Friday, 14 August 2026

Stress Testing for Commodity Derivatives Segment

 1. Executive Summary

The circular issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on 12 August 2026 introduces an important change to the stress-testing methodology applicable to the Commodity Derivatives Segment of recognised clearing corporations.

The principal amendment concerns the Z-score threshold used in historical scenario stress testing for determining the Core Settlement Guarantee Fund (Core SGF). SEBI has reduced the threshold from 10 to 5. Consequently, price movements corresponding to a Z-score beyond 5, rather than beyond 10, will be replaced by the Z-score threshold in the calculation of peak historical returns.

The amendment takes immediate effect and is expressly stated to have been introduced following stakeholder representations, recommendations of the Risk Management Review Committee (RMRC) and public comments, with the stated objective of facilitating Ease of Doing Business.


2. Regulatory Background

The circular modifies the provisions contained in Paragraph 22 of Annexure O of SEBI's Master Circular for the Commodity Derivatives Segment dated 4 August 2023, which prescribes the methodology for Standardized Stress Testing for Commodity Derivatives and, in particular, the requirements relating to the Core SGF.

Under the existing framework, historical scenarios include the Peak Historical Return, under which the price movement of each underlying over the applicable Margin Period of Risk (MPOR) is considered over the preceding 15 years. Both the maximum percentage rise and maximum percentage fall are considered.


3. Key Amendment

The most significant change is:

ParticularsEarlier provisionRevised provision
Z-score threshold105
Historical period15 years15 years
MPOR-based price movementApplicableContinues
Mean and sigma for Z-scoreApplicable MPOR returns over 15 yearsNo change
Effective dateImmediate

Under the earlier methodology, price movements corresponding to a Z-score of 10 replaced extreme price movements exceeding that threshold. The amended framework reduces this to a Z-score of 5.

Importantly, the 15-year historical observation period has not been changed. Nor has SEBI altered the underlying methodology for calculating the Z-score, which continues to use the mean and sigma of returns over the applicable MPOR across the 15-year period.


4. Significance of Reducing the Z-score from 10 to 5

This is a material risk-management parameter change.

A Z-score measures the magnitude of an observed price movement relative to the historical distribution of returns. Under the earlier framework, only extremely remote price movements beyond the 10-standard-deviation threshold were capped/replaced.

By lowering the threshold to 5 standard deviations, SEBI is effectively imposing a more conservative cap on extreme historical price observations used in this particular stress-testing scenario.

Thus, while the numerical change from 10 to 5 may appear straightforward, its practical impact will depend upon the historical return distributions of individual commodities and their respective MPORs.

The amendment therefore does not simply reduce the severity of stress testing. Rather, it changes the treatment of extreme historical observations and standardises the manner in which exceptionally large historical movements influence the stress-testing calculation.


5. Impact on Clearing Corporations

The circular is specifically addressed to all recognised clearing corporations having a Commodity Derivatives Segment.

Such clearing corporations will need to review and, where necessary, modify their stress-testing systems and calculations to ensure that:

  1. The Z-score threshold of 5 is incorporated in place of 10.
  2. Historical price movements continue to be evaluated over the prescribed 15-year period.
  3. The applicable MPOR continues to be correctly applied.
  4. Mean and sigma continue to be calculated in accordance with the prescribed methodology.
  5. The revised stress-test results are appropriately reflected in the determination and monitoring of the Core SGF.
  6. Relevant risk-management systems, models, controls and documentation are updated accordingly.

Given that the circular has immediate effect, implementation should not be deferred to a future compliance cycle.


6. Impact on the Core Settlement Guarantee Fund

The Core SGF is designed to provide financial resources to meet obligations arising from clearing and settlement in circumstances involving member defaults and adverse market conditions.

Since the circular changes an input into the standardised stress-testing framework, the revised methodology could potentially affect the stress-test outcomes used for assessing the adequacy of the Core SGF.

However, the circular itself does not prescribe a percentage increase or decrease in the Core SGF. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to conclude from the circular alone that the Core SGF requirement will necessarily increase or decrease.

The actual financial impact will depend upon:

  • commodity-wise historical return distributions;
  • MPOR applicable to each commodity;
  • calculated mean and sigma;
  • frequency and magnitude of extreme historical price movements; and
  • the resulting stress-test requirement.

Accordingly, each clearing corporation should undertake a commodity-wise impact assessment rather than assuming a uniform effect.


7. Regulatory Rationale

SEBI states that the amendment follows:

  • representations received from stakeholders;
  • recommendations of the Risk Management Review Committee; and
  • public comments received during the regulatory process.

SEBI has specifically linked the modification to the objective of facilitating Ease of Doing Business.

This suggests that the regulator considered the existing Z-score threshold to warrant recalibration, presumably after considering stakeholder feedback and the recommendations of its risk-management review mechanism.

The circular itself, however, does not provide quantitative impact analysis or the rationale for selecting 5 rather than 10. Therefore, any further explanation regarding the statistical or economic reasoning behind the specific threshold of 5 would require reference to the underlying RMRC recommendations or SEBI's consultation material, which is not contained in the uploaded circular.


8. Compliance Implications

From a compliance perspective, the amendment should be treated as an immediate regulatory change requiring system and process implementation.

