projection at the construction phase for the occupancy levels

and predicts the cash inflows. At the operations phase its imperative to compare the

projected and actual occupancy levels, as it would affect the repayment of loan.

64

4) Quality assurance and initiatives (Scale 0-2)

The lessee may undertake certain initiatives, which underline the management

commitment towards establishing and following certain well-accepted standards and

practices. This might help the lessee to become efficient in certain operations or might

help to establish a good standard of management and administration. If the lessee has

undertaken such initiatives, then scores should be assigned as per the type of initiatives

undertaken. The borrower should be scored on the following sub-parameters:

• Quality certification (e.g. ISO 9000 or SEI CMM levels for software companies);

• Collaborations and marketing alliances;

• Awards for management excellence and strategic moves by the borrower.

65

4.6 Financial Analysis

Concepts underlining the Financial Analysis Module:

The credit rating model is based on the ‘through the cycle’ philosophy. ‘Through the

cycle’ means the assessment of a debt facility taking into account the various economic

cycles (boom phase or recession) during the tenure of the loan. ‘Through the cycle’

philosophy captures the volatility in the earnings of the business, which would ultimately

have an impact on the level of future cash flows and the safety for servicing the debt

obligations for the loan.

The credit rating model is entirely cash flow based and does not consider security or

collateral in the evaluation of credit quality of a facility. Cash in business serves several

purposes. Firstly, it is used for meeting normal cash obligations (i.e. paying expenses).

Secondly, it is held as a precautionary measure for unanticipated problems. Thirdly, it is

held for potential investment purposes. Cash flow analysis shows whether the operations

of the borrower have generated enough cash to meet its obligations, and it shows how

major outflows relate to major inflows. As a result, cash flow analysis can tell if inflows

and outflows from the operations will combine to result in a positive cash flow from

operations or in a net drain. Hence, the importance of cash flow analysis in the analysis

of the financial performance of the borrower cannot be over emphasized.

For undertaking analysis, financial statements need to be converted into an analytical

format, which facilitates ease in analysis by:

• Recasting and separating revenues and costs from operations from those not related to

operations;

• Recasting the income statement to show operating profits before interest, depreciation

and tax;

• Re-classifying assets as current or non-current, depending on their nature;

• Re-classifying liabilities based on the nature of the liability; and

• Computing common size percentages to review trends over a period of time.

66

The ‘Financial Analysis’ module aims to assess the profitability, capitalisation / solvency,

liquidity and cash flow adequacy (parameters) that affect the financial health of the

borrower.

Main components of the financial analysis module:

The ‘Financial Analysis’ module has been further divided into 3 sub-modules, namely:

• Future projections: This sub-module involves estimating the level of future cash

flows of the borrower. This sub-module is very important since the level of safety for the

servicing of a debt facility (in terms of interest and principal) is determined by the level

of generation of cash flows in the future.

• Actuals versus projections: This sub-module involves the comparison of the

financial performance of the borrower for the latest financial year as compared to the

projections prepared by the credit officer for that year. This is to enable the credit officer

to estimate the borrower's ability to realistically meet the targets set in the projections.

The actual performance can be compared to projections only after the project is in

operation and actual results of operation are available, hence this sub-module will be

activated only when the project has been in operation for at least 1 year.

• Past financial performance: This sub-module involves an in-depth analysis of the

past financial performance of the borrower. This sub-module will be activated only after

the project has been in operation for certain period of time. The time will be determined

individually for each project based on the time envisaged initially by the borrower for the

project to achieve break-even status.

4.6.1 Future projections

The borrower will repay the obligations relating to the loan (interest and principal) in the

future from the cash flows generated by the business in the future. Since the credit rating

model is cash flow based, it becomes imperative to ascertain the future levels of cash

generation of the borrower by preparing projected financial statements (income

statement, balance sheet and cash flow statements).

The projections must capture the expected earnings potential and the future level of cash

generation of the borrower. The credit officer should closely look at some of the

67

following parameters, as well as industry dynamics and macro economy factors, while

making a set of financial projections:

• Assumptions for increase in occupancy rate/booking rate for commercial property

and housing property respectively.

• Impact of changes in sales price;

• Impact of regulatory changes;

• Assumptions on construction costs which will also include contractual obligations

to the contractor;

• Future funding sources - debt or internal accruals, and the consequent levels of

gearing;

• Future share holding pattern.

It should be noted that the above is only an illustrative list and not an exhaustive one.

Specific parameters will need to be considered which may be different from project to

project for e.g. assumption for the escalation of lease rentals year-on-year basis.

The projected set of financial statements prepared by the credit officer or supplied by the

developer should form the ‘base case’ scenario, i.e. a situation that incorporates the most

possible outcomes on the key variables affecting the macro economic environment, the

industry and the project. The base case projections prepared for the future should be

subjected to ‘stress testing’ or ‘sensitivity analysis’ to ascertain the degree of variance

under ‘key variables’. This assesses the maximum ‘downside’ possibility of the

borrower’s repayment ability and thus allows the credit officer to take a comprehensive

view on the risk involved in sanctioning a loan for the project.

Sensitivity analysis also becomes more important in view of the fact that borrowers exist

in a dynamic external environment. Due to the industry dynamics and macro economic

factors, sudden changes take place in the external environment which can have either

positive or negative effects on the performance of any project / organisation. This would

result in a substantial change in the borrower’s financial performance, and these changes

would alter the future level of cash generation of the borrower and thus its ability to repay

debt obligations, either partly or completely.

‘Sensitivity analysis’ can be done on the following parameters:

• Expected occupancy rate/booking rate

68

• Expected revenue generated through lease/advance booking.

The most conservative set of projected of financials prepared by the credit officer after

performing such sensitivity analysis will form the ‘worst case’ scenario.

After the projections have been prepared, they should be assessed on the following

parameters (for base case and worst case):

• Cash flow (‘CF’) adequacy; and

• Capitalisation / Solvency.

In these parameters the following ratios need to be computed:

Table 1: Ratios for parameters for base case projections

Parameter Ratio Scale

CF adequacy CF Interest Coverage Ratio (‘ICR’) (average)

CF Debt Service Coverage Ratio (‘DSCR’)

(average)

0-4

0-12

Capitalisation /

Solvency

TDE 0-8

Table 2: Ratios for parameters for worst-case projections

Parameter Ratio Scale

CF adequacy CF DSCR (average) 0-12

Capitalisation /

Solvency

TDE 0-4

If the CF DSCR computed for the ‘base case’ or ‘worse case’ scenarios for any year is

less than 1 then the project should be rejected. Further, if in any subsequent appraisal the

projected / actual CF DSCR for any year is less than 1 then, it should act as an ‘exit filter’

for the loan. The formulae for computing these ratios have been defined subsequently.

The scoring of these ratios is to be done as per the scales provided in Annexure 6A. The

sum of the scores of all the ratios will constitute the score for the sub-module.

69

4.6.2 Actuals versus projections

The objective of undertaking the exercise of the comparison of the actual financial

performance with past projections is to enable the credit officer to understand the

achievement of the targets set by the borrower for the latest financial year. The credit

officer should compare the actual financial performance of the borrower to the

projections prepared by IDBI The comparison of the projections to actual financial

performance would enable the credit officer to ascertain deviations from the projections

and the reasons for the deviations. The comparison should be done on the following

parameters

• Achievement of revenues;

• Achievement of profitability;

• Capitalisation / Solvency;

• CF adequacy; and

• Liquidity and activity.

Since the deviations in these parameters are to be ascertained, the following ratios need to

be worked out on the above parameters:

70

Table: Ratios for parameters for comparison of actuals with projections

Parameter Ratio Scale

Achievement of revenues Actual revenues / Projected revenues 0-8

Achievement of Profitability

(EBIDTA margin, NPM,

RoCE)

Actual EBIDTA margin / Projected

EBIDTA margin

Actual NPM / Projected NPM

Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE

0-8

0-4

0-8

Capitalisation / Solvency

(TDE)

Actual TDE / Projected TDE 0-12

CF adequacy

(CF ICR, CF DSCR)

Actual CF ICR / Projected CF ICR

Actual CF DSCR / Projected CF DSCR

0-4

0-12

Liquidity CR Actual CR / Projected CR

0-4

0-4

0-4

0-4

The unit of measurement for all the ratios is ‘times’.

