A recent article in the Harvard Business Review on new approaches to funding social enterprises cites IFMR Capital’s work in securitisation and structured finance of microfinance loan portfolios. The article explores how unbundling societal benefits and financial returns can dramatically increase investment.

The authors argue that financial engineering can be a powerful force for change. It can permit the mobilization of more capital for investment than would otherwise be available. It can generate rich opportunities to fund projects that fuel economic growth and improve people’s lives.  The article also mentions that the ability of social enterprises to provide their products and services rises or falls with the availability of capital and that the lack of funding opportunities is one of the major disadvantages social enterprises face. The article offers the insight that the funding of a social enterprise can be treated as a problem of financial structuring: the enterprise can offer different risks and returns to different kinds of investors instead of delivering a blended return that holds for all investors but is acceptable to very few.

This new approach to structuring can close the financial-social return gap.  The article goes on to discuss the various types of financing-innovation in practice such as loan-guarantees, quasi-equity debt, pooling and social-impact bonds. In the context of techniques that involve pooling and creating tranches, the article mentions IFMR Capital’s work in securitising microfinance loan portfolios in which an investment share is retained by IFMR Capital. The article also reviews the lessons the financial crisis has taught us, most importantly, the importance of standards and ratings and the need for transparency.

The authors conclude by stating that the challenges involved in creating fully functioning capital markets and legal frameworks to serve social enterprises cannot be underestimated and that some innovations may not be suitable for all organisations. However, with the right market infrastructure and legal framework in place, enormous amounts of private capital could be mobilised for social enterprises.

To read the complete article, click here.

Subsequent to our earlier posts detailing the three broad themes from the IFMR Financial Systems Design Conference 2011, Day 2 of the conference witnessed participants identify pathways to achieve the specific visions that were formulated across the sessions in Origination, Risk Transmission and Aggregation. These pathways have been segmented into the categories of Research, Regulation, Innovation and Public Infrastructure.

I. Research

1. Conceptually, what are the trade-offs, if any, between financial inclusion and systemic risk? Are there particular models of financial inclusion that fare better than others as viewed from this perspective?

2. Are there market based instruments (ex: listed subordinate debt) that provide additional information regarding the health of systemically important financial institutions? Can these effectively supplement supervision-based information?

3. How critical is priority sector regulation to the flow of credit to sectors such as agriculture and SME? Does priority sector regulation cause allocative inefficiencies in the economy? Are there less distortionary measures to direct resources to some sectors that have a high perceived social return?

4. Does structuring Government ownership in financial institutions differently reduce distortionary effects? For ex: holding company structure to channel all Government investments into financial institutions versus direct Government investments into specific financial institutions.

5. How must the performance of Chief Risk Officers in financial institutions be measured? How should their compensation be structured?

6. Financial advice as a function of originators. How is this best structured? What liability must the originator have for advice provided to clients? How must financial advisors be compensated? What is the corresponding regulatory and legal framework for customer protection in India?

7. How different are customer outcomes in an environment characterised by: (a) Financial product access alone and (b) Financial product access combined with financial advice?

8. Why is the take-up for risk transmission products (principally insurance) low at a household level? Is the selling process and agent incentives creating barriers to take-up?

9. In markets like India, what is the inter-play of hard information and soft information for credit origination? Do regionally focussed originators have better soft information? Why are non-bank institutions much more successful in some segments (ex: used commercial vehicles finance, microfinance) than banks?

II. Regulation

10. How should regulation of the financial system be structured given that the product level distinctions are blurring? Is there a need for distinct regulators for systemic risk and customer protection?

11. The conference highlighted that the roles of the regulator and the policy-maker are quite distinct? Is increasing financial access in an under-served market like India a policy objective or a regulatory objective? How should these be coordinated?

12. What are the inherent conflicts of interest in the way regulation is currently structured? How can they be addressed?

13. How should financial sector regulators be governed?

14. With increasing sophistication of markets and products, risk measurement capabilities of regulators will become important. What are the best ways to build regulator capacity?

15. What data and reporting standards aid transparency, particularly in the regulation of systemically important financial institutions?

16. Are there market based instruments (ex: listed subordinate debt) that provide additional information regarding the health of systemically important financial institutions? Can these effectively supplement supervision-based information?