A clearing corporation's compliance/risk-management team should consider undertaking the following:

Immediate actions

  • Identify all systems and reports incorporating the Z-score threshold.
  • Replace the existing threshold of 10 with 5.
  • Validate the revised calculations.
  • Conduct parallel testing of the old and revised methodology.
  • Assess the impact on commodity-wise stress-test results.
  • Evaluate the consequential impact on Core SGF adequacy.
  • Update internal risk-management documentation and operating procedures.
  • Ensure appropriate governance/approval of the system change.
  • Maintain an audit trail demonstrating implementation of the circular.

Governance actions

The change should ideally be placed before the appropriate Risk Management Committee / Board-level committee, wherever required under the clearing corporation's governance framework, particularly if the revised methodology materially changes risk parameters or SGF requirements.


9. Key Risk Considerations

The most important implementation risk is not the textual amendment itself but the possibility of incorrect system implementation.

Particular attention should be paid to:

  • inadvertent retention of the Z-score 10 threshold in legacy systems;
  • incorrect treatment of negative versus positive price movements;
  • incorrect MPOR application;
  • errors in calculating mean and standard deviation;
  • incorrect treatment of historical observations exceeding the revised threshold;
  • discrepancies between automated systems and manually prepared risk reports; and
  • failure to update internal documentation and controls.

Because the amendment applies to all commodities, implementation should be validated across the entire commodity universe rather than tested only for selected commodities.


10. Overall Assessment

The circular represents a targeted amendment to the risk-management framework for commodity derivatives, rather than a wholesale revision of the stress-testing methodology.

The principal regulatory change is the reduction of the Z-score threshold from 10 to 5, while the broader architecture of the historical stress-testing framework—including the 15-year historical period and MPOR-based return calculation—remains intact.

From a regulatory-compliance perspective, the amendment is material and requires immediate attention, particularly for recognised clearing corporations operating commodity derivatives segments. The actual quantitative effect on stress-test requirements and Core SGF, however, cannot be determined from the circular alone and should be established through a commodity-wise recalculation using the revised Z-score threshold.

Conclusion

In substance, SEBI has recalibrated the treatment of extreme historical price movements in commodity-derivatives stress testing by replacing the Z-score threshold of 10 with 5. The change is effective immediately and is intended, among other things, to facilitate Ease of Doing Business.

For clearing corporations, the immediate priority should therefore be system implementation, validation, commodity-wise impact assessment and reassessment of Core SGF implications, supported by appropriate risk-management and governance documentation.

Wednesday, 12 August 2026

RBI (Commercial Banks – Interest Rate on Deposits) Second Amendment Directions, 2026

 The Reserve Bank of India has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Interest Rate on Deposits) Second Amendment Directions, 2026, vide circular RBI/2026-27/214 dated July 30, 2026. The amendments revise the regulatory framework governing interest rates on rupee bulk deposits and introduce greater transparency in the disclosure of deposit rates.

1. Effective Date

The amended provisions will come into force with effect from October 1, 2026. Banks therefore have a limited implementation window to review their deposit-rate policies, website disclosures, operational processes and systems.

2. Advance Disclosure of Deposit Interest Rates

A significant amendment relates to the manner in which deposit interest rates are disclosed.

Interest rates payable on deposits, including bulk deposits, must strictly correspond with the schedule of interest rates disclosed in advance on the bank's website. In the case of bulk deposits, the applicable rates must be disclosed on the website at 10:00 a.m. on each business day, with a grace period of 10 minutes, i.e. disclosure must be completed by 10:10 a.m.

Regulatory significance:
This introduces a much more precise and time-bound disclosure obligation for bulk deposit rates. Banks will need to ensure that the website reflects the applicable rates within the stipulated daily window and that there is appropriate internal control over any changes to rates.

3. Uniformity and Non-Discrimination

The amended provision requires interest rates offered on deposits, including bulk deposits, to be uniform across all branches and for all customers. It further prohibits discrimination in interest paid between deposits of similar amounts accepted on the same date at any office of the bank.

This provision strengthens the principles of transparency, consistency and non-discriminatory treatment of depositors.

From an operational perspective, banks should ensure that branch-level discretion does not result in rates that differ from the rates officially disclosed and applicable to similarly situated deposits.

4. Differential Rates for Bulk Deposits Based on LCR Run-Off Rates

An important new flexibility has been introduced in relation to bulk deposits.

Banks are permitted to offer differential interest rates on bulk deposits by taking into account the differential run-off rates applicable to deposits or unsecured wholesale funding under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) framework. The relevant LCR provisions are contained in the RBI's Commercial Banks – Asset Liability Management Directions, 2025.

This provision is particularly significant because it creates a regulatory linkage between deposit pricing and liquidity characteristics.

In other words, banks can take into consideration the liquidity impact of particular categories of bulk deposits when determining the interest rate offered. This gives banks greater flexibility to price deposits in accordance with their liquidity-risk profile.

5. Extension to Non-Resident Rupee Deposits

The same flexibility concerning LCR-related differential run-off rates has also been extended to rupee deposits of non-residents.

The amended framework permits differential interest rates on bulk deposits by considering the applicable differential run-off rates under the LCR framework.

Thus, the amendment is not confined to domestic rupee deposits; its implications also extend to the pricing of relevant non-resident rupee deposits.