The parameters should be scored as per the scales given in Annexure 6B. The sum of the

scores of all the ratios will constitute the score for the sub-module.

71

4.6.3 Past financial performance

As mentioned earlier, the past financial analysis section will be activated only after the

project has achieved break-even status. The sub-module comprises the following

parameters:

• Growth in revenues;

• Profitability;

• Capitalisation / Solvency;

• CF adequacy; and

• Liquidity and activity ratios

In these parameters the following ratios need to be computed:

Table 3: Ratios for parameters for analysis of past financial performance

Parameter Ratio Scale

Growth in

revenues/ Gross

profit/ NOCF

CAGR growth for the past 3 years – revenue

Gross profit

NOCF

0-8

0-8

0-8

Profitability EBIDTA Margin

NPM

RoCE

0-8

0-4

0-8

Capitalisation /

Solvency

TDE

Contingent Liabilities / Total Tangible Net Worth

(‘CLTNW’)

0-12

0-4

CF adequacy CF ICR

CF DSCR

0-4

0-12

72

Liquidity and

activity ratios

Current Ratio

Average Receivables Days

Average Payables Days

Average Inventory Days

0-4

0-4

0-4

0-4

After picking the ratios for the last three years, the credit officer should observe the trend

in the ratios (trend analysis must be done for all ratios, other than CLTNW, CF ICR and

CF DSCR). If a ratio like NPM has been declining constantly, then the latest financial

year’s ratio should be picked for scoring. If there has been an increasing trend, then the

average ratio of the last three years should be taken, as a conservative measure. If there

is no trend, then the last financial year’s ratio should be taken. This method should be

applied for all ratios in this sub-module, except for the following ratios, where the exact

opposite should be done TDE;

− Average Receivables Days; and

− Average Inventory Days.

For example, if the TDE shows a decreasing trend, then the average ratio of the last 3

years should be taken as a conservative measure. If there is an increasing trend or if there

is no trend, then the last year’s ratio should be considered.

− After this process is completed, the credit officer is now ready to score the

borrower on ‘Past financial performance’ sub-module. All formulae for ratios

mentioned in this sub-module are provided subsequently.

The scales for scoring the above parameters is given in Annexure 6C. The sum of the

scores of all the parameters will constitute the score for the sub-module.

IDBI has fixed benchmarks for certain ratios, outlined in the following table:

73

4.6.4 Definition of ratios for all sub-modules

Profitability

Ratio 1 - Earnings before Interest, Depreciation, Tax and Amortisation Margin

The EBIDTA assesses the profitability of the main operations of the borrower, arising

from the income from the primary sources of revenue. Non-operating income like

investment income is not taken into account, as it is not a sustainable and stable source of

income. The level of operations of the project and the level of competition existing in the

industry are some of the factors, which influence this ratio.

The EBIDTA also captures the cost structure of a borrower for all cost items except

interest, depreciation, taxes and amortisations. This can help the credit officer assess the

cost efficiency of the operations of the borrower and benchmark it to either industry

standards or against other borrowers for comparison. A borrower may be able to

command a significant premium for its products and services in the market, but an

inefficient cost structure will restrict the borrower’s profitability. For example, Air India

charges approximately Rs 50,000 for a round-trip ticket, economy class, for the Mumbai-

London-Mumbai sector. Its competitors such as Air France or Lufthansa sometimes

charge a lower fare for the same sector on the same class, but are more profitable than Air

India which is a loss making airline. The reason is that Air India is saddled with un-

economic capacities, a large work force and old aircraft (resulting in high maintenance

expenses), all of which have resulted in a high cost of sales. This ratio is computed as

follows:

EBIDTA margin

={Operating profit before interest, depreciation and tax} X 100

Operating income

Operating income includes revenue generated from the main operations of the borrower

i.e. revenues from sales / turnover / services and other related income, net of excise duty.

The unit for measurement of the EBIDTA margin is ‘percentage’.

74

Ratio 2 – Net Profit Margin

The NPM assesses the total profitability of the operations of the borrower, after providing

for interest, depreciation and taxes. It provides a measure of net profits earned as a

percentage of the revenues. In that sense the NPM is very similar to the EBIDTA

margin. The key differences in these two ratios are:

• In the EBIDTA margin only operating revenues are considered for assessing

profitability, whereas in the NPM all sources of income (both operating and non-

operating) are considered for assessing profitability; and

• In the EBIDTA margin, operating revenues before providing for interest,

depreciation, tax and amortisation are considered, whereas in the NPM earnings after

providing interest, depreciation, tax and amortisation will be considered.

The NPM hence provides a measure of the final profits earned by the borrower after

meeting all liabilities and expenses. This ratio is computed as follows:

NPM =

Profit after tax

(Operating income + Non-operating income)

75

The unit for measurement of the NPM is ‘percentage’.

Ratio 3 - Return on Capital Employed

The RoCE is one of the most important parameters of profitability. It assesses the return

on the ‘investment’ made in the borrower’s business by the main stakeholders who

provide capital i.e. the shareholders and the lenders (banks or financial institutions).

Ideally, the RoCE should be more than the weighted average cost of capital for the

borrower. Only if it is more than the weighted average cost of capital, then the suppliers

of capital can hope for adequate level of rewards from investing in the borrower’s

business. If the RoCE is lower than the cost of capital, the business is not generating

enough returns for the amount of capital invested. It represents an opportunity loss for

the capital providers, as the business does not generate enough value for adequate returns.

This ratio is computed as follows:

RoCE

= {Profit after tax + (Interest X (1-Tax Rate1))} X 100

(Debt + Total Tangible Net Worth)

For computation of the above ratio, the term ‘Debt’ and ‘Total Tangible Net Worth’ must

be computed as follows:

Debt

− Long term debt including preference share capital, debentures, foreign currency term

loans and all other term loans (repayable after twelve months);

− Short term debt including fixed deposits, inter-corporate borrowings and loans /

advances from affiliate companies and subsidiaries; and

− Bank borrowings or cash credit.

76

Debt

= Long term debt + Short term debt + Bank borrowings /

cash credit

Total Tangible Net Worth (‘Equity’)

− Ordinary paid-up share capital (including share application money);

− Amount of capital subsidy;

− Premium on issue of shares;

- Free reserves (including surplus in profit and loss account) less accumulated losses,

assets of an intangible nature of expenditure not written off (for example, goodwill,

preliminary / miscellaneous expenditure); and

- Any other reserves.

Total tangible

net worth

=

Equity share capital + Reserves – Accumulated losses –

Intangible assets

The unit for measurement of the RoCE ratio is ‘percentage’.

Capitalisation / Solvency

Ratio 1 - Total Debt / Equity ratio

The overall objective in determining the total debt equity ratio is to ensure that there is a

proper balance between the owned funds and borrowed funds and that there is no eroding

impact on the profitability by disproportionate burden of long term debt. This ratio is the

most important parameter of solvency because it captures the capitalisation or the level of

‘gearing’ of the borrower. The level of gearing indicates the level of financial risk faced

by the borrower on account of the level of debt employed by the firm. A high level of

77

debt can lead to high gearing which is financially risky, as the borrower would have to

service fixed obligations on the debt taken (in the form of interest or principal)

irrespective of whether the business is making a profit or a loss.

The Total Debt / Equity Ratio, has been developed for IDBI considers total long term and

short term debt and all current liabilities are also included in the figure of total debt. This

is a conservative stand because in the event of liquidation, the borrower will have to

repay all the outside liabilities, including debt from banks and outstanding on account of

payables or other liabilities from the total tangible net worth of the company. This ratio

is computed as follows:

TDE

= Total Debt

Equity

‘Total Debt’ includes ‘Debt’ as defined earlier plus any other outside liabilities and

provisions. ‘Equity’ means the same as ‘Total Tangible Net Worth’.

The unit of measurement for this ratio is ‘times’.