17. Managing moral hazard is important while regulating credit risk transmission mechanisms. Conference emphasised the importance of adequate capital at risk for originators that participate in securitisation as an example of this.

III. Public Infrastructure

18. Payment system innovations crucial to better origination. There are several important developments in India in this regard, including the Interbank Mobile Payment Service (IMPS) and UID-linked electronic transfer of benefits. These need to be further strengthened. Cash dematerialisation infrastructure is also an important element of this.

19. Well-defined frameworks for bankruptcy/resolution are important to orderly development of markets.

20. Need to develop electronic records for collateral and collateral transfers. This includes land, house titles and vehicles.

21. Development of cyber security and privacy laws an important complement to financial sector development.

22. Expansion of broadband connectivity will have important implications for how originators are structured. Real-time data transfer has some off-set on originator-related risk.

IV. Innovation

23. Can transactional information/behaviour available with utilities and telcos provide originators information about credit risk and substitute for soft information/collateral? This might enable newer kinds of originators and under-writing processes in the near future.

24. Technological development is gradually eliminating economies of scale in origination. It may be possible to have smaller sized but efficient originators going forward. As a related point, the justification for mega-sized financial institutions that pose serious systemic risk may get diminished.

25. The Conference noted the need for much more product innovation, both for origination as well as risk transmission. Examples include commodity options, inflation indexed bonds and corporate bonds.

A summary of the overall Conference’s proceedings is available here for further reading.

We have covered in our earlier posts, two of the three functional sessions of the IFMR Financial Systems Design Conference 2011, namely Origination and Risk Aggregation. This post summarises the third: Risk Transmission.

Scope

Risk transmission in the financial system involves the movement/assignment of risk from one entity to another, in return for a compensatory payment at a market-determined rate. In a well-functioning financial system, risk moves in an orderly manner between those who are originating it and those who are best placed to manage it, thus improving the overall capability to manage risk. The conference reviewed the existence and robustness of risk transfer mechanisms for individuals, firms and financial institutions in the Indian financial system.

The Conference participants discussed in particular, the process by which risk is transferred from originators (of financial services) to risk aggregators (financial institutions and capital markets) and the types of risks that must be retained versus the types of risks that must be transferred.

While a number of obstacles impede the creation of well-functioning risk transmission markets, its creation will fundamentally hinge on:

(a) Clearly understanding and identifying the risks to be transferred;
(b) Developing appropriate instruments for transferring risks;
(c) Creating capability to measure and price risks; and
(d) Designing and implementing a legal and regulatory framework for contract enforceability and resolution.

Characterising the present state of risk transmission in India

Conference participants highlighted the extent to which risk transmission markets in India remain under-developed, for firms, financial institutions and, particularly, for individuals. They attributed the present gaps in the infrastructure for risk transmission to a variety of reasons:

• For households, while risk transfer products exist, the key gap seems to be in high-quality distribution of those. Concerns with insurance and mutual fund selling processes and incentives have become severe in recent times. Absent this distribution infrastructure, households will continue to under-insure and under-invest.
• There continue to be barriers for broad-based participation in a number of these markets.
• Unavailability of certain risk transmission products on account of regulatory reasons (ex: Indian Treasury Bill Futures, inflation indexed bonds).
• Absence of enabling public infrastructure for designing some risk transmission products. For instance, India has not invested enough in high quality rainfall measurement stations and this has impacted the availability of good data for designing rainfall insurance contracts.
• Limited availability of certain risk transmission products on account of various environmental and infrastructural hurdles affecting accurate and efficient discovery of their prices. (ex: catastrophe insurance)

Watch video of Dr. Rangarajan K. Sundaram‘s keynote address on Risk Transmission.

Key themes

Several ideas emerged during the course of participants’ discussions on how best risk transmission mechanisms can be reinforced to function at an optimal level.

1. Make transparent the quantum and nature of risks assumed by market participants

An important overall observation was that development of risk transfer mechanisms must be preceded by much more “paranoia” regarding risk management, particularly by government owned financial entities. There was a need to make transparent the embedded risks (ex: ALM mismatch) for large financial institutions, so that risk management and risk transfer are taken seriously.