Key Regulatory Implications

AreaImpact of Amendment
Deposit rate disclosureRates must be disclosed in advance on the bank's website
Bulk deposit ratesDaily disclosure required at 10:00 a.m., with grace period up to 10:10 a.m.
Branch-level pricingRates must be uniform across branches
Customer treatmentSimilar deposits accepted on the same date cannot receive discriminatory rates
Bulk deposit pricingDifferential rates permitted based on applicable LCR run-off characteristics
Non-resident depositsSimilar LCR-based pricing flexibility extended to relevant bulk deposits
Technology/process controlsBanks will need robust controls to ensure timely and accurate website updates
Compliance monitoringGreater importance for internal audit, compliance and supervisory review

6. Overall Assessment

The amendment represents a dual approach of greater transparency coupled with calibrated pricing flexibility.

On one hand, RBI has tightened the transparency and consistency requirements by mandating advance disclosure, a specific daily disclosure time for bulk deposit rates, uniformity across branches and non-discrimination among comparable deposits. On the other hand, banks have been given greater flexibility to differentiate bulk-deposit pricing based on the liquidity characteristics reflected through the LCR framework.

The amendment therefore appears designed to ensure that deposit pricing remains transparent and non-discriminatory while allowing banks to manage liquidity costs and risks more effectively.

7. Recommended Action Points for Banks

Banks should, before October 1, 2026, undertake the following:

  1. Review and amend their deposit interest-rate policies to incorporate the revised provisions.
  2. Establish a daily control mechanism ensuring that bulk-deposit rates are published by 10:10 a.m. on every business day.
  3. Ensure that the rates displayed on the website are consistent with the rates actually applied by branches and other banking offices.
  4. Review systems to prevent unauthorised or inconsistent branch-level pricing.
  5. Establish controls to ensure that comparable deposits accepted on the same date receive non-discriminatory treatment.
  6. Incorporate the relevant LCR run-off characteristics into the framework for pricing eligible bulk deposits.
  7. Review the pricing framework applicable to non-resident rupee deposits.
  8. Maintain an appropriate audit trail of rate changes and website disclosures to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
  9. Align the roles of the Treasury/ALM, Deposit, IT, Compliance, Risk Management and Internal Audit functions.
  10. Conduct a pre-implementation compliance review before the effective date.

Conclusion

The July 30, 2026 amendment is important from both a deposit-pricing and liquidity-management perspective. It increases regulatory discipline around public disclosure and uniform application of deposit rates, while simultaneously permitting banks to factor liquidity-risk considerations into the pricing of bulk deposits. The most immediate compliance priority is the implementation of the 10:00 a.m.–10:10 a.m. daily disclosure requirement for bulk deposit rates, together with appropriate system and governance controls to ensure consistency between published and applied rates.

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

Amendment to SEBI (Issue and Listing of Municipal Debt Securities) Regulations, 2015

SEBI circular dated 11 August 2026, concerning amendments and operational changes relating to the SEBI (Issue and Listing of Municipal Debt Securities) Regulations, 2015 (ILMDS Regulations) 

1. Executive Summary

The circular introduces important operational changes for municipal debt securities, particularly in relation to:

  1. Face value and trading lot of privately placed municipal debt securities.
  2. A two-step escrow mechanism for pooled finance vehicles/SPVs established under the Pooled Finance Development Fund Scheme.
  3. Additional forms of credit enhancement available to pooled finance vehicles.
  4. Relaxation of timelines for financial-result submissions by municipalities.
  5. Immediate applicability of the circular.

The overall regulatory approach appears aimed at making municipal debt issuance more practical while strengthening mechanisms for investor protection and repayment security.


2. Face Value of Municipal Debt Securities

For municipal debt securities issued through private placement, the face value of each security may now be ₹1,00,000 or ₹10,000, as considered appropriate. However, securities having a face value of ₹10,000 must have:

  • a fixed maturity; and
  • no structured obligations.

Further, where such municipal debt securities are listed and traded on a stock exchange, the trading lot must always equal the face value of the security. These requirements apply specifically to private placements and do not apply to public issues.

Regulatory significance

This is a significant operational relaxation because the availability of a ₹10,000 denomination can potentially broaden accessibility to municipal debt securities in the private-placement market.

However, SEBI has attached safeguards to the lower denomination. The restriction against structured obligations and the requirement of fixed maturity reduce the complexity and potential risk associated with smaller-denomination instruments.

Compliance implication: Issuers undertaking private placements should ensure that the face value, maturity structure and trading lot are correctly reflected in the offer document/placement memorandum and listing documentation.


3. Two-Step Escrow Mechanism for Pooled Finance Vehicles

A major change concerns municipal debt securities issued through a pooled finance vehicle/SPV established under the Pooled Finance Development Fund Scheme of the Government of India.

The constituent municipalities must create and comply with the prescribed accounts. In addition, the SPV/pooled finance vehicle must maintain:

  • an Interest Payment Account, and
  • a Sinking Fund Account.

Funds are to be transferred from the corresponding accounts maintained by the constituent municipalities to the accounts maintained by the SPV, in accordance with the agreement between the SPV and the constituent municipalities.

A particularly important requirement is that the SPV must throughout the tenure of the municipal debt securities maintain an amount equivalent to one year's interest obligation in the Interest Payment Account.

