Issues in Infrastructure Financing

Recently, banks have been very slow in disbursing funds. With respect to infrastructure
projects, the Conditions Precedent to disbursements stipulated by banks is quite stringent.
Despite completing all CPs, some of the banks are not disbursing funds, citing liquidity and
market conditions. In case of new projects, banks are hesitant in taking up fresh exposures
because of the following:

• Increase in cost of funds and consequent charging of higher rate of interest for
infrastructure projects, say over 15%. At this interest rate, the infrastructure projects
may not be viable. (The pricing for a reasonably well structured infrastructure project
has moved up by approximately 300 bps in the current year. This is creating severe
strain on the project costs and the projected cash flows.)

• RBI prescribed group exposure ceilings

• Asset-liability mismatches

Banks have also been reneging on the sanctioned terms, especially relating to interest rates
agreed in the Loan Documentation. These include even loan documents executed in the
current fiscal. Even if a couple of banks block disbursement, the entire disbursement schedule
gets seriously disturbed.

Banks are now stipulating variable interest rate formats, even during the construction period.
This exposes the project to severe interest rate risk during construction and a consequent risk
of shortfall in project financing. Banks are also now stipulating “credit rate spread” re-
fixation after 2/3 years. This exposes projects to a lender driven unilateral interest rate risk.
Several banks are already showing a significant dislike to process projects with tenor of
above 10-12 years.

The significant weakening of the Indian Rupee and the volatility in the Foreign Exchange
markets have also caused a level of distress for financing infrastructure projects. Projects with
import component have seen a significant rise in project costs, causing pressure on promoters
and lenders to re-evaluate the project viability and financing. On account of the high
volatility in the Foreign Exchange markets, banks have been asking for additional security for
undertaking Forex Cover on exposed component of financing. This adds more strain in the
project financing, since the entire security in the form of tangible assets and cashflows are
charged to the funded lenders on a pari-passu basis.

Recently some of the banks have displayed a credit aversion to the sector, driven by sectoral
exposure, cost escalation and lower than budgeted revenue flows. A significant portion of the
input costs like bitumen, cement etc has also been driven by higher prices. Similarly, several
banks are now communicating an aversion to take large exposure in the power sector.

Infrastructure projects that have predicated part of their equity funding from the capital
markets (either through IPO or Private equity deals) are facing a level of uncertainty.Where
part disbursements from banks have already commenced for several projects, further
disbursements are now delayed by the banks, subject to promoters demonstrating complete
tie up.

Suggestions

• A suitable system to provide ‘take out financing’ needs to be developed. The

Government could provide this directly or through institutions like IIFCL, PFC, REC
and HUDCO etc. This could include such support to the ECBs as well, since the long
tenor aversion is sharpest among overseas lenders. Even a Government guaranteed
take out at the end of say 10 years could also be explored.

• Currently, the provisioning norms stipulated by RBI allow restructuring of

Infrastructure projects only once during the tenor of debt (12 to 18 years). Given the
long tenor of loans and market pressures building up against such projects, this
restriction needs to be re-looked.

• The capital adequacy norms for banks, driven by the Basel II requirements, suggest
provision of capital at 100% levels for the entire sanctioned amount of loan.The
disbursements against such credit sanctions for infrastructure projects are typically
spread over 3 to 5 years. Some relief could be provided in this context to the banks.

• Currently, Infrastructure development institutions like IL&FS are not allowed to

borrow and on lend under the ECB Automatic route. It is suggested to allow such
intermediation. This will help second tier/smaller infrastructure projects to access the
ECB markets, where they are not in a position to borrow directly from overseas
lenders.

• As a prudent measure, the consortium of banks financing an infrastructure project

should stipulate that 51% of the promoters’ equity be pledged as security during
construction period and 26% after the CoD. The pledge of shares be available on ‘pari
passu’ charge to all lenders and such collateral be taken in all infrastructure projects.

• There is need for hedging foreign currency borrowings to mitigate currency and
interest rate risk. The hedgers are insisting on first charge on Pari passu basis for
mitigating their risks, which dilutes the security available for the debt. The policy
should define that the second charge could be available to the hedgers.

• In case of large power projects, it is practically impossible to raise foreign currency

loan as the market is totally dried up. Moreover, where the projects have tied up
foreign currency loan, due to appreciation of US dollar, cost of the project has gone
up which in turn put pressure on the promoters to bring either more equity which is
not available at this time or increase the debt equity ratio which may make the project
unviable. This may be taken care of to some extent by IIFC(UK) Ltd. For this
purpose, the Scheme (SIFTI) mandated to IIFC (UK) which is on the lines of IIFCL,
needs review.
• Investment guidelines for Pension Funds need to be framed such that they are
enablers for investing in infra projects with adequate rating. For this to materialise,
the IRDA’s guidelines could form a foundation, pension funds should have the ability
to participate in both loans and bonds and infrastructure sector is to have a specific
minimum allocation like in insurance.