Participants felt that current regulatory approaches (particularly for banks) use caps, limits and other such fiat-based measures disproportionately and do not adequately leverage market-based mechanisms to manage risk. While rating agencies provide an important third-party view on risk, conference participants felt there was really no alternative to building robust internal risk management capabilities. Financial Institutions must focus on putting in place plans for dealing with reasonably expected failures (“known unknowns”).

2. Manage moral hazard in credit risk transfer markets

Participants felt that it was important to keep in mind moral hazard while designing risk transfer products, particularly for credit risk. In the specific context of securitisation markets, conference participants felt there was a need to be cautious about pure “originate to distribute” models. The concern was that this would create excessive moral hazard for the originator. It was discussed that the originator must retain ownership of credit risk in some form, thereby ensuring that it has the incentive to monitor credit risk, thus rooting out an instance of moral hazard in risk transmission.

3. Continue to focus on addressing missing markets for risk transmission

While important steps have been taken, participants felt that building risk transmission markets must continue to be an important financial policy objective. From a legal perspective, development of good resolution mechanisms is integral to the development of risk transfer markets. While the SARFAESI Act has been beneficial for banks vis-a-vis corporate lending, a lot more work is required on this front. Participants also noted the near total absence of thinking on the issue of household/personal bankruptcies, and the need to meet unaddressed risks, such as inflation.

Vision statement

In developing a vision for risk transmission within the financial system, participants formulated the following:

“To design, develop and sustain effective mechanisms that enable transfer of risk from households and originators to institutions than can better manage these risks.”

A more detailed summary of the deliberations on Transmission is available here.

On November 22nd and 23rd, IFMR Capital held its first partners meet, a two day meet with all its partners to re-envision access to finance for institutions that impact low income households. Industry participants and researchers came together to discuss a broader vision for the industry. While the two day event saw active participation and debate on issues that currently concern the sector, the emphasis of the meet was largely on the way forward. Held at a critical juncture, participants brainstormed and discussed strategies for reshaping the sector towards a shared vision.

The meet followed the appreciative inquiry format and drew out the best from the participants. The first part was designed to shift the focus of participants from being short-term reactive to long-term proactive. The second part focused on the positives of the industry and on what was valuable about the way the sector has functioned in the past. The participants broke into groups of two and interviewed each other. Each person described their high points and success stories, sharing instances of how and why being in this sector made them feel glad they belonged here.

The third part of the approach sought to use the output from the interviews to get a clear sense of what were the most important factors that contributed to the success in the sector. Later, organised in groups of six, participants worked on a vision of what the sector would be like in five years if the root causes of success were leveraged in specific areas of focus such as governance, customer focus, risk management, product development, etc. The end result was a shared vision that institutions in the sector could look up to.

Some important questions that emerged during the meet are listed below:

1. How should we position MFIs so that they become an indispensable part of the financial system?
2. How do we engage with the political groups more effectively?
3. What are the unique and additional responsibilities of MFI boards, given that they deal with a segment that is financially and otherwise excluded?
4. As a sector, what data do we need to collect and disseminate, internally and externally, to enable holistic risk management?
5. What investments in training will organizations and the industry make in:
• Moving from mono-line to a multi product model
• Ensuring common minimum values are shared across the sector
• Taking on the new role of a financial advisor
6. How do we use technology or other disruptive methods to dramatically improve operating efficiencies?
7. What is the regulatory framework which will allow MFIs to flourish and serve a wider range of financial needs?
8. How do we resolve short-term funding & liquidity issues for the sector?

In the last part of the meet, the groups focused on developing tactical strategies on four areas : brand management, product development, political engagement and ensuring common minimum values, areas that needed immediate action to take the industry from where it is today to where the group would like to see it in the future.

Here is a brief summary of the themes that emerged from the meet.

a) Customer centric approach: The MFI industry’s main strength is its ability to reach out to and serve a vast number of clients. Client engagement is continuous and services provided are valuable. There was a clear consensus that going forward this customer centric approach must continue to be of key importance.

b) Innovation: Every growing sector continuously evolves. Institutions must be able to respond to the changes in the sector. The need is for an innovative and flexible approach which ensures sustainability and works in the interest of its end customers. The idea of MFIs offering multi-products was discussed at length. This was the way forward and MFIs must invest time, effort and capital towards this. MFIs already possess large amounts of granular financial data pertaining to their clients. This could help them understand the needs and capacities of their clients better and in turn aid the design of relevant financial products.