Risk-management significance

This provision materially strengthens the payment-security architecture for municipal bonds issued through pooled structures.

The requirement for maintaining one year's interest obligation provides a dedicated liquidity buffer, thereby reducing the possibility that temporary cash-flow mismatches at the constituent-municipality level could immediately translate into an interest-payment default.

From an investor-protection perspective, this is one of the more consequential provisions of the circular.


4. Permitted Credit Enhancement Mechanisms

SEBI has expressly identified several forms of credit enhancement that may be used by an SPV/pooled finance vehicle to improve its credit rating and provide greater investor protection.

These include:

  • additional cash collateral;
  • programme equity contributed by the State Government;
  • access to State Finance Commission devolutions to Urban Local Bodies;
  • full or partial credit guarantees from a highly rated Development Finance Institution or multilateral institution; and
  • other appropriate credit-enhancement structures.

Analysis

The provision is important because municipal borrowing capacity is closely linked to perceived credit quality. By expressly recognising multiple forms of credit enhancement, SEBI is facilitating structures through which the underlying credit risk can potentially be reduced.

The involvement of State Government support, Finance Commission-related flows and institutional guarantees could improve investor confidence and potentially facilitate better pricing and wider participation in municipal debt offerings.

At the same time, the effectiveness of such enhancement will depend upon the legal enforceability, adequacy, liquidity and reliability of the underlying support mechanism. Merely having a credit-enhancement provision does not, by itself, eliminate underlying municipal credit risk.


5. Relaxation of Financial-Result Submission Timelines

The circular provides a significant compliance relaxation for municipalities.

Previously, the applicable timelines were:

Financial informationEarlier timeline
Half-yearly unaudited financial resultsWithin 45 days of the end of the first half-year
Annual audited financial resultsWithin 60 days from the end of the financial year

SEBI has now extended these periods to:

Financial informationRevised timeline
Half-yearly unaudited financial resultsWithin 60 days of the end of the first half-year
Annual audited financial resultsWithin 90 days from the end of the financial year, along with the audit report

The results must continue to be submitted as soon as they are available, notwithstanding the outer time limits.

Rationale

SEBI specifically recognises the practical difficulties faced by municipalities in:

  • collecting financial data;
  • coordinating between departments; and
  • meeting disclosure requirements within the earlier timelines.

The extension therefore appears to be a practical compliance relaxation rather than a dilution of the disclosure requirement itself.


6. Impact on Municipalities

For municipalities with listed debt securities, the circular should reduce immediate compliance pressure, particularly concerning financial-result preparation and reporting.

The extended 60-day and 90-day periods provide additional time for:

  • consolidation of departmental information;
  • reconciliation of financial data;
  • completion of audit procedures;
  • internal approvals; and
  • preparation of exchange disclosures.

However, municipalities should not interpret the extended deadline as justification for delaying preparation. The requirement remains to submit the results as soon as they are available.


7. Impact on Investors

From an investor perspective, the circular has both positive and potentially mixed implications.

Positive aspects include:

  • stronger escrow arrangements for pooled finance structures;
  • maintenance of a one-year interest buffer;
  • availability of additional credit-enhancement mechanisms;
  • greater clarity regarding denomination and trading lots.

The principal concern is the extension of financial-reporting timelines. Investors will potentially receive annual audited financial information later than under the earlier framework.

Nevertheless, SEBI appears to have balanced this concern against the practical difficulties municipalities face in producing timely and reliable financial information.


8. Key Compliance Action Points

Municipalities, pooled finance vehicles, SPVs, merchant bankers and other intermediaries should consider the following actions:

For municipalities:

  1. Review existing municipal debt documentation in light of the revised requirements.
  2. Reassess internal systems for maintaining interest-payment and sinking-fund accounts.
  3. Establish an internal calendar based on the revised 60-day half-yearly and 90-day annual reporting deadlines.
  4. Ensure financial results are submitted immediately once available rather than automatically waiting until the outer deadline.
  5. Review agreements with pooled finance vehicles/SPVs for consistency with the revised escrow mechanism.

For pooled finance vehicles/SPVs:

  1. Establish and maintain the prescribed Interest Payment Account and Sinking Fund Account.
  2. Ensure appropriate fund-transfer mechanisms are incorporated into agreements with constituent municipalities.
  3. Monitor maintenance of the one-year interest obligation throughout the tenure of the securities.
  4. Evaluate suitable credit-enhancement arrangements.
  5. Document the legal and operational enforceability of any State Government, institutional or other credit support.

For merchant bankers and professional advisers:

The revised provisions should be incorporated into transaction structuring, due diligence, placement documentation, escrow arrangements and compliance checklists.


9. Overall Assessment

The circular represents a pragmatic recalibration of the regulatory framework for municipal debt securities. It does not merely relax compliance requirements; it simultaneously introduces mechanisms intended to improve payment security and facilitate the development of the municipal bond market.

The most significant measures are the ₹10,000 denomination option for specified privately placed securities, the two-step escrow mechanism with a one-year interest reserve, and the recognition of multiple credit-enhancement mechanisms.

The extension of financial-result timelines from 45 to 60 days for half-yearly results and from 60 to 90 days for annual audited results is a meaningful operational relaxation for municipalities.

