Choose Report Type
Publication Date
Report Upload
download
(2.45 MB)
vertical
Industry & Foreign Investment
PDF Text
Impact Assessment
of Pradhan Mantri
Mudra Yojana
(PMMY)
November 2023 i
Acknowledgement:
This study was carried out with the financial support of NITI Aayog, Government of India, and
conducted by KPMG, Gurugram.
Disclaimer:
KPMG, Gurugram, has received the financial assistance under the Research Scheme of NITI
Aayog to prepare this report. While due care has been exercised to prepare the report using the
data from various sources, NITI Aayog does not confirm the authenticity of data and accuracy of
the methodology to prepare the report. NITI Aayog shall not be held responsible for findings or
opinions expressed in the document. This responsibility completely rests with KPMG, Gurugram
ii
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Overview of the Study ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Context ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Brief Overview of Performance of Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, PMMY .......................... 7
2. Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Overall Approach ............................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Secondary Research and Analysis ................................................................................... 11
2.3 Primary Analysis and Stakeholder Interactions ................................................................. 11
2.4 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................... 11
3. Literature Review and Analysis ............................................................................................... 12
3.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Sector Level Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3 Scheme Level Analysis ..................................................................................................... 26
4. Primary Analysis and Stakeholder discussions ...................................................................... 77
5. Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 87
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 89
iii
Glossary
PMMY Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana
MUDRA Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency Ltd
NBFC Non-Banking Financial Company
MFI Micro Finance Institutions
PMJDY Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana
MSE Micro Small Enterprises
MSME Micro Small Medium Enterprises
FY Financial Year
SIDBI Small Industries Development Bank of India
GVO Gross Value of Output
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GVA Gross Value Added
MLI Member Lending Institution
RBI Reserve Bank of India
MSMED Act Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
ANBA Atma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan
ECLGS Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme
CGS Credit Guarantee Scheme
CGSSD Credit Guarantee Scheme for Subordinate Debt
GSTN Goods and Service Tax Network
CGFMU Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units
NCGTC National Credit Guarantee Trustee Company Ltd.
CGTMSE Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for Micro and Small Enterprises
SHGs Self Help Groups
SMA Special Mention Accounts
NPA Non-Performing Assets
UAN Udyog Aadhar Number
SCB Scheduled Commercial Bank
BSR Basic Statistical Return
SC Scheduled Caste
ST Scheduled Tribe
OBC Other Backward Class
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
KYC Know Your Customer
ITR Income Tax Return
DFS Department of Financial Services
SFBs Small Finance Banks
JLG Joint Liability Group
OTP One Time Password
MCS Micro Credit Scheme
RRBs Regional Rural Banks iv
MCLR Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate
XML Extensible Markup Language
GST Goods and Service Tax
PAN Permanent Account Number
CIBIL Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited
FOIR Fixed Obligation to Income Ratio
BCs Banking Correspondents
SBR Standard Basic Rate
FOGAPE The Fondo de Garantia para Pequenas Empresas (Small Enterprise
Guarantee Fund)
FI Financial Institution
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Scheme target achievement since inception .................................................................. 8
Table 2: Overall performance of the scheme ................................................................................ 8
Table 3: Categories of MUDRA loans and beneficiaries cumulative for 7 years under PMMY..... 9
Table 4: Primary data collection tool to be employed ................................................................. 10
Table 5: Schemes and Initiatives aimed at promoting access to Finance for MSME sector ....... 17
Table 6: CGS & CGTMSE and PMMY & CGFMU ...................................................................... 19
Table 7: Credit Gap in MSME sector .......................................................................................... 21
Table 8: YoY change (growth) in number of accounts and amount outstanding for
Manufacturing, Trade, and other professional services in SCBs (for less than INR 10 lakhs).... 23
Table 9: Availability/ supply of Credit to MSME sector, KPMG India Analysis, and correlation
with share of MSME in GVA per cent ......................................................................................... 26
Table 10: Category-wise details of number of accounts and disbursement amount under PMMY
.................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 11: YoY change in Mudra accounts and amount disbursed category wise ...................... 28
Table 12: Sub category under the PMMY, FY 2022 ................................................................... 31
Table 13: Distribution of subcategory according to Loan size category, FY 2022 ...................... 32
Table 14: Women: Share of Women in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned
category-wise .............................................................................................................................. 34
Table 15: Women: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan
size category ............................................................................................................................... 34
Table 16: New Entrepreneurs Account: Share of New Entrepreneur in total number of accounts
and amount sanctioned category-wise ....................................................................................... 36
Table 17: New Entrepreneurs Account: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned
amount according to loan size category ..................................................................................... 37
Table 18: SC: Share of SCs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
.................................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 19: SC: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size
category and as a share of total portfolio under PMMY .............................................................. 38
Table 20: ST: Share of STs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
.................................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 21: ST: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size
category and as a share of total portfolio under PMMY .............................................................. 39
Table 22: OBC: Share of OBCs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-
wise ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Table 23: OBC: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan
size category and as a share of total portfolio under PMMY ...................................................... 40
Table 24: Minorities: Share of Minorities in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned
category-wise .............................................................................................................................. 41
Table 25: Minorities: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to
loan size category and as a share of total portfolio under PMMY ............................................... 41
Table 26: Number of Accounts, region-wise ............................................................................... 42
Table 27: Amount sanctioned (in crore), region-wise ................................................................. 42
Table 28: State Classification region wise .................................................................................. 49
Table 29: Top 10 States as per Sanctioned amount per MSME, 2021-2022 ............................. 53
Table 30: Top 10 states as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022 .................................. 53 vi
Table 31: Top 10 districts as per Sanctioned amount, 2021-2022 ............................................. 54