c) Operating efficiencies: The cost to serve low income households can potentially be dramatically reduced by disruptive innovations. Key pieces of infrastructure such as the UID have the potential of making KYC a public good. Enormous strides in technology such as the use of biometric identification, automated payment systems, mobile technology with improved authentication through the UID can also ensure that local branch staff leverages technology to perform their most repetitive day-to-day tasks, freeing up their time to perform their core duty of understanding the needs of clients and recommending appropriate solutions. There was a clear consensus that business models need to evolve and leverage such innovations.

d) Importance of the mission: While sustainability of business was crucial, it was agreed that the commitment to social and economic well-being of the client was crucial to the sector. Given the profile of the average client, MFIs perform the important role of giving access to finance to the most excluded segment of society. Going forward, organizations must not lose sight of this fact. Further, it is necessary that there is an alignment of objectives and vision across the entire company.

e) Positioning of the industry: Concerns were raised about the response of the industry to the recent crisis and the lack of a unified voice. The role of the board was stressed in this respect, many felt that the board should play a role in ensuring customer metrics are tracked continuously and senior management is held accountable to performance as measured against the metrics. This would also ensure that MFIs are collecting enough information during good times as well as bad, so an accurate picture can be presented to the media, investors and regulators.

f) Holistic risk management: The current business model of organisations in the inclusive finance sector is strong on operations and therefore manages operations related risks very well. However, in order to evolve into universal financial service providers, organisations need to focus on risk in a more holistic manner, ie look at all aspects of risk such as operational risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, political and regulatory risk. Capacities need to be built internally, for instance, risk departments need to be set up, people need to be hired and adequate training needs to be provided, investment needs to be made in risk management systems. However, it was agreed that senior management buy-in was critical to the implementation of “holistic risk management”.

To considerably expand access to capital for financially under-served households, IFMR Capital is organizing its first Partner’s meet on the 22nd and 23rd November. The meet will provide a platform to participants for reflection, dialogue and action.

Participants comprise a select group of expert practitioners in the field of access to inclusive finance for low income households. The participants’ will engage and will help answer key questions of critical importance:

• How do we design a financial system in which there are multiple and diverse originators providing integrated financial services to low income households and small businesses, evaluating and pricing risks appropriately, and ultimately taking responsibility for good financial outcomes for their customers?
• How do we work towards understanding the needs of our customers for financial services better and fulfilling them?
• How do we design business models that are based on deep local knowledge and relationships, while ensuring systemic stability?
• How do we ensure that inclusive finance originators have adequate risk management capability and supporting infrastructure to ensure sustainability?
• How would the organization have to evolve to obtain efficient and reliable sources of funding?

The spirit of this meet is to take a step back from the existing products, institutional frameworks, and regulatory architectures, and take a more fundamental view of what can be done to improve the ability of our financial system to ensure access to finance for every individual and every enterprise.Together, we will work on a shared vision for the industry and identify specific pathways to achieve that vision.

Conference Website: http://capital.ifmr.co.in/partnersmeet/

The International Growth Centre at the London School of Economics (LSE) is an institution that offers independent advice on economic growth to governments of developing countries. Bringing top policy-makers and researchers together, it endeavors to support policymaking with thorough research evidence as the foundation.

As a part of its growth initiative the IGC recently convened “Growth Week” between 19th to 21st September at LSE, a 3-day conference which brought together a diverse set of policy-makers and researchers from Africa & South Asia. Viral Acharya organized the session on Finance, Colin Mayer chaired the part on Macrofinance and Greg Fischer chaired the part on Mobile Banking. The focus of the session was on identifying areas of academic research on policy issues that practitioners and policymakers are seeking to address in relation to finance in developing countries and emerging markets.

Kshama Fernandes represented IFMR Trust and participated on the panel on “Ideas for growth: Macro Finance” along with Dr. Subir Gokarn, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India & Ms. Shyamala Gopinath, former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India.

Talking about the past, present and future role of commercial banks in India, Dr. Gokarn spoke of the efficiencies and inefficiencies of the system and the challenges they pose in the present context. While suggesting that there was a need to build on the existing penetration of banks, banks would continue to remain the principal channel of intermediation as far as lending is concerned.  However other financial intermediaries could have a significant role to play in the financial inclusion space by developing business models that were designed to address the specific needs of their customers.