Overall, the circular appears designed to reduce operational barriers to municipal borrowing while strengthening the structural safeguards around repayment and investor protection. Since the provisions are stated to apply with immediate effect, affected municipalities, issuers, SPVs, stock exchanges, depositories and merchant bankers should review their existing processes and documentation without delay.

Monday, 10 August 2026

RBI (Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Eighth Amendment Directions, 2026

 1. Executive Summary

The Reserve Bank of India has issued the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures) Eighth Amendment Directions, 2026, vide Notification No. DOR.ACC.REC.No.184/21.04.018/2026-27 dated July 30, 2026.

The amendment primarily rationalises certain disclosure requirements applicable to commercial banks. Specifically, it deletes the provisions relating to disclosures on the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), and remuneration contained in Paragraph 10 of the RBI's Commercial Banks – Financial Statements: Presentation and Disclosures Directions, 2025.

The amendments have been issued following the RBI's review consequent to the Reserve Bank of India (Commercial Banks – Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy) Seventh Amendment Directions, 2026, particularly in relation to Basel Pillar 3 disclosures.

Importantly, the amendments will come into force with effect from April 1, 2027, giving banks time to align their financial-statement disclosure processes and reporting frameworks.


2. Background and Regulatory Context

The notification makes it clear that the amendment is not an entirely standalone change. It arises from the RBI's review of the existing 2025 Directions, following the issuance of the Seventh Amendment Directions, 2026 relating to prudential norms on capital adequacy and Basel Pillar 3 disclosures.

This indicates a broader effort by the RBI to rationalise the manner in which regulatory information is disclosed by commercial banks, particularly where disclosure requirements may overlap with or have been affected by the revised Basel Pillar 3 disclosure framework.

The notification is issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, together with other enabling statutory provisions.


3. Key Amendments

The amendment makes three substantive deletions from Paragraph 10 of the 2025 Directions:

Existing provisionSubjectAmendment
Paragraph 10(2)(ii)Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) disclosuresDeleted
Paragraph 10(2)(iii)Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) disclosuresDeleted
Paragraph 10(13)Remuneration disclosuresDeleted

These deletions are expressly specified in Paragraph 4 of the amendment notification.

A. LCR disclosures

Paragraph 10(2)(ii), dealing with disclosures relating to the Liquidity Coverage Ratio, has been deleted.

The immediate regulatory consequence, based on this notification, is that the particular LCR disclosure requirement contained in the 2025 Financial Statements Directions will no longer apply from the effective date.

However, the notification does not state that the underlying LCR regulatory requirement itself has been abolished. The amendment specifically concerns the disclosure provision in the Financial Statements Directions. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to interpret this notification, by itself, as eliminating the prudential requirement to maintain an appropriate LCR.

B. NSFR disclosures

Similarly, Paragraph 10(2)(iii), relating to Net Stable Funding Ratio disclosures, has been deleted.

As with LCR, the notification specifically removes the identified financial-statement disclosure provision. It does not, on its face, state that the underlying prudential framework governing NSFR has been withdrawn.

C. Remuneration disclosures

Paragraph 10(13), relating to remuneration disclosures, has also been deleted.

Consequently, banks will need to review their financial-statement disclosure checklists and reporting templates to identify disclosures that were previously being made specifically pursuant to this paragraph.

Again, the notification should not automatically be interpreted as abolishing the broader regulatory framework concerning remuneration of bank personnel. It only expressly deletes the identified disclosure provision from the relevant Financial Statements Directions.


4. Effective Date

A particularly important aspect from a compliance perspective is that the amendments will not take effect immediately.

The notification specifically provides that the amendments shall come into force from:

April 1, 2027.

Accordingly, banks should continue to comply with the existing disclosure requirements until the amendments become effective, unless another RBI notification separately provides otherwise.

This creates an implementation window during which banks can review their financial reporting, regulatory disclosure and internal compliance frameworks.


5. Impact on Commercial Banks

Financial reporting

Banks should review their financial statement disclosure templates and remove, from the appropriate reporting period onwards, the disclosures that are being specifically deleted by this amendment.

Particular attention should be given to:

  • LCR disclosure tables;
  • NSFR disclosure tables;
  • remuneration-related disclosures prescribed under Paragraph 10(13);
  • financial statement preparation checklists;
  • regulatory reporting matrices; and
  • internal disclosure-control procedures.

Regulatory compliance

The compliance function should distinguish between:

  1. disclosures prescribed under the 2025 Financial Statements Directions, which are specifically amended by this notification; and
  2. prudential or Basel-related requirements contained in other RBI directions, which may continue independently.

This distinction is particularly important for LCR and NSFR because deletion of a disclosure provision should not automatically be construed as withdrawal of the underlying prudential requirement.

Audit and assurance

Banks should also communicate the amendment to their financial reporting, internal audit and statutory audit teams so that disclosure checklists are appropriately updated for the relevant financial year.


6. Basel Pillar 3 Implications

The notification expressly states that the amendment follows the issuance of the Seventh Amendment Directions, 2026 concerning Prudential Norms on Capital Adequacy, particularly with regard to Basel Pillar 3 disclosures.

This is significant because Pillar 3 is fundamentally concerned with market discipline through regulatory disclosures.

The present amendment therefore appears to be part of a broader regulatory realignment of disclosure requirements, rather than simply an isolated deletion of three disclosure items.