Table 32: Top 10 districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MSME, 2021-2022 ........................... 55
Table 33:Top 10 districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022 ................................. 55
Table 34: Top 10 Aspirational districts as per Sanctioned amount, 2021-2022 .......................... 57
Table 35:Top 10 aspirational districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MSME, 2021-2022 ......... 58
Table 36: Top 10 aspirational districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022............. 58
Table 37: Number of loan accounts and amount disbursed to Aspirational Districts .................. 59
Table 38: YoY change per cent for Aspirational Districts ............................................................ 59
Table 39: Institution wise Average loan size ............................................................................... 61
Table 40: CAGR and Disbursed Amount by MLI type ................................................................ 62
Table 41: Average Loan Size category-wise under PMMY ........................................................ 71
Table 42: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) over the years ............................................................ 72
Table 43: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) per cent over the years .............................................. 72
Table 44: Per cent of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) Accounts against total number of accounts
.................................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 45: Per cent of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) Amount against disbursement ................. 75
Table 46: Key findings from MLI Discussions ............................................................................. 77
Table 47: Example for Eligible Claim Pay-out under CGFMU .................................................... 82
Table 48: Guarantee Cover taken by MLIs granting loans under PMMY ................................... 82
Table 49: Summary of Scheme Rationalization .......................................................................... 89
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Indexed Commercial Credit Inquiry Volumes .............................................................. 12
Figure 2: Indexed Commercial Credit by Lender Type ............................................................... 13
Figure 3: Key Schemes by Ministry of Finance ........................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Credit Gap in MSME Sector (in INR lakh crore) .......................................................... 22
Figure 5: Number of Accounts for Manufacturing, Trade and Other Professional Services in
SCBs ........................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 6: Amount Outstanding for Manufacturing, Trade and Other Professional Services in
SCBs ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7: Number of MSME loans (Trade, Manufacturing and Other Professional Services) ..... 24
Figure 8: Total Outstanding on MSME loans upto Rs 10 lakhs by SCBs (Trade, Manufacturing
and Other Professional Services) ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 9: Share of MSME in GVA% ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 10: Number of Accounts for Shishu, Kishore and Tarun category ................................... 29
Figure 11: Share of Mudra Accounts category wise ................................................................... 29
Figure 12: Share of Shishu, Kishore and Tarun loans in the total PMMY portfolio (Disbursed
Amount) ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 13: Share of Number of Accounts for women entrepreneurs as a percentage of total
accounts under MUDRA ............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 14: Share of Sanctioned amounts for women entrepreneurs as a percentage of total
sanctioned amount under MUDRA ............................................................................................. 33
Figure 15: Share of Number of New entrepreneur accounts as a percentage of total accounts
under MUDRA ............................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 16: Share of New entrepreneur sanctioned amount as a percentage of total sanctioned
amount under MUDRA ................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 17: Number of New Entrepreneur Accounts category wise ............................................. 36
Figure 18: Sanctioned Amount for new Entrepreneur Accounts category wise .......................... 36
Figure 19: Cumulative number of accounts (2015 – 2022), region-wise .................................... 43
Figure 20: Cumulative sanctioned amount (2015 – 2022), region-wise ...................................... 44
Figure 21: Number of Accounts under PMMY region wise ......................................................... 45
Figure 22: Amount Sanctioned under PMMY region wise .......................................................... 45
Figure 23: Shishu: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs) ......................... 46
Figure 24: Kishore: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs) ........................ 46
Figure 25: Tarun: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs)........................... 47
Figure 26: Shishu: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand crores) ... 47
Figure 27: Kishore: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand crores) .. 48
Figure 28: Tarun: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand crores) ..... 48
Figure 29: State-wise Per Capita Amount Sanctioned under PMMY (2015-2022) ..................... 50
Figure 30 : Top 10 states (Number of Accounts) (2015-2022) ................................................... 51
Figure 31: Top 10 states (Amount Sanctioned) (2015-2022) ...................................................... 52
Figure 33: Regional distribution of sanctioned amount, 2021-2022 ............................................ 56
Figure 34: Number of loan accounts for aspirational districts over the years under PMMY ....... 59
Figure 35: Amount sanctioned for aspirational districts over the years under PMMY (in INR
Crore) .......................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 36: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakh) .................................... 63
Figure 37: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Shishu (in lakhs) ...................... 64 viii
Figure 38: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Kishore (in lakhs) .................... 64
Figure 39: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Tarun (in lakhs) ........................ 65
Figure 40: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand Crores) ............ 66
Figure 41: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Shishu (in INR thousand Crores) 66
Figure 42: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Kishore (in INR thousand Crores)
.................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 43: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Tarun (in INR thousand Crores) . 68
Figure 44:Number of MLIs giving PMMY loans in aspirational districts, 2021-22 ....................... 68
Figure 45: MLI-wise number of accounts in aspirational districts, 2021-22 ................................ 69
Figure 46: MLI-wise amount disbursed in aspirational districts (in INR Crore, 2021-22) ............ 69
Figure 52: Average loan amount under PMMY category wise (in INR) ...................................... 70
Figure 53: Total Number of NPA Accounts ................................................................................. 72
Figure 54: Total NPA Amount (in INR Crore) .............................................................................. 72
Figure 55: Total Number of NPA Accounts category wise .......................................................... 73
Figure 56: Total NPA Amount category wise .............................................................................. 74
Figure 57: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) per cent, MLI-wise (2016-2022) ................................ 75
Figure 58:Cumulative Number of NPA Accounts (in lakhs) (2016-2022) .................................... 76
Figure 59:Cumulative NPA Amount (in INR thousand crores) (2016-2022) ............................... 76
1
Executive Summary
1 The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector plays a defining role for the
entrepreneurs and is a key driver of socio- economic development in India. The sector
contributes about 33 per cent (FY 2015 to FY 2019) of the country’s total manufacturing Gross
Value of Output (GVO). It accounts for more than 40 per cent of exports and contributes over
28 per cent of Gross Value Added (GVA) in all India GDP while creating employment for about
11.10 crore people.