In her presentation, Ms. Gopinath pointed out that while financial innovation definitely does have an impact on growth, it needs a precise framework to function in the desired manner. The basic framework required was:

• Reasonable sophistication of participants (Financial literacy)
• Sound legal framework for dispute resolution
• Robust market infrastructure
• Reasonably liquid and deep cash market
• Financial Stability

Kshama Fernandes presented the Financial Systems Design framework based on a bottom-up approach with high quality origination, orderly risk transmission and robust risk aggregation as the three pillars of a well-functioning financial system.

The presentation below describes the key issues, the enabling infrastructure and some research questions that were discussed during the session.

The panel was attended by a large number of academics, researchers and some practitioners and generated a lot of discussion and interest on potential areas for future research. The broad areas that came up for research included: Finance and Growth (investment, bank lending, venture capital); Financial Systems and Stability (asset markets, securitization, financial regulation); and Financial Inclusion and Access by the Poor to Financial Services (savings, borrowing, payments).

As a follow-up to the Growth Week and an effort to advance these research areas, there will be a meeting of all academics associated with the Finance Programme of IGC on Tuesday November 15 at the LSE in London.

IFMR Capital recently structured and arranged two Microloan Securitisation transactions – Aether IFMR Capital 2011 involving a single originator Grameen Financial Services Private Limited (Grameen Koota) and MOSEC 7, a multi-originator securitisation transaction involving seven Non-Banking Finance Companies.

Mosec 7

On September 7 2011, IFMR Capital concluded a Rs. 511 million multi-originator microloan securitisation backed by 49,881 microloans originated by seven Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC)-Micro Finance Institutions (MFI), namely Asirvad Microfinance Private Limited, Disha Microfin Pvt. Ltd, Mimoza Enterprises Finance Pvt. Ltd., Satin Creditcare Network Limited , Suryoday Micro Finance Pvt. Limited, SV Creditline Private Limited and Utkarsh Micro Finance Private Limited. IFMR Capital Mosec VII, the SPV, issued two tranches of securities rated by ICRA: 85% senior tranche rated A1-LBBB+ (SO) and Series A2-Unrated.

The senior tranche has been subscribed by a Bank and HNI’s and Junior Tranche by IFMR Capital.

This is the biggest Multi Originator transaction arranged and structured by IFMR Capital involving 7 high quality Originators.

The structure created by IFMR Capital ensures that the incentives of the originator, servicer and the structurer are aligned. While the originators and servicers, provides cash collateral as first loss, the structurer, IFMR Capital, has invested in the subordinated junior tranche. The cash collateral and the subordination of payments to junior tranche in the waterfall mechanism ensure that the senior investor is protected against losses and any first loss is borne by the originators and the second loss by the structurer.

Aether IFMR Capital 2011

The Rs. 239 million single-originator securitisation transaction was completed with Grameen Financial Services Private Ltd also popularly known as Grameen Koota. Aether IFMR Capital 2011, the SPV, issued two tranches of securities backed by 23,108 microloans that were originated by Grameen Koota. Non-Banking Financial Institutions subscribed to the senior ICRA A- rated tranche and IFMR Capital invested in the subordinated ICRA BB+ rated piece.

This is the eighth capital market transaction for Grameen Koota with IFMR Capital.

The originator and servicer, Grameen Koota, provides cash collateral of 10% of the pool principal, while the structurer, IFMR Capital, has invested in the subordinated junior tranche. As in the above transaction, the waterfall mechanism ensures that here, the senior investor is protected against losses up to Rs. 240 million and any first loss is borne by the originator and the second loss by the structurer.

The first IFMR Conference on Financial Systems Design was held at our office in Chennai on Aug 5-6, 2011. The objective of the conference was to engage in an in-depth conversation on the future of the Indian financial system and some of the underlying design challenges being faced in various markets.

In order to retain a functional perspective, the conference was organised into three main sessions for discussion — Origination, Transmission and Aggregation — as three broad buckets of questions and concerns – one involving customers and customer protection issues, the other involving markets and derivatives and the third involving large, nationally important financial institutions and systemic risk concerns.

In the introductory session, Nachiket shared some of his thoughts on the Indian financial system.