For banks, this means that the regulatory reporting framework should be reviewed holistically to determine where the relevant information is now required to be disclosed and under which RBI framework.


7. Compliance Action Points

Commercial banks should consider the following actions before April 1, 2027:

Immediate review

  • Identify all disclosures currently made pursuant to Paragraph 10(2)(ii), 10(2)(iii) and 10(13).
  • Map these disclosures against other applicable RBI/Basel disclosure requirements.
  • Determine whether any substantially similar disclosure continues to be required under another regulatory framework.

Documentation

  • Update financial statement disclosure checklists.
  • Amend accounting and regulatory reporting manuals.
  • Update internal compliance matrices and standard operating procedures.
  • Review templates used by the finance and regulatory reporting functions.

Governance

  • Inform the CFO/finance function, compliance department, risk function and internal audit.
  • Place the regulatory change before the appropriate management/regulatory compliance committee, where applicable.
  • Ensure that changes are incorporated into the financial reporting control framework.

Implementation

  • Establish April 1, 2027 as the implementation date in the compliance calendar.
  • Ensure that the first financial reporting period affected by the amendment is appropriately identified.
  • Retain an audit trail demonstrating implementation of the regulatory change.

8. Key Regulatory Interpretation

A crucial point for management is that this notification is narrowly drafted.

It states that specified paragraphs dealing with disclosures "shall stand deleted."

Therefore, the safest interpretation is:

The notification removes the specified disclosure requirements from the RBI's Commercial Banks – Financial Statements framework; it does not, by itself, establish that the underlying LCR, NSFR or remuneration-related regulatory requirements have ceased to exist.

Banks should therefore avoid treating the amendment as a relaxation of the underlying prudential or governance requirements without examining the relevant standalone RBI directions.


9. Overall Assessment

The amendment represents a targeted rationalisation of financial-statement disclosure requirements for commercial banks, undertaken in the context of the RBI's evolving Basel Pillar 3 disclosure framework.

Its principal effect is the deletion of three specified disclosure requirements relating to LCR, NSFR and remuneration.

From a compliance perspective, the amendment is relatively straightforward but requires careful implementation because removal of a disclosure requirement should not be confused with removal of the underlying regulatory obligation.

The April 1, 2027 effective date provides banks with sufficient lead time to conduct a disclosure-gap analysis, revise reporting templates and update internal compliance and financial reporting controls.

Management takeaway

Commercial banks should continue following the existing disclosure framework until March 31, 2027, and use the intervening period to identify, map and remove the three specified disclosures from their financial-statement reporting framework from April 1, 2027, while separately verifying whether equivalent disclosures continue to be required under the revised Basel Pillar 3 or other applicable RBI directions.

Sunday, 9 August 2026

Extension of timeline for enrolment with PaRRVA

SEBI circular dated August 3, 2026, concerning the extension of the deadline for enrolment with the Past Risk and Return Verification Agency (PaRRVA) by Investment Advisers (IAs) and Research Analysts (RAs).

Professional Analysis

1. Subject matter

SEBI has extended the deadline for enrolment with PaRRVA from August 3, 2026 to September 3, 2026. The extension is specifically relevant to IAs and RAs who intend to communicate certified past performance data to existing or prospective clients.

2. Background

SEBI's earlier circular dated October 30, 2025 had provided that IAs and RAs wishing to communicate certified past performance data would be required to enrol with PaRRVA within three months of its operationalisation. Failure to enrol within the prescribed period would result in their inability to communicate such certified past performance data thereafter.

PaRRVA was subsequently operationalised with effect from May 4, 2026. Accordingly, SEBI's April 29, 2026 circular prescribed August 3, 2026 as the enrolment deadline.

3. Extension granted

SEBI has now extended the enrolment deadline by one month, up to September 3, 2026. The stated rationale is to facilitate a "smooth and seamless implementation of the framework", following representations received from industry participants and PaRRVA.

Compliance implication

The practical implication is important:

  • IAs/RAs intending to communicate certified past performance data should ensure that they complete their PaRRVA enrolment on or before September 3, 2026.
  • The extension does not appear to dispense with the PaRRVA enrolment requirement; it merely provides additional time for compliance.
  • The underlying restriction remains relevant: an IA/RA that is required to enrol but does not do so would not be permitted to communicate certified past performance data after the applicable deadline.
  • Accordingly, entities covered by the circular should treat September 3, 2026 as the revised compliance cut-off date.

Regulatory significance

The circular reinforces SEBI's continuing focus on ensuring that past performance information communicated by investment advisers and research analysts is subject to an appropriate verification framework. This is particularly significant because historical performance figures can materially influence an investor's assessment of an adviser or analyst.

The circular derives its authority from Section 11(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with the relevant provisions of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 and SEBI (Research Analysts) Regulations, 2014.

Suggested compliance action

For an IA/RA compliance checklist, I would recommend recording the following:

ParticularCompliance position
Regulatory authoritySEBI
Circular date3 August 2026
Applicable entitiesRegistered Investment Advisers and Registered Research Analysts
SubjectEnrolment with PaRRVA
PaRRVA operationalisation4 May 2026
Earlier deadline3 August 2026
Revised deadline3 September 2026
TriggerCommunication of certified past performance data
Recommended actionComplete PaRRVA enrolment by revised deadline

Overall assessment: This is a deadline-extension circular rather than a substantive modification of the PaRRVA framework. The key compliance takeaway for IAs and RAs is therefore straightforward: the additional one-month window should be utilised to complete PaRRVA enrolment, particularly where the entity intends to communicate certified past performance data to clients or prospective clients.