1
2 Owing to the large contribution, the government has been focusing on facilitating the
development by strengthening of the regulatory framework, with initiatives and schemes to
support the credit and infrastructural needs of the MSME sector. In addition, there has also
been focus on enabling skill development, technology upgradation, market development for
the sector. One of the key government initiatives for enabling access to credit for MSMEs is
the Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana (PMMY).
3 Since its inception, the scheme has provided credit support of INR 18.39 lakh crores to 34.93
crore accounts
2
. PMMY in tandem with other scheme and initiatives is contributing to meet
the credit needs of the sector. However, to understand the overall impact created and current
gaps a detailed study on impact of the scheme is crucial. NITI Aayog is conducting a research
study on impact assessment of PMMY and has engaged KPMG Advisory Services Private
Limited for undertaking the study
4 With the above context, the impact assessment study is conducted for the scheme to analyse
the performance and contribution of the scheme towards the MSME and particularly the Micro
Enterprises. The study comprises of in-depth primary and secondary research. The analysis
and insights from the study for the sector is compiled in the report
5 The report aims to provide an overview of the performance of the sector, covering credit
demand-supply gap, sources of finance, credit availability and accessibility issues based on
study of selected academic papers, sectoral reports, policy documents, and scheme
documents. The report also presents national and international good practices for addressing
the credit availability issues in the MSME sector.
6 Further, the report covers the scheme performance, challenges, and improvement areas in
the form of recommendations across four parameters namely, Sche me Design,
Implementation, Institutional Mechanism, and Monitoring & Evaluation basis the primary and
secondary research.
Sector Overview
7 Several policy level interventions have been undertaken to strengthen the MSME sector by
the Government of India. Government has even launched multiple schemes to improve access
to credit for MSMEs over the years such as PM Jan Dhan Yojana, Standup India, Credit
1
Annual Report 2020- 21, Ministry of MSME, Government of India; MUDRA Ltd
2
MUDRA Ltd 2
Guarantee Scheme for Subordinate debt etc. In addition, the government also provides
support to the lending institutions by way of Guarantee Covers such CGFMU and CGTMSE
8 To address credit gap and the challenges faced by the MSMEs, the RBI Expert committee on
MSMEs (2019), suggested legislative focus on market facilitation enabling ease of doing
business by MSMEs, with SIDBI playing facilitative role for bringing in private equity financing
into the sector, introducing the credit guarantee schemes under RBI’s purview.
3
9 To support the sector during Covid-19 pandemic, Government also extended measures under
Atma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan Package to ensure continued business and small enterprises
survival and growth
10 Despite access to formal financial institutions, the below mentioned challenges still remain
prevalent in the sector which needs review and monitoring going forward
• long loan application processing time,
• high processing fee,
• high rates of interest,
• lack of a credit history
• existing debt burden
• difficulty in providing guarantee or inadequacy of collateral,
• lack of awareness and knowledge about financial schemes
Primary Survey
11 Primary Survey in the form of qualitative survey has been conducted across different MLI
types (SCBs, SFBs, NBFCs and MFIs), Department of Financial Services (DFS) and Micro
Units Development & Refinance Agency Limited (MUDRA).
The sample size and discussions completed across Member Lending Institutions are
mentioned below:
MLIs Completed
Public Sector Banks 7
Private Sector Banks 7
NBFCs 1
NBFCs -MFIs 3
Small Finance Banks 1
TOTAL 19
3
Reserve Bank of India (2019), Report of the Expert Committee on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 3
Scheme Evaluation
Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana
12 Government of India launched the Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana in 2015. The scheme seeks
to fill the credit gaps in small, micro and tiny enterprises to spur economic activity.
4
The
scheme enables loans to income generating micro enterprises that are engaged in
manufacturing, trading and other professional services for up to INR 10 lakh.