Ratio 2 – Contingent liabilities / Total tangible net worth

A borrower can have two main types of liabilities. Liabilities, which have accrued and

are repayable immediately or at some point of time in the future, are shown in the balance

sheet on the liabilities side. There are other liabilities, which may or may not devolve

upon the borrower in the future, which are called contingent liabilities. Some examples

of these liabilities can be guarantees given, tax claims under dispute etc. If a contingent

liability devolves on the borrower, then the borrower’s tangible net worth might be

reduced to the extent of the amount of the contingent liability. The Bank might not want

a situation where a contingent liability devolving upon the borrower erodes the entire

tangible net worth of the borrower. This ratio measures the amount of contingent

liabilities as a proportion of the total tangible net worth.

This ratio is computed as follows:

78

CLTNW

= Contingent liabilities

Total Tangible Net

Worth

The unit of measurement for this ratio is ‘times’.

Cash flow adequacy

Ratio 1 - Cash flow interest coverage ratio

This ratio calculates the cash coverage for interest payments generated from the

operations of the project. Here cash flow from operations is taken in the numerator and

the amount of interest paid is taken in the denominator. The amount of interest paid may

be different from the amount of interest charged in the Profit and Loss Account as the

amount of interest paid may include interest paid in the current financial year, relating to

accruals in the previous financial year. To compute the average CF ICR for the entire

period of the loan, sum of the cash flow from operations for each year is taken in the

numerator and the sum of the amount of interest paid during the tenure of the loan is

taken in the denominator. The average CF ICR is only required for scoring the parameter

on Cash flow adequacy in the ‘Future projections’ sub-module.

These ratios are computed as follows:

CF ICR (annual)

= Net Operating Cash Flow (‘NOCF’)

Interest paid

CF ICR (average)

=

Total interest paid during the tenure of the loan

‘n’ is the year in which the loan is due for repayment

∑(NOCF1 ) n

79

For computation of the above ratio ‘NOCF’ must be computed as follows: NOCF

=

Operating inflow – Operating outflows

Operating inflows includes sales and other related income (net of changes in receivables).

Operating outflows includes cost of goods sold (after adjustment for changes in working

capital, other than receivables) and taxes paid.

The unit for measurement of this ratio is ‘times’.

Ratio 2 - Cash flow debt service coverage ratio

This ratio calculates the cash coverage for the entire debt obligation, generated by the

cash from the operations of the borrower. Here, cash flow from operations is taken in the

numerator and the amount of interest paid and the amount of debt repaid (for all types of

loans) is taken in the denominator. If at the time of the initial appraisal the projected CF

DSCR for any year is less than 1 then the proposal should be rejected.

To compute the average CF DSCR for the entire period of the loan, sum of the cash flow

from operations for each year is taken in the numerator and the sum of the amount of debt

repayments and interest paid during the tenure of the loan is taken in the denominator.

The average CF DSCR is only required for scoring the parameter on Cash flow adequacy

in the ‘Future projections’ sub-module.

These ratios are computed as follows:

CF DSCR (annual)

= NOCF

(Long term debts repaid + Short term debts repaid

+ Interest paid)

∑(NOCF1 )

n

80

CF DSCR (average)

=

(Total debts repaid during the tenure of the loan +

Total interest paid during the tenure of the loan)

‘n’ is the year in which the loan is due for repayment

The unit for measurement of this ratio is ‘times’.

.

Liquidity and activity ratios

Ratio 1 - Current ratio

Any business requires free cash flow to survive and conduct its daily operations, and also

for future capital expansion. Inflows from receivables, payments to suppliers, and

inventory holdings determine the levels of liquidity in any organisation. It is crucial to

maintain good levels of liquidity in order to serve the operational needs of the business.

Some businesses are working capital intensive, and have long receivables periods, while

some hold high inventory levels due to the uncertain nature of customer demands. To

fund working capital requirements, many borrowers approach banks, which give them

finance in the form of cash credit, which has a cost in terms of interest. Some indicators,

which can give an idea about the levels of liquidity prevalent in the business, are current

and quick ratios. The credit rating model uses the current ratio as a measure of liquidity.

The current ratio is an important measure of liquidity as it measures a borrower’s ability

to meet short-term obligations. It compares short-term obligations (or current liabilities)

to short term resources (or current assets) available to meet these obligations. A lot of

insight can be obtained about the immediate cash solvency of the borrower and the

81

borrower’s ability to remain solvent in the event of adversity, by the use of the current

ratio. Generally, a high current ratio indicates a high level of liquidity for the borrower.

Banks in India have fixed a benchmark of 1.33 times for an indicative current ratio, based

on the Tandon Committee Recommendations. However, different industries have

different levels of current ratios, and the credit officer should compare the borrower’s

current ratio with the industry average for a more accurate assessment.

This ratio is computed as follows:

CR

= Current assets

Current liabilities

Current assets mainly comprise inventories (raw material, work-in-process, finished

goods and stores and spares), receivables (also called debtors) and other items like cash

and bank balances, loans and advances to subsidiaries and affiliate companies etc.

Current assets

= Inventories + Receivables + Cash and bank balances +

Loans and advances + Other current assets

Current liabilities mainly comprise bank borrowings / cash credit, payables (or creditors),

other liabilities like security deposits; payments accrued to government agencies etc and

provisions such as provision for tax and dividend.

Current

liabilities

= Bank borrowings / cash credit + Payables + Interest

accrued + Advances / deposits received + Other current

liabilities + Provisions

The unit of measurement of this ratio is ‘times’.

Ratio 2 - Average Receivables Days

This ratio measures the quality of the borrower’s receivables and the success of the

borrower in collections. The credit officer can also gauge the bargaining power of the

borrower with customers, as the ratio indicates the type of credit terms offered to

82

customers. A borrower with a high level of bargaining power may be able to offer

stringent credit terms to customers and vice versa. The ratio indicates the amount of time

(in days) that the receivables are outstanding, before they are collected. For example, an

average receivables collections period of 30 days means that on an average the

receivables are collected only after 30 days after the date of sale. The ratio takes into

account the average level of receivables for the calculation of the ratio, as the year-end

receivables figure may not be representative of the level of the receivables during the

course of the financial year. This ratio is computed as follows:

Average Receivables Days

=

{(Opening balance of receivables + Closing

balance of receivables) / 2} X 365

(Gross sales + Traded sales)

The unit of measurement for this ratio is ‘days’.

Ratio 3 - Average Payables Days

This ratio measures the promptness of the payment made by the borrower to suppliers of

raw materials and stores. It can also enable the credit officer to gauge the bargaining

power of the borrower with its suppliers, in terms of the credit terms enjoyed. A

borrower with a high level of bargaining power may be able to enjoy a high level of

credit from its suppliers and vice versa. The ratio takes into account the average level of

payables for the calculation of the ratio, as the year-end payables figure may not be

representative of the level of payables during the course of the financial year.

This ratio is computed as follows:

Average payables2 days

=

{(Opening balance of payables + Closing balance

of payables) / 2} X 365

Raw materials and stores consumed

83

The unit of measurement for this ratio is ‘days’.

Ratio 4 – Average Inventory Days

This ratio measures the effectiveness of the borrower’s management of inventory. The

ratio indicates the amount of time (in days) that the borrower holds inventories, right

from the time the raw materials are purchased till the time the finished goods are sold.

For example, an average inventories holding period of 30 days means that the inventory

is held for 30 days, from the time raw material is purchased till the time it is converted

into finished goods and sold in the market. Generally, a lower inventory-holding period

indicates a faster manufacturing or conversion cycle for the borrower. The borrower also

avoids the risk of obsolescence or perishability by holding the inventories for a shorter

period of time. A lower period also indicates that the borrower’s reliance on working

capital for inventories is low, thus increasing the financial flexibility for the borrower.

The ratio takes into account the average level of inventories for the calculation of the

ratio, as the year-end inventories figure may not be representative of the level of the

inventories during the course of the financial year. This ratio is computed as follows:

Average inventory days

=

{(Opening balance of inventories + Closing balance

of inventories) / 2} X 365

Cost of sales

The unit of measurement for this ratio is ‘days’.

