Case 098Retail and portfolio creditCore
A microfinance lender has 35% of its Rs 2,000 crore book in one state hit by floods. If portfolio at risk there rises to 20% and half of it is lost, estimate the credit cost and its hit on Rs 400 crore of net worth.
1The situation
Gramotsa Finance lends small group loans to women borrowers across several states. Its loan book is Rs 2,000 crore and its net worth Rs 400 crore. 35% of the book is in one state that has just been hit by severe floods.
In the affected state, collection efficiency, the share of amounts due that is actually collected, has fallen from 99% to 85%, and the company expects it to stay there for about six months. Monthly dues in the state are about Rs 40 crore. The credit team assumes portfolio at risk in the state, loans with any overdue amount, rises to 20%, and that half of that is eventually lost.
2Your task
What is the likely credit cost, what does it do to net worth and capital, and what does the case say about concentration?
Quick check
Roughly what share of net worth does the flood loss take?
Worked solution
Try it on paper, then open one step at a time.
30-second answerThe answer to give first
The credit cost is about Rs 70 crore, 17.5% of net worth, from one state's flood. Rs 700 crore sits in the state; 20% at risk is Rs 140 crore and half of that is lost. After an illustrative 25% tax effect the hit is about Rs 52.5 crore. The same flood on a book with no state above 10% would cost about Rs 20 crore, 5% of net worth. Concentration, not the flood, turned a local disaster into a company-level capital event.
Step 1How do you size the loss?
Walk from the book to the loss one step at a time. 35% of Rs 2,000 crore is Rs 700 crore in the flood state; portfolio at riskThe outstanding balance of loans with any amount overdue, as a share of the book; the standard early warning measure in microfinance. of 20% is Rs 140 crore; losing half of it costs Rs 70 crore. Microfinance loans are unsecured, so there is no collateral to cushion the loss; the half that is recovered comes from borrowers who resume paying once their livelihoods return.
Step 2What does Rs 70 crore do to the company?
Set it against the equity that absorbs it. Rs 70 crore is 17.5% of Rs 400 crore of net worth, about Rs 52.5 crore after an illustrative tax effect, and the capital ratio falls from 20% to about 17.1% if the book is fully risk weighted. Cash suffers too: 14 points of collection shortfall on Rs 40 crore of monthly dues is about Rs 5.6 crore a month, Rs 33.6 crore over six months, while the company still owes its own lenders on schedule. Gramotsa survives, but it has lost most of a year's profit and some of its lenders' confidence.
Step 3What would a diversified book have lost?
Run the same flood on a book where no state is above 10%. A farmer who plants one field loses the whole harvest to one hailstorm; a farmer with five fields in five villages loses one. With Rs 200 crore in the state, 20% at risk and half lost is Rs 20 crore, 5% of net worth, a bad quarter rather than a capital event. The flood is the same; the concentration decided the size of the damage.
| Rs crore | 35% in the state | 10% in the state |
|---|---|---|
| Book in the flood state | 700 | 200 |
| Portfolio at risk, 20% | 140 | 40 |
| Loss, half of it | 70 | 20 |
| Share of Rs 400 crore net worth | 17.5% | 5.0% |
Close with the actions. Provide now, at the estimate, rather than wait for loans to cross 90 days; tell lenders early with the numbers; offer affected borrowers a structured moratorium rather than let arrears pile up; and set a state concentration limit, with the flood as the scenario that sizes it. Watch the neighbouring districts too: repayment discipline in group lending can weaken when borrowers see others not paying.
Where candidates lose it
The common slip is measuring the loss against the book, 3.5%, which sounds small. The loss is absorbed by net worth, and for a lender running five times leverage a 3.5% book loss is a 17.5% equity loss.
The second is treating the flood as bad luck. Interviewers want to hear that a single-state concentration was a choice the company made, and that the limit should have been sized to exactly this event.
What the interviewer asks next
- Portfolio at risk in the state reaches 35% instead. What is the hit, and does capital fall below a 15% illustrative minimum?
- How would you set a state concentration limit from this case?
- Why might a moratorium reduce the eventual loss rather than just delay it?
Company names and figures are illustrative.