5
In consonance
with the funding needs of the borrowers, the MUDRA loans can be sought at Scheduled
Commercial banks (Public Sector and Private Sector Banks), Non-Banking Financial
Company (NBFC), Microfinance institutions (MFIs) and Small Finance Banks (SFBs).
13 Since the launch in 2015, the scheme has reached out to 34.93 crore Micro and Small
Entrepreneur Accounts and provided credit support amounting to approximately INR 18.39
lakh crore.
5
In terms of the overall performance, the scheme target allocations exhibits a
cumulative aggregate growth rate (CAGR) of around 16 per cent across the years with the
sanctions increasing at 18 per cent CAGR. However, the amount sanction for the FY 2021
shows a reduction of 5 per cent from INR 3,37,496 crore to INR 3,21,759 crore, which may be
attributed to reduced borrowing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
14 Key findings from analysis of scheme data are as below:
• As a share of the total portfolio of PMMY, the majority loan accounts (79.20 per cent) are
in the Shishu category for FY 2021, followed by Kishore at 18.70 per cent and Tarun at
2.11 per cent
• Kishore has major share (41 per cent) with respect to the amount disbursed, followed by
the Shishu and Tarun category at 35 per cent and 24 per cent respectively for FY 2021
• People belonging to SC, ST, OBC have more number of Shishu accounts (83.92 per cent,
83.53 per cent, 78.68 per cent respectively for FY 2022) and only a few among them
belong to the Kishore and least to the Tarun category.
• The analysis as a share of total number of accounts and amount sanctioned for all the
different social groups have remained almost constant over the years
• Women entrepreneurs have always had the major share of PMMY loans. For the FY 2022,
they are holding around 71.4 per cent of the total number of accounts in their name.
• Number of accounts and amount sanctioned for women entrepreneurs in the Kishore
category has increased by 48 and 30 percentage points respectively. Comparatively, the
number of accounts for women entrepreneurs in the Shishu and Tarun category have
fallen by 11 and 3 percentage points respectively.
4
Annual Report 2015- 16, Ministry of MSME, Government of India 4
• The sanctioned amount for New entrepreneurs has increased from INR 61,650 Crore to
INR 72,685 Crore and the number of accounts have decreased from 124.7 lakhs to 65.3
lakhs
• For the FY 2022, only 12 per cent of the total loan accounts belong to new entrepreneurs
compared to 36 per cent at the time of launch of the scheme. The share of the amount
sanctioned as a per cent of total sanctioned amount under MUDRA has also shown a
decline of around 24 percentage point over the last 7 financial years.
• The top performing regions are South and East, followed by North and West, with North-
east being at the bottom of the pyramid considering the absolute values of the total number
of accounts and the amount sanctioned in different states of the country for the period
ranging from FY 2016 to FY 2022
• Regionally, the number of accounts and the amount sanctioned under the Mudra scheme
for the Northeast region is not only the lowest but is also decreasing year after year post
FY 2018
• Among states, West Bengal has the highest amount sanctioned per MLI of INR 49 Cr and
Tripura state has the highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 37.1 lakhs; among
districts Murshidabad has the highest amount sanction per MLI of 106 Cr and Bijapur
district has the highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 147.3 lakhs which is also an
aspirational districts; while Visakhapatnam has the highest amount sanctioned per MLI of
INR 44 Cr among aspirational districts
• Average loan size has gradually increased for almost all the banks over the years.
However, this can also attribute to reduced number of loan accounts particularly for MFIs,
NBFCs and SFBs whose number of accounts have observed a negative CAGR of 24.8
per cent, 33.2 per cent and 24.6 per cent respectively from 2018 to 2021, and hence not
necessarily an indicator of only enhanced disposal of credit to the micro entrepreneurs.
• NPA accounts and the amount have been increasing year after year with a CAGR of 22.51
per cent and 36.61 per cent respectively from FY 2017 to FY 2022. Public sector banks
have the highest NPA of 22.6 per cent and 16.9 per cent against the number of account
and disbursement respectively, whereas NBFCs have the lowest NPA of 1.3 per cent and
0.5 per cent against the number of account and disbursement respectively.
• A deeper analysis also reveals that the number of NPA accounts for the Shishu category
have always been more than that of the Kishore and Tarun category. Amount wise, the
Kishore account holders, have been the highest contributor of NPA since FY 2018.