84

5. THE GRADING SYSTEM USED BY THE CREDIT RATING MODEL

A 13 grade grading system is used in IDBI and the same has been used for this credit

rating model. The grading system uses a 100-point scale, starting from 0 and ending in

100. Alphabetical symbols are used to denote each risk grade. For ease of comparison,

the entire system has been compartmentalised into three categories. These categories are:

• Accept or grow; • Hold or reject or monitor closely; and • Exit or reject.

The distribution of grades within each category is as follows: Category Number of grades

Accept or Grow Eight Grades

Hold or reject One Grade

Exit Four Grades

Category Grade Score Range

Accept or grow PAAA+ 85-100

PAAA 81-84

PAA+ 78-80

PAA 75-77

PAA- 72-74

PA+ 69-71

85

PA 65-68

PA- 60-64

Hold / Reject / Close Monitoring PB 45-59

Exit (not under default) PC 35-44

Exit (default) PD+ 31-34

PD 21-30

PD- 00-20

Grade Definition

PAAA+

Excellent credit quality, with negligible number risk factors, not at all materiali in nature. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PAAA Very good credit quality, with the number of risk factors only marginally higher than those for loans facilities in the AAA+ grade. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PAA+ Good credit quality, with an acceptable number of risk factors, not at all material in nature. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long termii.

PAA Good credit quality, with the number of risk factors only marginally higher than those for loan facilities in the AA+ grade. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PAA- Reasonably good credit quality, with a tolerable number of risk factors, not at all material in nature. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PA+ Adequate credit quality, with a few risk factors, though not highly material in nature. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PA Adequate credit quality, with the number of risk factors marginally higher than those for loan facilities in the A+ grade. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be reasonably assured in the long term.

PA- Adequate credit quality, with a high number of risk factors, some of which may turn out to be material in nature. Timely servicing of debt obligations can be

86

reasonably assured in the long term.

PB Inadequate credit quality, with a high number of risk factors, which may turn out to be material in nature. Though the servicing of debt obligations may be reasonably assured, the level of severity of materiality of the risk factors may impair the servicing of debt obligations in the medium term.

PC Inadequate credit quality, with a very high number of risk factors, which may turn out to be material in nature. Though the servicing of debt obligations in the short term may be reasonably assured, the high level of severity of materiality of the risk factors can impair the servicing of debt obligations in the medium or long term.

PD+ Bad credit quality, with a very high number of risk factors, which are material in nature. The materiality of these risk factors has led / can lead to default on the servicing of debt obligations. However in case of default, the probability of recovery is high.

PD Poor credit quality, with a very high number of risk factors, which are material in nature. The materiality of these risk factors has led / can lead to default on the servicing of debt obligations. However, the probability of recovery is moderate.

PD- Extremely poor credit quality, with an extremely high number of risk factors, which are highly material in nature. The materiality of these risk factors has led / can lead to default on the servicing of debt obligations and the probability of recovery is also very low.

87

6. ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1: SCALES FOR THE INDUSTRY MODULE

1. Regulatory framework and government policies

• Scale to be used for the scoring of the main and each parameter.

• Final score for the main parameter will be obtained as a mean of the scores for all sub-parameters.

Description Score

Favourable to the sector 16

Neutral effect on the sector 8

Unfavourable to the sector 0

2. Cascading effect of output from industries

• Scale to be used for the scoring of the main and each parameter.

• Final score for the main parameter will be obtained as a mean of the scores for all sub-parameters.

Description Score

High 4

Moderate 3

Low 2

Very low 0

3. Cyclicality of the sector (‘C’)

Description Score

C > 6 (Low) 4

3 < C < = 6 (Moderate) 2

C < = 3 (High) 0

4. Industry financials

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Profitability’

EBIDTA margin

IDBI benchmark for EBIDTA margin ‘25%’

If EBIDTA margin is > = 25% 4

18.75% < = EBIDTA margin < 25%

3

12.5% < = EBIDTA margin < 18.75%

2

0 < EBIDTA margin < 12.5% 1

EBIDTA margin < = 0% 0

Net profit margin (NPM)

IDBI benchmark for NPM ‘X=10%’

If NPM is > = X% 4

75% of X < = NPM < X% 3

50% of X < = NPM < 75% of X 2

0 < NPM < 50% of X 1

NPM < = 0% 0

Return on Capital Employed (RoCE)

IDBI benchmark for RoCE ‘12.5%’

If RoCE is > = 12.5% 4

9.38% < = RoCE < 12.5% 3

6.25% < = RoCE < 9.38% 2

0 < RoCE < 6.25% 1

RoCE < = 0% 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Solvency’

Total Debt / Equity (TDE)

IDBI benchmark for TDE ‘1.5’ times

If TDE is < = 1.5 times 4

2.25 times > = TDE > 1.5 times 3

3 times > = TDE > 2.25 times 2

3.75 times > = TDE > 3 times 1

TDE > 3.75 times 0

• Liquidity

Current ratio (CR)

IDBI benchmark for CR level ‘1.33’ times

If CR is > = 1.33 times 4

1.2 times < = CR < 1.33 times 3

1 times < = CR < 1.2 times 2

0 < CR < 1 times 0

• Final score for the main parameter will be obtained as a mean of the scores for all sub-parameters.

Description Score

High score 4

3

Moderate score 2

1

Low score 0

5. Industry Structure

• Scale to be used for the scoring of the 'Unorganised market structure' parameter

Description Score

Absence of parallel or unorganised market structure

3

Presence of unorganised market structure

0

• Scale to be used for the scoring of the 'Extent of Competition' parameter

Description Score

Low competition 3

Moderate competition 2

High competition 0-1

• Final score for the main parameter will be obtained as a sum of the scores for all sub-parameters.

6. Demand-supply gap

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter

Description Score

Positive demand-supply gap 12

Moderate demand-supply gap 6

Negative demand-supply gap 0

7. Volatility of raw material prices

Description Score

Low volatility 4

Moderate volatility 2

High volatility 0

ANNEXURE 2: SCALES FOR THE PROMOTER MODULE

1. ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL HEALTH OF PROMOTER

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Profitability’

EBIDTA margin

Average EBIDTA margin of the industry ‘14.23’ %

If EBIDTA margin is > = X% 4

75% of X < = EBIDTA margin < X%

3

50% of X < = EBIDTA margin < 75% of X

2

0 < EBIDTA margin < 50% of X 1

EBIDTA margin < = 0% 0

NPM

Average NPM of the industry ‘3.75’ %

If NPM is > = X% 4

75% of X < = NPM < X% 3

50% of X < = NPM < 75% of X 2

0 < NPM < 50% of X 1

NPM < = 0 0

Return on Capital Employed (RoCE)

IDBI benchmark for RoCE ‘12.5%’

If RoCE is > = X% 4

75% of X < = RoCE < X% 3

50% of X < = RoCE < 75% of X 2

0 < RoCE < 50% of X 1

RoCE < = 0 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Solvency’

Total Debt / Equity (TDE)

Average TDE of the industry ‘1.5’ times

If TDE is < = X times 4

1.5 times X > = TDE > X times 3

2 times X > = TDE > 1.5 times X

2

2.5 times X > = TDE > 2 times X

1

TDE > 2.5 times X 0

Contingent Liabilities / Total Tangible Net Worth

Description Score

If coverage is < = 0.25 times 4

0.50 times > = coverage > 0.25 times

3

0.75 times > = coverage > 0.50 times

2

1 times < = coverage > 0.75 times

1

Coverage > 1 times 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Cash flow adequacy’

Net Operating Cash flow to Interest Paid (CF ICR)

IDBI benchmark for CF ICR ‘2’ times

If CF ICR is > = 2 times 4

1.7 times < = CF ICR < 2 times 3

1.3 times < = CF ICR < 1.7 times

2

1 times < = CF ICR < 1.3 times 1

CF ICR < 1 times 0

Net Operating Cash Flow to Debt Obligations Paid (CF DSCR)

IDBI benchmark for CF DSCR ‘1.5’ times

If CF DSCR is > = 2 times 4

1.7 times < = CF DSCR < 2 times

3

1.3 times < = CF DSCR < 1.7 times

2

1 times < = CF DSCR < 1.3 times

1

CF DSCR < 1 time 0

The score for this parameter will be computed in the following manner:

• The rounded-off arithmetic mean of the EBIDTA margin, NPM and RoCE will constitute the score for Profitability;

• The rounded-off arithmetic mean of the TDE and CLTNW will constitute the score for Solvency; and

• The rounded-off arithmetic mean of the CF ICR and CF DSCR will constitute the score for CF adequacy.

Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as a sum of the scores for Profitability, Solvency and Cash flow adequacy. Description Score

High score 12

11

10

9

8

7

Moderate score 6

5

4

3

2

1

Low score 0

2. Group performance

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Non -performing companies within the group’ and ‘Companies with a negative net worth’

Description Score

Does not exist 4

Exists 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Financial position of the flagship company / companies of the group’

The scales for scoring the ratios used for assessing the financial health of the Flagship Company / companies have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘1. Analysis of financial health of promoter’.

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

7

6

5

Moderate score 4

3

2

1

Low score 0

1. Project management skills

• Adherence to time schedules of the past and the ongoing projects Description Score

Successful implementation of projects (without significant overrun)

4

Successful implementation with either cost or time overrun

2

Successful implementation with both cost and time overrun

1

Unsuccessful implementation 0

• Usage of scientific tools viz. Work break down method, PERT/CPM and MS Project. Description Score

Usage of tools 2

Tools not used 0

• Composition of projects undertaken: This will capture experience of developer in undertaking complex and varied construction projects.

Description Score

Different nature of projects undertaken

2

Not undertaken 0

• Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as a sum of the scores for the above parameters.

2. Relevance of experience to project

• Scale to be used for scoring 'Number of similar types of the projects'.

Description Score

More than one similar project undertaken

3

No such project undetaken 0

• Scale to be used for scoring 'Number projects in the city'.

Description Score

More than one project undertaken

3

First project in the city 0

• Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as a sum of the scores for the above parameters.

Description Score

High level of experience to project

6

Moderate relevance of experience to project

3

Low relevance of experience to project

0

3. Strategic initiatives in the past

Description Score

High 2

Moderate 1

Low / absent 0

4. Group strategy and commitment to project

Description Score

Project undertaken in an industry which is a core line of business for the promoter group

4

Project undertaken in an industry which is a secondary thrust area for the promoter group

2

Project undertaken in an industry which is different from the core line of business of the promoter group

0

5. Conduct of promoter’s account

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Timely payment of interest and principal to IDBI’

Description Score

On time 8

Delayed 4

Not paid 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Payments to other financial institutions / banks’

Description Score

Satisfactory 8

Not satisfactory (adverse remark by existing bankers’)

0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scor ing each sub-parameter

Description Score

Good conduct 8

7

6

5

Average conduct 4

3

2

1

Poor conduct 0

8. Past Project Quality record

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Quality standard being followed.

Description Score

Construction based on BIS standards along with the ISO certification

4

Only one of the standards either BIS or ISO being followed

2

Standards not followed 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Any other Quality initiative undertaken,.

Description Score

Quality initiative undertake n 4

No such initiative 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter. Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as a sum of the scores for the above parameters

Description Score

Good quality 8

7

6

5

Average quality 4

3

2

1

Poor quality 0

9. Reputation

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Litigations/disputes’ parameter

Description Score

No litigations 8

No. of litigations decreased over the previous year

4

No. of litigation increased over the previous year

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Stay order’ parameter

Description Score

No stay order 2

One more than one stay order 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Market position’ parameter

No. of projects (NP) for Market Leader ‘X’

If NP is > = X% 6

75% of X < = NP < X% 4

50% of X < = NP< 75% of X 2

0 < NP < 50% of X 1

NP < = 0 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter. Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as a mean of the sum of scores for the ‘stay order’ and ‘market position’ parameters and ‘litigation’ parameter.

Description Score

Good reputation 8

7

6

5

Average reputation 4

3

2

1

Poor reputation 0

ANNEXURE 3: SCALES FOR THE MANAGEMENT QUALITY MODULE

1. Technical expertise of key personnel

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Qualifications of key personnel’

Description Score

Highly qualified 6

Adequate qualifications 4

Inadequate qualifications 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Hands-on experience of key personnel’

Description Score

Very high (> 5 yrs) 6

High (2 – 5 yrs) 4

Moderate (< 2 yrs) 2

Absent 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter. Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as sum of scores for the sub parameters.

Description Score

High score 12

Moderate score 6

Low score 0

2. Presence of collaboration / joint venture

Description Score

Presence of collaboration / joint venture

4

Absence of collaboration / joint venture

0

3. Organisation structure

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Well defined policy present 4

Policy absent 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 4

3

Moderate score 2

1

Low score 0

4. Corporate governance

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Initiative taken 2

Absence of initiative 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

7

6

5

Moderate score 4

3

2

1

Low score 0

5. Diversion of funds

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Absent 8

Taken place with consent 4

Taken place without consent 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

7

6

5

Moderate score 4

3

2

1

Low score 0

6. Transactions with group companies

Description Score

No transactions with group companies

2

Transactions at arm’s length with group companies

2

Transactions not at arm’s length with group companies

0

7. Conduct of borrower’s account

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

On time 8

Delayed 2

Not paid / provided 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

Good conduct 8

7

6

5

Average conduct 4

3

2

1

Poor conduct 0

8. Labour and employee relations

Description Score

Low attrition rate 4

Moderate attrition rate 2

High attrition rate 0

9. Honouring of commitments

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Honoured on time 8

Honoured but delayed 2

Not honoured 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

7

6

5

Moderate score 4

3

2

1

Low score 0

10. Quality of financial statements

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Transparency of accounts, which is reflected in the extent and level of disclosures made in the financial statements’

Description Score

High level of transparency 4

Moderate level of transparency

2

Low level of transparency 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Presence of qualifications in auditors’ report’

Description Score

No qualification 4

Other qualification 2

Qualification due to non-compliance with accounting standards

0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

Good quality of financial statements

4

3

Average quality of financial statements

2

1

Poor quality of financial statements

0

11. Foreign exchange management policy

Description Score

Presence of well defined foreign exchange management policy

2

Absence of foreign exchange exposure (leading to absence of foreign exchange management policy)

2

Absence of well defined foreign exchange management policy despite having foreign exchange exposure

0

ANNEXURE 4a: SIGNIFICANT PROJECT PARTY – CIVIL CONTRACTOR

1. Technical expertise and past track record

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Technical qualifications’

Description Score

Highly qualified 6

Adequate qualifications 4

Inadequate qualifications 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Hands -on experience in the past’

Description Score

Very high (> = 5 yrs) 6

High (2 – 5 yrs) 4

Moderate (< 2 yrs) 2

No prior experience 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 12

Moderate score 6

Low score 0

2. Financial health

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Financial position of the contractor’

The scales for scoring the ratios used for assessing the financial health of the Flagship Company / companies have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘1. Analysis of financial health of promoter’.

3. Basis of selection

Description Score

Competitive bidding 2

Preferential basis 0

4. Quality of EPC contract

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Bankable contract’

Description Score

Satisfactory (Enforceable, with remote possibility of future litigation / conflict)

4

Tolerable (Enforceable, with moderate possibility of future litigation / conflict)

2

Unsatisfactory (Enforceable, with high possibility of future litigation / conflict)

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Balanced contract’

Description Score

Satisfactory (All significant risks transferred / mitigated)

4

Tolerable (Few significant risks transferred / mitigated)

2

Unsatisfactory (None of the significant risks transferred / mitigated

0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

6

Moderate score 4

2

Low score 0

5. Terms of payment

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Favourable 4

Tolerable 2

Unfavourable 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 4

3

Moderate score 2

1

Low score 0

6. Project Management Skills

• The scales for scoring the Project Management Skills have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘3.Project Management Skills of promoter’.

o Past Quality Record

• The scales for scoring the Past Project Quality record have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘8.Past Project Quality record of promoter’.

6. Reputation

• The scales for scoring the Reputation have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘9. Reputation of promoter’.