Saturday, 8 August 2026

A Better India, A Better World


N. R. Narayana Murthy’s A Better India, A Better World is an unusual book in that it is neither quite an autobiography nor an economic treatise, neither a corporate manual nor a conventional political commentary. Published in 2009 by Penguin Books India, it is essentially a compilation of Murthy’s speeches and lectures, bringing together his reflections on leadership, values, entrepreneurship, education, governance, corruption, globalisation, economic reform and India’s social challenges.

What gives the book its coherence is Murthy’s conviction that economic progress, by itself, cannot constitute national progress. Prosperity must be accompanied by integrity, competent institutions, responsible leadership and an enlargement of opportunity. His central proposition is disarmingly simple: a better India can be built only when its citizens and institutions become better.

The central argument: growth with values

Murthy approaches India’s problems less as a politician or ideologue than as an entrepreneur who has spent a lifetime observing institutions from close quarters. His experience at Infosys informs much of his thinking, particularly his faith in professionalism, transparency, meritocracy and ethical conduct.

The book repeatedly returns to two foundational requirements: values and leadership. Murthy argues that neither economic reform nor technological advancement can achieve their full potential if institutions are weakened by corruption, incompetence and the absence of accountability.

This is perhaps the book’s most enduring insight. Development is not merely a matter of constructing roads, increasing GDP or attracting foreign investment. It is also about creating an environment in which an ordinary citizen can expect institutions to function fairly and predictably.

Murthy's faith in values is not presented as sentimental idealism. He treats ethical behaviour as a practical prerequisite for sustainable prosperity. In his worldview, honesty is not merely a moral ornament; it is an economic asset.

From the Infosys experience to the Indian experience

Naturally, Infosys occupies an important place in Murthy’s argument. The company becomes something of a case study in how Indian enterprise can compete globally while adhering to professional and ethical standards.

Murthy's account is particularly significant because Infosys emerged during the transformative period following India’s economic liberalisation of 1991. The book examines what India learnt from those reforms and what remained unfinished. Its contents range from economic reforms and globalisation to corruption, urban planning, education and corporate governance.

Yet Murthy does not suggest that the Infosys model can simply be transplanted onto the nation. Rather, he uses the company's experience to illustrate broader principles: merit should matter more than connections; institutions should be transparent; employees should be treated with dignity; wealth creation should be legitimate; and success carries obligations towards society.

There is an implicit social contract here: business must create wealth and employment, government must create an enabling environment, and citizens must exercise responsibility.

Entrepreneurship as an instrument of social change

One of the book's strongest themes is Murthy’s belief that entrepreneurship is not synonymous with greed or accumulation.

For him, the entrepreneur performs a socially useful function by converting ideas into enterprises, enterprises into employment and employment into purchasing power and dignity. A contemporary review of the book captured this aspect of his philosophy particularly well: Murthy argues that poverty can ultimately be addressed through the creation of jobs that provide people with meaningful disposable incomes.

This is important because Murthy's solution to poverty is not principally charitable. Philanthropy has its place, but sustainable poverty reduction requires economic participation.

In that respect, the book is unapologetically pro-growth—but it is growth with a conscience. Wealth creation is not condemned; rather, the manner in which wealth is created becomes morally consequential.

The great Indian paradox

Perhaps the most compelling section of the book is its confrontation with India's contradictions.

Murthy writes about an India capable of producing world-class technology companies, highly skilled professionals and globally competitive entrepreneurs, while millions of its citizens continue to struggle with hunger, inadequate education, disease and poverty. The book's original premise explicitly focuses on this enormous developmental divide.

That paradox remains central to the book’s emotional force.

India, Murthy seems to argue, cannot congratulate itself merely because one part of the country has entered the global knowledge economy. A genuinely successful nation must ensure that the benefits of development travel beyond metropolitan enclaves and privileged classes.

His India is therefore not simply a richer India. It is an India in which prosperity becomes more widely distributed and opportunity becomes less dependent on accident of birth.

Education: learning rather than merely qualifying

Murthy places considerable emphasis on education, but his idea of education goes beyond degrees and examinations.

He regards education as the foundation of India's ability to compete in a rapidly changing world. Knowledge must generate curiosity, adaptability and the capacity for continuous learning. This is especially relevant to his larger argument because economic transformation creates opportunities only for those capable of acquiring the skills demanded by that transformation.

The emphasis is therefore not merely on producing graduates but on producing people capable of learning, questioning and adapting.

This part of the book also reveals Murthy’s characteristic pragmatism. Education is simultaneously a means of personal liberation, economic advancement and national development.

Corruption and governance

Murthy is at his most forthright when discussing corruption.

His diagnosis is that corruption is not simply a problem of dishonest individuals. It becomes entrenched when institutions are weak, procedures are opaque and accountability is inadequate. The solution, consequently, cannot depend entirely upon appeals to personal morality.

Better systems are required.

Transparent processes, professional administration, accountability and effective institutions must make corruption more difficult and honest conduct easier. This institutional emphasis is one of the book's more sophisticated aspects.