15 The issues and challenges identified from discussions with MLIs have been mentioned below:
a. Scheme Design
• Ceiling of 15% on pay out under CGFMU is not feasible and restricts benefits of the
banks 5
• Guarantee fee charged (the Standard Basic Rate (SBR) of 1 per cent p.a. of sanctioned
amount on Micro Loans) is not economical and reported to be high by many banks
• Mostly the Public Sector Banks avail the benefit under the Guarantee Cover whereas
for the other MLI types, the signup for the cover is very low
• Complex (XML format, errors made not easily rectifiable, takes a lot of time to upload),
and lengthy claim settlement process (only after the second loss) under CGFMU
• The refinancing rates under Mudra are considered high by a few banks and hence the
refinancing obligation to avail benefits under Mudra is not economical for some banks
• Lack of collateral increases the security risk for MFIs and develops fear of NPA in
banks
b. Implementation
• Challenge in catering to the large pool of customers due to limited number of
employees and staff
• Need for awareness programs to build credit discipline among borrowers
• Customers’ understanding of documents and process, and non -availability of
documents are some of the key challenges
• Need for mass promotional campaigns as people do not approach the bank to avail
mudra loans directly
• Borrowers lack knowledge of basic documentation. Most rejection of loan applicants
happen at CIBIL check level and as a failure to submit the required documents
• Poor connectivity to remote areas
c. Institutional Mechanism
• Lack of centralized database for collecting information about customers and
enablement of bank account formalization
• Poor credit penetration to weaker sections and deficient areas
• Need for a digitized platform for quick addressal of queries on issues pertaining to
guarantee covers or other operational/ technical guidelines
d. Monitoring and Evaluation
• A proper mechanism for target setting is needed by DFS for all the MLIs under PMMY
• Need for a standardized process for monitoring performance of micro entrepreneurs
as frequent migration of borrowers happens from one category to another
• Need for adequate control mechanism to supervise as the control mechanism and
ownership lies with the bank officials for encouraging people to apply for loans 6
16 Key recommendations for the scheme have been described below:
• More outreach with customers and other stakeholders of the scheme for information
dissemination and attracting more beneficiaries
• Mass promotions may be facilitated in television, newspapers, radio or by way of
display of posters and banners in regional languages to attract customers in villages
and rural areas
• Government can also support offline promotions with online modes of promotion
through social media platforms, Facebook ads, google ads and other online websites
and sources
• A Portal enabling real-time upload of beneficiary data will help streamline the
beneficiary data collection
• Increasing digitization to make the scheme more efficient, hassle free for the potential
beneficiaries
• Chatbots for query redressal may be launched to benefit MLIs and beneficiaries
• E-KYC authentication may be encouraged for loan underwriting to ensure proper
assessment checks. Udyam registration may be utilized for this.
• A recognition mechanism is needed for different MLIs based on their scale of operation
and performance 7
1. Overview of the Study
1.1 Context
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) sector is a key driver of socio- economic
development in India. The sector contributes about 33 per cent (2014-15 to 2018-19) of the
country’s total manufacturing Gross Value of Output (GVO), more than 40 per cent of exports,
and over 28 per cent of Gross Value Added (GVA) in all India GDP while creating employment
for about 11.10 crore people.
5
Owing to the large contribution of the sector, Government has been focusing facilitating its
development. Changes such as, strengthening the regulatory framework, providing support for
meeting credit and infrastructural needs have been made. In addition, there has also been focus
on enabling skill development, technology upgradation, market development for the sector. One
of the key government initiatives for enabling access to credit for MSMEs is the Pradhan Mantri
MUDRA Yojana (PMMY).
NITI Aayog is conducting a research study on impact assessment of PMMY and has engaged
KPMG Advisory Services Private Limited for undertaking the study with the objective of:
• Assessing availability of credit to MSME sector
• Assessing performance of PMMY scheme
• Assessing contribution of PMMY in improving access to credit for MSMEs
• Understanding challenges faced by financial institutions in extending credit under the scheme
• Providing recommendations to improve the overall framework and delivery of scheme
1.2 Brief Overview of Performance of Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana, PMMY
Launched in 2015, PMMY seeks to fill the credit gaps in small, micro and tiny enterprises to spur
economic activity.
6
The scheme enables loans to income generating micro enterprises that are
engaged in manufacturing, trading and services up to INR 10 lakh.
5
In consonance with the
funding needs of the loanee, the MUDRA loans can be sought at banks, Non-Banking Financial
Company (NBFC) and Microfinance institutions (MFIs). Borrowers can also submit loan
application through the universal enterprise loan portal
7
(https://www.udyamimitra.in/#).
The loans are provided across three categories. These categories, given below, are based on the
business life cycle that the loanee enterprise might be currently is in.
Shishu: loans up to INR 50,000
Kishore: loans from INR 50,001 to 5,00,000
Tarun: loans from INR 5,00,001 to 10,00,000
5
Annual Report 2020- 21, Ministry of MSME, Government of India
6
Annual Report 2015- 16, Ministry of MSME, Government of India
7
Annual Report 2017- 18, Ministry of MSME, Government of India
8
Additionally, MUDRA loan classification also applies to overdraft amount of INR 10,000
sanctioned under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY).
5
The loan under the scheme can be availed through financial institutions such as, Public Sector
Banks, Private Sector Banks, Rural banks from regional sector, State operated cooperative
banks, Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs).
Since its inception, the scheme has reached out to 34.93 crore MSE Borrower Accounts and
provided credit support of INR 18.39 lakh crore.
5
PMMY in tandem with other scheme and
initiatives is contributing to meet the credit needs of the sector.
In terms of performance, it is seen that the scheme target allocations exhibit an average growth
of 16 per cent across the years and the sanctions increased at 18 per cent. However, the amount
sanction for the year 2020- 21 shows a reduction of 5 per cent, this may be attributed to reduced
borrowing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The table below shows that over the years the scheme has achieved about 98 per cent of its
target.
Table 1: Scheme target achievement since inception
Year Target (INR Cr.) Sanctioned (INR Cr.) Disbursements (INR Cr.)