9. Labour Relation

• Scale to be used for scoring parameter

Description Score

No dispute 6

No. of disputes decreased over the past 3 years years

4

No. of disputes increased over the past 3 years

0

ANNEXURE 4b: SIGNIFICANT PROJECT PARTY – Architect/Consultant

1. Technical expertise and past track record

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Technical qualifications’

Description Score

Highly qualified 4

Adequate qualifications 2

Inadequate qualifications 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Hands -on experience in the past’

Description Score

Very high (> = 5 yrs) 4

High (2 – 5 yrs) 3

Moderate (< 2 yrs) 2

No prior experience 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

Moderate score 4

Low score 0

2. Past Achievement in the field

• Scale to be used for scoring the parameter.

Description Score

Any award or recognition 4

No award 0

3. Relevance of experience to project

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Nature of projects undertaken’

Description Score

Projects undertaken in the same industry

8

Projects undertaken in related / similar industries

4

Projects undertaken in industries unrelated to the industry in question

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Complexity of projects’

Description Score

High level of complexity 8

Moderate level of complexity 4

Low level of complexity 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High level of experience to project

8

7

6

5

Moderate relevance of experience to project

4

3

2

1

Low relevance of experience to project

0

ANNEXURE 5a: SCALES FOR PROJECT RISK MODULE -GENERAL

1. Clear Title of land

• Scale to be used for scoring parameter

Description Score

Land completely available 4

3

Land Partially available 2

1

Land not available 0

2. Price/Rental Risk

• Scale to be used for scoring Speculation parameter

Description Score

Speculation less than 10% of the demand

3

Speculation more than 30% of the demand

0

• Scale to be used for scoring Regulation parameter

Description Score

Regulation not relaxed 3

Regulation relaxed 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

• Finally the score for this parameter will be obtained as sum of scores for the sub parameters.

Description Score

No price risk 6

Moderately risk 3

Highly risky 0

3. Location of the project

Description Score

Favourable 6

Moderately favorable 3

Unfavourable 0

4. Cost of project

Description Score

Cost of project < Rupees 500 crores

2

Rupees 1000 crores > Cost of project > Rupees 500 crores

1

Cost of project > Rupees 1000 crores

0

5. Means of financing debt

Description Score

Debt wholly f inanced by financial institutions / banks

4

Upto 50 per cent of debt financed through secured / unsecured loans from group companies / affiliates / unrecognised institutions

2

Greater than 50 per cent of debt financed through unsecured loans from group companies / affiliates / unrecognised institutions

0

6. Vulnerability to force majeure risks

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

No vulnerability 4

Moderately vulnerable 2

Highly vulnerable 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

No vulnerability 4

3

Moderately vulnerable 2

1

Highly vulnerable 0

7. Nature of project

Description Score

Housing/ Township project 2

Lease based commercial project

0

8. Marketing strategy

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Nature of Product mix’

Description Score

Caters to more than two categories of customers

6

Caters to two or less than two categories of customers

3

Caters to single category of customer

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Pricing strategy’

Description Score

Pricing strategy superior to market

10

Pricing strategy similar to market

5

Pricing strategy inferior to market

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Promotional strategy’

Description Score

Promotional strategy in sync with the segmentation and targeting strategies

4

General promotional strategy i.e. commonly followed practices in the industry

2

Inferior promotional strategy 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 20

18

14

12

Moderate score 10

8

6

2

Low score 0

9. Systems for support facilities

Description Score

Superior support systems as compared to others

4

Average support systems as compared to others

2

Inferior support systems as compared to others

0

10. Reputation of the developer

Description Score

More than one successful project in the city

6

One project in the city 3

First project in the city 0

ANNEXURE 5b: SCALES FOR PROJECT RISK MODULE -Complexities

1. Complexity of design of project

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Topography and terrain in relation to project requirements’

Description Score

Uniform or even terrain 4

Uneven or rugged terrain 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘social factors’

Description Score

Negligible / mild social hazards

4

Causes moderate social hazard

2

Extreme social hazards 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Feasibility Analysis’

Description Score

Positive result of the feasibil ity analysis

4

Any concern raised over the feasibility

2

Negative result of the feasibility analysis

0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High level of design complexity 12

Average level of design complexity

6

Low level of design complexity

0

2. Extent of incompletion

Description Score

Construction fully complete (‘CFC’)

8

75% < = Construction completed < CFC (i.e. < 25% incomplete)

6

50% < = Construction completed < 75%

4

25% < = Construction completed < 50%

2

Construction not commenced or construction completed < 25%

0

3. Cost justification

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Comparison of cost determinants with other competitors in the same industr y’

Description Score

C < 0.90 times the cost incurred in another similar project

10

0.90 times the cost incurred in another similar project < = C < = 1.30 times the cost incurred in another similar project

5

C > 1.30 times the cost incurred in another similar project

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Comparison of occupancy level with other competitors in the same industry’

Description Score

O < 0.90 times the occupancy in another similar project

10

0.90 times the occupancy in another similar project < = O < = 1.30 times the occupancy in another similar project

5

C > 1.30 times the Occupancy in another similar project

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Comparison of escalation level of lease rental with other competitors in the same industry’

Description Score

EL < 0.90 times 10

0.90 times < = EL < = 1.30 times

5

EL > 1.30 times 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 10

Moderate score 5

Low score 0

4. Project IRR (compared to the cost of capital)

Description Score

IRR > cost of capital 4

IRR < cost of capital 0

ANNEXURE 5C: SCALES FOR THE PROJECT RISK MODULE - CONSTRUCTION

1. Clearance risk

Description Score

All clearances obtained 6

All the clearances not obtained

0

2. Quality

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Design as per seismic zones'

Description Score

As per standard 4

Not as per standards 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Construction as per BIS standard'

Description Score

As per standard 4

Not as per standards 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘ISO certification'

Description Score

Present 4

Absent 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 8

Moderate score 4

Low score 0

3. Control and safety systems

Extent of cost overrun Score

No accidents 4

Accidents 0

4. Cost overrun

Extent of cost overrun Score

No overrun 8

Cost overrun 0

5. Have cost overruns in the past been successfully funded?

Description Score

Fully funded 4

Partly funded 2

Not funded at all 0

6. Adherence to implementation schedule

Description Score

On time (no Delay) 6

Delay < = 10% of X 4

10% of X < delay < = 20% of X

2

20% of X < delay < = 30% of X

1

Delay > 30% of X 0

‘X’ is the total time to construct the project (in months), as originally planned. Delay in adhering to the implementation schedule should be expressed in terms of months.

7. Other results of reports from independent / lenders engin eers

Description Score

Satisfactory 4

Neutral 2

Unsatisfactory 0

8. Managing the price volatility

Description Score

Long term single price contract with the supplier

6

Long term floating price contract

3

No such contract 0

9. Infrastructure Availability

Description Score

Two or more than two approach roads to the construction site

6

One approach road 0

ANNEXURE 5D: SCALES FOR PROJECT RISK – PRINCIPAL ANCHOR

1. Past Financial Analysis

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Financial position'

The scales for scoring the ratios used for assessing the financial health of the Principal Anchor have been provided in Annexure 2, ‘1. Analysis of financial health of promoter’.

2. Tenure of the lease

Description Score

Tenure of lease more than tenure of the loan

8

Tenure of lease less, but the adjustment has been made for next lessee

4

Tenure of lease less than tenure of the loan, without any adjustment for the future

0

3. Market position

• Ratio of the Principal anchor's turnover to that of the market leader's.

Description Score

Ratio > = 1 4

0.75 < = Ratio < 1 3

0.50 < = Ratio < 0.75 2

0.25 < = Ratio < 0.5 1

0 < = Ratio < 0.25 0

• Ratio of the Principal anchor's market share to that of the market leader's.

Description Score

Ratio > = 1 4

0.75 < = Ratio < 1 3

0.50 < = Ratio < 0.75 2

0.25 < = Ratio < 0.5 1

0 < = Ratio < 0.25 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 4

Moderate score 2

sLow score 0

4. Honouring the commitments

• Scale to be used for scoring parameter

Description Score

Honoured on time 6

Honoured but delayed 3

Not honoured 0

ANNEXURE 5E: SCALES FOR PROJECT RISK - OPERATIONS

1. Actual Performance

• Scale to be used for scoring each performance criter ia

• Ratio of the lessee's operating ratio to that of the market leader's.