Murthy understands something that moral exhortations often overlook: good people operating inside badly designed systems can still produce bad outcomes.

The importance of leadership

Leadership, for Murthy, is fundamentally about responsibility rather than privilege.

A leader must possess vision, but vision without execution is merely rhetoric. He must have the courage to make difficult decisions, the humility to learn from others and the integrity to place institutional interests above personal gain.

This philosophy naturally reflects Murthy's own public image, but the book is strongest when it moves beyond autobiography and asks what kind of leadership India requires.

The answer is not necessarily charismatic leadership. It is ethical, competent and accountable leadership.

That distinction is crucial.

Globalisation and learning from the West

Murthy's discussion of globalisation is pragmatic rather than defensive. He sees no virtue in rejecting foreign ideas simply because they originate elsewhere. India should learn from countries that have developed successful institutions, systems of governance, educational models and business practices.

But learning does not mean imitation.

The underlying message is that India should be confident enough to borrow what works while retaining what is valuable in its own intellectual and cultural inheritance.

This makes the book considerably less nationalistic than its title might suggest. Murthy's conception of a better India is not an India withdrawing from the world; it is an India capable of participating in the world on equal terms.

What makes the book particularly appealing

The greatest strength of A Better India, A Better World is its clarity.

Murthy does not write like an academic economist. His prose is straightforward, measured and accessible. This makes complicated subjects—economic reforms, corporate governance, corruption and globalisation—approachable even for readers without specialised knowledge.

The book is also fundamentally optimistic.

Murthy does not deny India's problems, but neither does he surrender to cynicism. His underlying belief is that India's difficulties are formidable but not insurmountable. The country possesses human capital, entrepreneurial energy, democratic institutions and a young population; what it requires is the institutional and ethical framework to convert those assets into inclusive progress.

That optimism can occasionally feel almost too neat.

Where the book falls short

The book's greatest weakness is also a consequence of its origin.

Because it is a compilation of speeches delivered over several years, it can feel repetitive and episodic rather than like a carefully constructed, continuous argument. The book contains 38 speeches covering a remarkably broad range of subjects, from values and education to corporate governance, entrepreneurship and globalisation.

Some arguments therefore recur in slightly different forms.

More importantly, certain prescriptions can seem overly dependent on the assumption that good values, competent leadership and market-oriented growth will naturally produce desirable outcomes.

The real world is considerably messier.

Economic growth can coexist with inequality. Markets can create employment while also producing insecurity. Corporate success does not automatically translate into social justice. Government intervention can be necessary even when government itself is inefficient. And corruption is sometimes embedded in political and economic structures far more deeply than institutional reform alone can resolve.

Murthy's framework is consequently more persuasive as a moral and managerial philosophy than as a comprehensive blueprint for public policy.

There is also a distinctly early-2000s optimism about technology, globalisation and India's economic trajectory. Since the book was published in 2009, some of its immediate economic and technological assumptions inevitably belong to a different India.

Yet the book's larger questions have aged considerably better than some of its specific observations.

Why the book still matters

What makes A Better India, A Better World worth revisiting is that its fundamental question has not become obsolete:

What does it actually mean for India to become a better country?

Is it merely higher GDP? More billionaires? Bigger corporations? Better infrastructure? Technological sophistication?

Murthy's answer is that these are means rather than ends.

A better India must ultimately be judged by the quality of life available to its citizens, the integrity of its institutions, the accessibility of opportunity and the ethical standards expected of those who wield power—whether political, bureaucratic or corporate.

That is why the title is significant. Murthy deliberately connects the national and the global. A better India, he argues, does not exist in isolation from the rest of humanity. An India that combines prosperity with social responsibility, technological capability with ethical conduct, and ambition with compassion can contribute meaningfully to a better world.

Final assessment

A Better India, A Better World is not a book of radical ideas. Its prescriptions—education, entrepreneurship, good governance, institutional accountability, ethical leadership and economic opportunity—are hardly revolutionary. Its achievement lies elsewhere: in bringing these disparate strands together into a coherent philosophy of nation-building.

Murthy writes with the confidence of a technocrat, the optimism of an entrepreneur and the moral seriousness of a citizen who believes that success creates obligations.

At times, the book can seem overly earnest, repetitive and insufficiently attentive to the complexity of structural inequality. But it would be unfair to judge it solely as an economic or political treatise. Its real ambition is more philosophical: to persuade Indians, particularly the young, that the country's future is not something to be passively inherited but something to be actively constructed.

Its most valuable lesson is perhaps that development without values is merely accumulation, and prosperity without inclusion is merely privilege.

For readers interested in India's economic transformation, entrepreneurship, leadership, corporate ethics and the responsibilities of citizenship, the book remains a worthwhile read. It is especially interesting when viewed alongside the subsequent evolution of India's economy and institutions, because it allows the reader to ask which of Murthy's aspirations have been realised, which remain unfinished, and which have become even more urgent.

A Better India, A Better World may not provide every answer to India's enormous developmental dilemmas, but it asks many of the right questions—and does so with an admirable faith in the possibility that a nation can become richer without becoming morally poorer.

Stress Testing for Commodity Derivatives Segment

  1. Executive Summary The circular issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on 12 August 2026 introduces an important ...