2015-16 122,000 137,449 132,955
2016-17 180,000 180,529 175,312
2017-18 244,000 253,677 246,437
2018-19 300,000 321,723 311,811
2019-20 325,000 337,496 329,715
2020-21 350,000 321,759 311,754
2021-22 306,000 339,110 331,402
Source: Annual Reports, Ministry of MSME, Government of India
Table 2: Overall performance of the scheme
Year No. of A/c Amt. sanctioned (INR Cr.) Amt. disbursed (INR Cr.)
2015-16 34,880,924 137,449 132,955
2016-17 39,701,047 180,529 175,312
2017-18 48,130,593 253,677 246,437
2018-19 59,870,318 321,723 311,811
2019-20 62,247,981 337,496 329,715
2020-21 50,735,046 321,759 311,754
2021-22 53,795,526 339,110 331,402 9
Overall 349,361,060 1,891,743 1,839,387
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
In terms of the three categories of loans, Shishu accounted for 86 per cent of number of accounts,
42 per cent of the amount sanctioned and 43 per cent of the amount disbursed over the last seven
years.
Table 3: Categories of MUDRA loans and beneficiaries cumulative for 7 years under
PMMY
Particulars
Cumulative for 7 years since inception (FY 2016 to FY 2022)
No. of A/c
Amt. Sanctioned
(INR Cr.)
Amt. Disbursed
(INR Cr.)
Shishu
299,467,978
(86%)
794,602
(42%)
785,219
(43%)
Kishore
43,039,085
(12%)
653,456
(35%)
627,257
(34%)
Tarun
6,853,997
(2%)
443,685
(23%)
426,911
(23%)
Total 349,361,060 1,891,743 1,839,387
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
10
2. Approach and Methodology
2.1 Overall Approach
The present study is aimed at assessing the impact of the scheme based on analysis of secondary
data and primary stakeholder interactions.
It employs a mixed method (MM) approach, that combines the breadth of quantitative (QUANT)
methods with the depth of qualitative (QUAL) and “triangulating” information from different
approaches, making it useful for assessing different facets of complex outcomes or impacts of
the programme (schemes).
For the secondary study, the team has conducted analysis of quantitative, qualitative data and
literature review. It involves a four-pronged approach (i) synthesis of key findings from the past
evaluation studies of the key schemes (ii) systemic review of the literature on relevant studies
conducted in the country and (iii) systemic review of the literature on relevant studies conducted
in other countries (iv) synthesis of findings from the systematic reviews of the meta-analysis
conducted by researchers on the scheme/ intervention areas.
The primary study employs purposive sampling to gain insights and data from the various
stakeholders extending financial assistance to the sector to help understand different aspects
related to the scheme such as, role of the scheme in enabling access to credit for MSMEs, its
contribution, impact, challenges, and gaps. The interactions are also used to help validate data
and findings from secondary sources.
Interviews have been conducted with
Department of Financial Services
Micro Units Development & Refinance Agency Limited (MUDRA)
Different member lending institutions MLIs
8
including Scheduled Commercial Banks from
both public and private sectors, Small Finance Banks (SFBs), Non-Banking Finance
Companies (NBFC), and Micro Finance Institutions (MFI).
The MLIs are selected based on:
Type of MLIs (SCBs, SFBs, NBFCs and MFIs)
Performance on the scheme (high, low, and medium- targets in terms of number of
disbursements and amount of NPAs)
Table 4: Primary data collection tool to be employed
Data collection tools
Description Instrument Respondent
Qualitative
Key Informant
Interviews
Interviews based on
Structured and Semi-
structured questionnaires
Key Stakeholders such
as banks, NBFCs etc.
8
All SCBs are eligible as MLIs. NBFCs which have been in operation for at least 2 years as on 29.2.2020, and FIs will also be
eligible as MLIs under the Scheme. 11
2.2 Secondary Research and Analysis
Secondary analysis includes quantitative, qualitative data analysis and literature review
The secondary research entails-
Assessing data shared by the government ministries, agencies, and data available at
varied credible sources
The quantitative data from Department of Financial Services, MUDRA Ltd, RBI, National
Sample Survey (NSS) etc. as well as the budget documents and previous research papers
to understand the contribution, barriers, gaps and improvements needed across the
scheme value chain.
A detailed review of literature has also been undertaken that involves conducting
computer-assisted search to identify the relevant literature from academic sources, think
tanks, and international development agencies.
2.3 Primary Analysis and Stakeholder Interactions
Primary data for the study is collected from various categories of respondents identified. The data
collected is qualitative, through use of appropriate instruments/ tools such as, Key Informant
Interviews (KIIs).
The objective of the primary study of PMMY is to understand the key challenges in
implementation, the ways to address the challenges and improve performance of scheme.
KPMG has carried out stakeholder interactions with the below mentioned stakeholder groups to
deliberate on the issues of the sector, barriers around financial access, and inputs for its
improvement:
Department of Financial Services
Micro Units Development & Refinance Agency Limited (MUDRA)
Different member lending institutions
The list of stakeholders for the interviews is provided in annexure of the report.
2.4 Limitations of the Study
Following are some of the key limitations of the study.
a) Quality of secondary data
There is a risk that required data points are not being recorded and/ or updated by relevant
authorities and data points available through secondary resources might also not be specific to
the precise needs of this study
b) Lack of beneficiary survey
The stakeholder interactions are conducted only with member lending institutions and not with
scheme beneficiaries due to which challenges faced by beneficiaries are not covered.