Description Score

Ratio > = 1 4

0.75 < = Ratio < 1 3

0.50 < = Ratio < 0.75 2

0.25 < = Ratio < 0.5 1

0 < = Ratio < 0.25 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 4

3

Moderate score 2

1

Low score 0

2. Clearances

• Scale to be used for scoring each individual statutory clearance

Description Score

Obtained 4

Not obtained 0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

High score 4

3

Moderate score 2

1

Low score 0

3. Comparison of projected occupancy levels with the projected

Description Score

If Actual / Projected > = 1 4

0.80 < = Actual / Projected < 1

3

0.60 < = Actual / Projected < 0.80

2

0.40 < = Actual / Projected < 0.60

1

Actual / Projected < 0.40 times 0

4. Quality assurance and initiatives

• Scale to be used for scoring each sub -parameter

Description Score

Major certification / initiatives taken

2

Normal certification / initiatives taken

1

No certification / initiatives taken

0

• Scale to be used for the final scoring of the main parameter after scoring each sub-parameter

Description Score

Major certification / initiatives taken

2

Normal certification / initiatives taken

1

No certification / initiatives taken

0

ANNEXURE 6A: SCALES FOR THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODULE – FUTURE PROJECTIONS (Base case)

1. Cash flow adequacy

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF ICR (average)’

IDBI benchmark for CF ICR ‘2’ times

If CF ICR is > = 2 times 4

1.7 times < = CF ICR < 2 times 3

1.3 times < = CF ICR < 1.7 times

2

1 times < = CF ICR < 1.3 times 1

CF ICR < 1 times 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF DSCR (average)’

IDBI benchmark for CF DSCR ‘2’ times

If CF DSCR is > 2 times 12

1.9 times < = CF DSCR < = 2 times

10

1.8 times < = CF DSCR < 1.9 times

9

1.7 times < = CF DSCR < 1.8 times

8

1.6 times < = CF DSCR < 1.7 times

7

1.5 times < = CF DSCR < 1.6 times

6

1.4 times < = CF DSCR < 1.5 times

5

1.3 times < = CF DSCR < 1.4 times

4

1.2 times < = CF DSCR < 1.3 times

3

1.1 times < = CF DSCR < 1.2 times

2

1 times < = CF DSCR < 1.1 times

1

CF DSCR is < 1 times 0

2. Total Debt / Equity

IDBI benchmark for TDE ‘1.5’ times

If TDE is < = 1.2 times 8

2.25 times > = TDE > 1.5 times 6

3 times > = TDE > 2.25 times 4

3.75 times > = TDE > 3 times 2

TDE > 3.75 times 0

ANNEXURE 6A: SCALES FOR THE

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODULE – FUTUREP ROJECTIONS (worst case)

1. Cash flow adequacy

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF DSCR (average)’

Description Score

If CF DSCR is > 2 times 12

1.4 times < = CF DSCR < 2 times

8

1 times < = CF DSCR < 1.4 times

4

CF DSCR is < 1 times 0

2. Total Debt / Equity

Description Score

If TDE is < = 1.5 times 4

3.75 times > = TDE > 1.5 times 2

TDE > 3.75 times 0

2

ANNEXURE 6B: SCALES FOR THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODULE – ACTUALS VS. PROJECTIONS

1. Achievement of revenues

Description Score

If Actual revenues / Projected revenues > = 1

8

0.90 < = Actual revenues / Projected revenues < 1

6

0.80 < = Actual revenues / Projected revenues < 0.90

4

0.60 < = Actual revenues / Projected revenues < 0.80

2

Actual revenues / Projected revenues < 0.60 times

0

2. Achievement of profitability

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘EBIDTA margin’

Description Score

If Actual EBIDTA margin/ Projected EBIDTA margin > = 1

8

0.90 < = Actual EBIDTA margin / Projected EBIDTA margin < 1

6

0.80 < = Actual EBIDTA margin / Projected EBIDTA margin < 0.90

4

0.60 < = Actual EBIDTA margin / Projected EBIDTA margin < 0.80

2

Actual EBIDTA margin / Projected EBIDTA margin < 0.60 times

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘NPM’ 3

Description Score

If Actual NPM / Projected NPM > = 1

4

0.90 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 1

3

0.80 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 0.90

2

0.60 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 0.80

1

Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 0.60 times

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘NPM’4

Description Score

If Actual NPM / Projected NPM < = 1

4

1 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 1.1

3

1.1 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 1.20

2

1.20 < = Actual NPM / Projected NPM < 1.40

1

Actual NPM / Projected NPM > 1.40 times

0

3 This scale is to be used if the Projected NPM > 0%. 4 This scale is to be used if the Projected NPM < 0% i.e. there is a projected loss

3

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘RoCE’ 5

Description Score

If Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE > = 1

8

0.90 < = Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE < 1

6

0.80 < = Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE < 0.60

4

0.60 < = Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE < 0.80

2

Actual RoCE / Projected RoCE < 0.60 times

0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘RoCE’ 6

Description Score

If Actual ROCE / Projected ROCE < = 1

8

1 < = Actual ROCE / Projected ROCE < 1.1

6

1.1 < = Actual ROCE / Projected ROCE < 1.20

4

1.20 < = Actual ROCE / Projected ROCE < 1.40

2

Actual ROCE / Projected ROCE > 1.40 times

0

5 This scale is to be used if the Projected RoCE > 0% 6 This scale is to be used if the Projected RoCE < 0% i.e. there is a projected loss

3. Capitalisation / Solvency

Description Score

If Actual TDE / Projected TDE < 1

12

1 < = Actual TDE / Projected TDE < 1.25

9

1.25 < = Actual TDE / Projected TDE < 1.50

6

1.50 < = Actual TDE / Projected TDE < 1.75

3

Actual TDE / Projected TDE > 1.75 times

0

4. Cash flow adequacy

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF ICR (annual)’

Description Score

If Actual ICR / Projected ICR > = 1

4

0.75 < = Actual ICR / Projected ICR < 1

3

0.50 < = Actual ICR / Projected ICR < 0.75

2

0.25 < = Actual ICR / Projected ICR < 0.50

1

Actual ICR / Projected ICR < 0.25 times

0

4

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF DSCR (annual)’

Description Score

If Actual DSCR / Projected DSCR > = 1

12

0.75 < = Actual DSCR / Projected DSCR < 1

9

0.50 < = Actual DSCR / Projected DSCR < 0.75

6

0.25 < = Actual DSCR / Projected DSCR < 0.50

3

Actual DSCR / Projected DSCR < 0.25 times

0

5. Liquidity and activity

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Current ratio’

Description Score

If Actual CR / Projected CR > = 1

4

0.75 < = Actual CR / Projected CR < 1

3

0.50 < = Actual CR / Projected CR < 0.75

2

0.25 < = Actual CR / Projected CR < 0.50

1

Actual CR / Projected CR < 0.25 times

0

1

ANNEXURE 6C: SCALES FOR THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODULE – PAST FINANCIAL

1. Growth in revenues/Gross profit/ NOCF

Description Score

IDBI Benchmark – 25% for all the three parameters

x > = 25%

20% < x < 25%

10% < x <= 20%

5% < x <= 10%

0% < x < = 20%

x <= 0%

8

6

4

2

1

0

2. Profitability

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘EBIDTA margin’

‘X’ % = Average EBIDTA margin of the industry

If EBIDTA margin is > = X% 8

75% of X < = EBIDTA margin < X%

6

50% of X < = EBIDTA margin < 75% of X

4

0 < EBIDTA margin < 50% of X 2

EBIDTA margin < = 0 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘NPM’

‘X’ % = Average NPM of the industry

If NPM is > = X % 4

75% of X < = NPM < X% 3

50% of X < = NPM < 75% of X 2

0 < NPM < 50% of X 1

NPM < = 0 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘RoCE’

‘12.5’ % = IDBI benchmark for RoCE

If RoCE is > = 12.5% 8

75% of 12.5% < = RoCE < 12.5%

6

50% of 12.5% < = RoCE < 75% of 12.5%

4

0 < RoCE < 50% of 12.5% 2

RoCE < = 0 0

2

3. Capitalisation / Solvency

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘TDE’

‘1.5’ times = IDBI benchmark for TDE

If TDE is < = X times 12

1.5 times X > = TDE > X times 9

2 times X > = TDE > 1.5 times X

6

2.5 times X > = TDE > 2 times X

3

TDE > 2.5 times X 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CLTNW’

Description Score

If coverage is < = .25 times 4

0.50 times > = coverage > 0.25 times

3

0.75 times > = coverage > 0.50 times

2

1 times < = coverage > 0.75 times

1

Coverage > 1 times 0

4. Cash flow adequacy

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF ICR’

IDBI benchmark for CF ICR ‘2’ times

If CF ICR is > = 2 times 4

1.7 times < = CF ICR < 2 times 3

1.3 times < = CF ICR < 1.7 times

2

1 times < = CF ICR < 1.3 times 1

CF ICR < 1 times 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CF DSCR’

IDBI benchmark for CF DSCR ‘1.5’ times

If CF DSCR is > 1.5 times 12

1.45 times < = CF ICR < = 1.5 times

10

1.4 times < = CF ICR < 1.45 times

9

1.35 times < = CF ICR < 1.4 times

8

1.3 times < = CF ICR < 1.35 times

7

1.25 times < = CF ICR < 1.3 times

6

1.2 times < = CF ICR < 1.25 times

5

1.15 times < = CF ICR < 1.2 times

4

1.1 times < = CF ICR < 1.15 times

3

3

1.05 times < = CF ICR < 1.1 times

2

1 times < = CF ICR < 1.05 times

1

CF DSCR is < 1 times 0

5. Liquidity and activity ratios

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘CR’

‘1.33’ times = IDBI benchmark for CR

If CR is > = X times 4

0.75 times of X < = CR < X times

3

0.50 times of X < = CR < 0.75 times of X

2

0 < CR < 0.50 times of X 1

CR < = 0 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Average Receivables Days’

Description Score

If period is < = Y days 4

Z days > = Period > Y days 2

Period > Z days 0

‘Y’ days is the industry average

‘Z’ days is a tolerance level pre-determined by

EIRD for each industry

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Average Payables Days’

Description Score

If period is > = Y days 4

Z days < = period < Y days 2

Period < Z days 0

• Scale to be used for scoring ‘Average Inventory Days’

Description Score

If period is < = Y days 4

Z days > = Period > Y days 2

Period > Z days 0

ANNEXURE A: ANALYTICAL FORMAT FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS:

P&L, BALANCE SHEET, CASH FLOW STATEMENT

REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY Analysis of Profit & Loss A/c

(Rs. Lakh) For the year ended March 31, 2005 % ot TI 2004 % ot TI 2003 % ot TI Gross Sales Trading Sales Total Gross Sales Less: Excise Duty Net Sales Other Operating Income Total Income Raw Materials consumed Purchase of Traded goods Subcontracting charges Equipment charges Sub Total (Increase)/ Decrease in stocks Electricity Other Manufacturing Exp. Personnel exp. Administrative & Misc. exp. Selling & Distribution exp. Misc. exp./ DRE written off Cost of Sales EBIDTA Interest & Finance charges Depreciation Operating Profit Other Income (Non-operating) Extra Ordinary Income Extra Ordinary Expenses PBT Tax Deferred Tax Liability/ (Asset) PAT Prior period Income/ (Expenses) Dividend - Equity (incl. tax) Dividend - Pref. Sh. (incl. tax) Gross Cash Accruals Net Cash Accruals Retained Earnings

Check PAT as per Annual Report Add/ Less: Adjustments made

i) ii)

Adjusted PAT as per Annual Report

Balance Sheet Analysis (Rs. Lakh) As at March 31, 2005 2004 2003 Liabilities Equity Share Capital Preference Share Capital (treated as equity) Reserves & Surplus (Excl. revaluation reserve) Share Premium General Reserve Profit & Loss A/c (credit balance) Others Sub Total Less: Losses brought forward Less: Intangibles/ Misc. exp./ DRE not w/off Less: Deferred Tax Assets (net) Sub Total (Net Reserve & Surplus) Tangible Net Worth Preference Shares (treated as LT loans) Long Term Loans Debentures Others Total Long Term Loans & Pref. Shares Unsecured Loans Loan from Promoters/ Directors Loan from Group Companies/ Associates Fixed Deposits Others Total Unsecured Loans Total Loans Deferred Tax Liability Current Liabilities Bank borrowings for working capital Sundry Creditors/ Bills Payables/ Acceptances Other current liabilities Proposed dividend - Equity Proposed dividend - Pref. Sh. Other Provisions

Total current liabilities Total Liabilities

As at March 31, 2005 2004 2003 Assets Gross Fixed Assets Less: Revaluation Reserve Less: Accumulated Depreciation Net Fixed Assets Capital Work in progress Sub Total Investments - In Group Co.s and subsidiaries Investments - Others Total Investments Current Assets and Loans & Advances Raw materials Other Work-in-process Stock Real estate Finished Goods Total Inventories Receivables - More than 6 months old Other receivables Total Receivables Other current Assets Loans & Advances - Group Co s & subsidiares Loans & Advances - Others Total Loans & Advances Sub Total Cash & Bank Balances Total current assets Total Assets Difference Continget Liabilities (incl. unprovided gratuity, leave etc., if any) Future Lease Rentals Payable Capital Employed TNW (excl. def. tax liability)

Total outside liabilities (incl. def. Tax) Total outside liabilities (excl. def. Tax)

Cash Flow Statement (Rs. Lakh) For the year ended March 31, 2005 2004 Operating Cash Flow Gross Cash Accruals Add: Interest Add: Deferred Tax Liab./ (Assets) Add: Adjustments for Extra ordinary itmes Less: Other Income (non-operating) Sub total (Increase)/ Decrease in Inventories (Increase)/ Decrease in Receivables (Increase)/ Decrease in Loans & Advances (Increase)/ Decrease in Other current assets Increase/(Decrease) in Bank Borrowings Increase/(Decrease) in Sundry Creditors Inc./(Dec.) in Oth. Current Liab. & Provisions (Excluding proposed dividend) Net changes in working capital Net operating cash flows Cash Flow from Investments (Increase)/ Decrease in Fixed Assets (Increase)/ Decrease in Investments Adj. for Extra ordinary and prior period items Other Income (non-operating) Increase in Intangibles/ DRE/ Misc. exp. w/off Net cash flow form investments Cash Flow from Financing Increase/ (Decrease) in Equity Share Capital Increase in Pref. Share Capital (treated as equity) Cash flow changes in Res & Surplus (if any) Increase/ (Decrease) in LT Loans & Pref. Sh. Increase/ (Decrease) in Unsecured Loans Changes in Def Tax Liab./ DTA out of Reserve Dividend paid - Equity Dividend paid - Preference Interest Net cash flow from financing

Net Surplus/ (Deficit) Opening Cash & Bank Balance Add: Surplus/ (Deficit) Closing Cash & Bank Balance Check Repayment of Loans & Pref. Sh. (without netting off fresh borrowings) Interest and Preference Dividend Total Repayments

7. Reference:

• Cris-Infac – Construction Annual Report 2006

• Cris-Infac – Housing Annual Report 2006

• http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?contributor=civil%20enginee

r

• http://www.mortgage-investments.com/borrow-money/commercial-real-

estate-financial-ratios.htm

• http://www.outlookmoney.com/olmoneym/news/detail_news.asp?Date=4/17/2

006&story=1

• Offer Document Dated: March 13, 2006 DS Kulkarni Developer's Ltd. –

dskfin.pdf

• ICRA grading feature- Grading of Real Estate and Construction Entities –

ICRA.pdf

• CRISIL Ratings – Methodology for Rating Real estate projects – Crisil.pdf

• Tenth Five Year Plan by Planning Commission – v2_ch7_6.pdf

i Material can be defined as that which a very high level of importance from a debt servicing perspective. ii Long term is defined as three years or more; medium term is defined as between one to three years and short term is defined as less than one year.