The format of the conference allowed for collaborative work and visioning by the participants. Following a lead presentation for each of the main sessions that identified key themes, each table came up with vision statements for that theme which were then shared across the room and discussed. Following the visioning, there was an exercise to identify the pathways for us to get to the desired end-state. These pathways were categorised into Research, Regulation, Innovation and Public Infrastructure.

The conference yielded very rich discussions and the participants identified several interesting issues and priorities for the Indian financial system. In the following weeks, we will share the summary of discussions and identified pathways for each of the three sessions.

The structured finance approach has given MFIs access to a new class of debt investors, thereby reducing over-dependence on traditional sources of funds. This therefore enables risk transfer over a larger gamut of financial institutions and also provides access to mainstream capital market investors. The need for continuous and reliable sources of capital is critical for growth and sustenance in this sector.

Kshama Fernandes of IFMR Capital has recently written an article “A structured finance approach to microfinance” that was published in Securitisation & Structured Finance Handbook 2011/12 by Euromoney Yearbooks, where she explains the structured finance approach to the microfinance asset class in great detail.

“The success and sustainability of the structured finance approach in the microfinance sector depends on the high-quality origination of loans, appropriate incentives for all parties to a transaction and continuous monitoring of the portfolio and originator. Transparency and adequate disclosures ensure that market players act responsibly and the best originators are recognised. Finally, a strong regulatory framework that promotes innovation while ensuring transparent reporting, sufficient accounting mechanisms, prudent exposure limits and effective risk management is critical.”

With lucid explanantions and vivid examples of single originator and multi-originator securitisations, the article is a must read for anyone interested in microfinance.

Click here to download the complete article.

ICRA and CRISIL have upgraded the ratings assigned to the Senior Pass Through Certificates (PTCs) and Assignee Payouts pertaining to three transactions backed by micro loan pool receivables originated by Grama Vidiyal Microfinance Limited (GVMFL) and two transactions backed by micro loan pool receivables – one originated by Satin Creditcare Network Ltd. and one by Janalakshmi Financial Services Private Limited respectively.

ICRA upgrades micro loan pool receivables originated by Grama Vidiyal Microfinance Limited (GVMFL)

The ratings upgrade reflects the good collection performance on the underlying pools so far, and enhanced credit enhancement cover for the rated instruments / payouts over the balance tenure.

The summary of the rating actions taken by ICRA is given below.

In case of all the three aforementioned transactions, the selected pool comprised of unsecured micro loans (less than or equal to Rs. 20,000 each), with low initial tenure of contracts (50 weeks), moderately high initial seasoning and no overdue. Moreover, the pools comprised of General Loans^[2] only.

A brief performance summary for these pools is given below

As can be seen from the table above, the cumulative collection efficiency for all the above-mentioned transactions has been 100% and no delinquencies have been reported in these transactions so far. As a result, no cash collateral has been utilised in these transactions till date. The credit enhancement available in the transactions is sufficient to support the revised rating level.

CRISIL Upgrades micro loan pool receivables originated by Satin Creditcare Network Ltd

# Indicates door-to-door tenure between the issuance date and legal final maturity date; actual tenure will depend on the level of prepayments in the pool, exercise of clean-up call option, and extent of shortfalls

& The Series A1 PTCs are entitled to receive interest on a fortnightly basis. There is an expected schedule for principal repayments for the Series A1 PTCs; however the structure allows for principal payments to be made by the maturity date of the PTCs (ultimate payment structure)

* Credit support for the Series A1 PTCs includes Rs.22.7 million in the form of subordination of cash flows over and above the scheduled payouts promised to the Series A1 PTCs

$ Credit support for the principal repayment on the Series A2 PTCs includes Rs. 8.4 million of subordinated cash flows

CRISIL has upgraded its ratings on the Series A1 and Series A2 PTCs issued by Theta Pioneer IFMR Capital 2011 to ‘P1+(so)’ from ‘P2+(so)’, and to ‘P3+(so)’ from ‘P4(so)’ respectively. The PTCs are backed by microfinance loan receivables originated by Satin Creditcare Network Ltd. The upgrade is driven by strong collection performance together with low overdue level of the pool, which has led to an increase in the cover provided for the PTC payouts by the available credit collateral.

Pool Performance Summary (as per May 23, 2011 payout report)

CRISIL Upgrades micro loan pool receivables originated by Janalakshmi Financial Services Private Limited