12
3. Literature Review and Analysis
3.1 Literature Review
3.1.1. Credit Demand of MSME
The demand for MSME loans has picked up post pandemic and the demand measures as the
number of total credit enquiries have grown to 1.6 times of the pre-covid era which is attributed to
the improvement or enhancement in the economic and business activity at large after the second
wave of Covid-19. Further, the availability of enriched credit data and the adoption towards digital
lending enabled more MSMEs, the access to credit. Compared to the pre-pandemic, the credit
disbursements to MSMEs have doubled across segments indicating a support to the increasing
credit demand by the industry.
9
Figure 1: Indexed Commercial Credit Inquiry Volumes
Source: MSME Pulse, SIDBI, August 2022
Credit demand for NBFC appears to be on a recovery path with a credit demand at 1.4 times of
the pre-covid phase while the private and public banks stand strong at a credit demand of 1.7
and 1.6 times from the Q4, FY2020.
9
MSME Pulse, SIDBI, August 2022
100
64
100
105
129
73
126
147
161
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FY20-Q4 FY21-Q1 FY21-Q2 FY21-Q3 FY21-Q4 FY22-Q1 FY22-Q2 FY22-Q3 FY22-Q4 13
Figure 2: Indexed Commercial Credit by Lender Type
Source: MSME Pulse, SIDBI, August 2022
3.2.3 Current Sources of Finance and credit accessibility issues for MSME sectors
One of the biggest challenges faced by the MSME sector has been the lack of availability of timely
and adequate finance. Accessing credit from formal sources has been challenging for the sector
given the lack of a credit history, lack of knowledge about processes and schemes available
and other barriers in accessing formal institutions such as, inflexible policies, complex
processes, and lack of understanding of stages of MSME life cycle and a perception of
high risk and lack of profitable proposition among the formal institutions. This often leads
to enterprises availing loans from informal sources that offer high priced credit, pushing
enterprises into a vicious cycle of debt.
Over the years the access to finance and sources of lending have increased for the enterprises.
A study by Singh and Wasdani (2016)
10
assessed the sources of lending of enterprises at different
stages of the life- cycle. The stages and the sources accessed are discussed below
10
-
Start- up stage: At this stage enterprises are less than 3 years of age. The enterprise at
this stage obtains working capital from the use of personal funds, friends or family. Use of
public sector banks is also made for working capital and collateral financing.
Survival stage: At 3- 6 years, the objective of these enterprise is breaking even with
regard to the initial investment made. The credit needs are met through both, informal and
formal sources at this stage.
Growth stage: With enhanced financial need and increase in ability to lend at higher cost,
the enterprises use public banks for working capital and collateral financing and private
banks for short- term loans.
10
Singh, C., and K. P. Wasdani. (2016). Finance for Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises in India: Sources and Challenges.
ADBI Working Paper 581. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available-http://www.adb.org/publications/finance-micro-
smalland-medium-sized-enterprises-india-sources-and-challenges
100
96
100 99
127
60
114
148
160
100
47
106
119
141
93
144
156169
100
27
83
83
102
53
107
116
141
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FY20-Q4 FY21-Q1 FY21-Q2 FY21-Q3 FY21-Q4 FY22-Q1 FY22-Q2 FY22-Q3 FY22-Q4
Public Private NBFC 14
Sustenance stage: At more than 6 years, enterprises use personal funds, borrow from
friends (to meet the working capital needs), public banks, cooperative banks. For working
capital and collateral financing cooperative banks are also used.
Despite access to formal financial institutions, the challenges such as, difficulty in providing
guarantee, long loan application processing time, high processing fee, high rates of
interest, lack of awareness and knowledge about financial schemes still remain a
challenge.
To address credit gap and the challenges faced by the MSMEs, the RBI Expert committee on
MSMEs (2019), suggested legislative focus on market facilitation enabling ease of doing business
by MSMEs, with SIDBI playing facilitative role for bringing in private equity financing into the
sector, introducing the credit guarantee schemes under RBI’s purview.
11
3.2.3 Challenges – Supply-side and Demand-side Factors
12
Certain demand- side factors that constraint access to formal finance are discussed below:
Information asymmetries: Discrepancies in reporting of financial data due to the absence
of organised formal book- keeping is a common issue for MSMEs that affect credit
assessment and loan amount. There is also a lack of understanding and knowledge on
lending processes among the enterprises that again hinders the access to finance
Inadequacy of collateral: the limited access of MSMEs to immoveable collateral
increases the perception of risk among the financial institutions
Existing debt: Enterprises often take loans from informal sources that is not reported in
their credit history. There are also cases of multiple lending due to inadequate equity base
that makes them overextend and susceptible to defaulting
The supply side issues constraint include:
Risk perception: MSMEs are often perceived as high risk due to lack of understanding
around their businesses, lack of formal operational process, different cash flow cycles and
lack of collateral. Further delays in buyer payment, high susceptibility to environmental
risks and lack or absence of mechanism for risk mitigation contribute to this risk perception
among financial institutions
In addition to high risk, financial institutions find it costly to finance MSMEs. Due to
smaller ticket sizes, high cost of due diligence and collection the profit margins shrink
Institutions having outdated underwriting processes that insist on collateral and do not
truly gauge the enterprises’ ability to repay. Creating relevant loan underwriting systems
by developing and spending time on the ground is therefore crucial
Lack of data on MSMEs is another issue. The credit bureaus in the country also have
limited data on the MSMEs
Overall, while the credit supply to MSMEs has increased over the years. There continues to exist
significant credit gap in the sector. Both, constraints on the supply side and demand side factors,
11
Reserve Bank of India (2019), Report of the Expert Committee on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
12
Financing India’s MSMEs, Estimation of debt requirement of MSMEs in India, 2018 available at ifc.org 15
hinder the access. In this scenario, legislative support, and schemes such as, public guarantee,
subsidized lending etc. play a major role by instilling confidence and risk aversion for the lenders
and facilitating access for the sector.
Recently the country faced the COVID- 19 pandemic, the MSME sector was hit hardest due to
the high vulnerability, the sector presents. It faced drop in sales due to reduced customer footfall
and escalation in costs due to cost of transportation being added as supply chains disrupted.
To support the sector through the phase and ensure business continuity the government extended
measures under the Atma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan package. The fiscal and legislative support is
expected to set precedence for enhanced access to finance and growth of the sector going
forward.
3.2.3 Key Initiatives by Government to improve access to Formal Credit through
Institutions
To enhance the financing to the MSME sector, the government, and Reserve Bank of India (RBI)
have been focused on creating an enabling environment for the sector. Changes were made in
the regulatory framework to support, direct and stimulate growth.
The MSMED Act,
13
was enacted in 2006 and amended in 2020. The act defined and classified
the MSME sector and formed the basis facilitating further policy development.
In 2007, the erstwhile Ministry of Small-Scale Industries and the Ministry of Agro and Rural
Industries were merged to form the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (M/o
MSME). The ministry has been working on facilitating programmes and promoting the sector. In
addition, other ministries and institutions have been supporting the sector as well.
Recently, when MSMEs ran the risk of insolvency due to liquidity challenges during the COVID-
19 crisis the government expanded liquidity measures and introduced schemes to support the
sector. The government under the ‘Atma-Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan (ANBA)’ introduced various
relief measures. Some of the measures are as follows
14
:
Creation of ‘Fund of Funds’ with a corpus of INR 10,000 crores, wherein the government
will have equity stakes in the MSMEs that show growth potential and viability
Credit Guarantee Scheme, Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS),
debt facility for stressed MSMEs and equity infusion under the Initiative and cluster
financing strategy.
It provides additional liquidity to MSMEs with reduced cost of funds.
The scheme enabled the “Member Lending Institutions (MLIs), 100 per cent guarantee
against any losses suffered by them due to non-repayment of the ECLGS funding by
borrowers.
15
Disallowing global tenders in government procurement tenders up to INR 200 crores
13
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, available at-
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2013?view_type=search&sam_handle=123456789/1362
14
Atmanirbhar Presentation Part-1 Business including MSMEs 13-5-2020, available at-
https://msme.gov.in/sites/default/files/AtmanirbharPresentationPart-1BusinessincludingMSMEs13-5-2020_0.pdf
15
Ministry of MSME (2021), Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme, PIB, available at-
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1742684 16
In addition, the government also changed the classification of MSME, increasing the
investment limit and introduced the criteria of turnover, the change considers the increase
in price index of plant and machinery/equipment and aims at enhancing the ease of doing
business for the sector. Additionally, the distinction between manufacturing and service
sector was removed to bring in parity
E- market linkages for MSMEs in place of trade fairs and exhibitions and use of data
generated to enhance Fintech lending
With renewed focus on MSMEs, the sector is expected to play a key role in the economic recovery
in the country. The improved credit availability, greater technology adoption, enhanced fintech
landings and government reforms are expected to enable higher growth and development of the
sector.
16
3.2.3 Government Schemes promoting access of Finance for MSME Sector
Government has launched multiple schemes to improve access to credit for MSMEs over the
years. Some of the important schemes targeted to provide financial assistance from FY 2011 to
FY 2021 by Ministry of Finance are:
Figure 3: Key Schemes by Ministry of Finance
Various other departments have also designed schemes to improve the access to finance for
the MSME sector. Table below presents key credit guarantee schemes aimed at promoting
access to finance by different ministries:
16
SIDBI (2021), ANNUAL REPORT (PART - I) 2020-21 17
Table 5: Schemes and Initiatives aimed at promoting access to Finance for MSME sector
Name of
Scheme
Interest Subvention Scheme
17
Emergency Credit Line Guarantee
Scheme (ECLGS)
18
Credit Guarantee Scheme for
Subordinate Debt (CGSSD)
19
Ministry
SIDBI, Ministry of MSME,
Government of India
Department of Financial Services,
Ministry of Finance (National Credit
Guarantee Trustee Company Ltd)
Ministry of MSME, Government of
India
Year of
launch
2018 2020 2020
Objective
It aims at providing an interest relief
to MSMEs for on boarding on GST
platform which helps in formalization
of economy while reducing the cost
of credit.
To provide emergency credit facilities
to MSMEs to meet their additional
term loan/working capital
requirements during the Covid19
crisis.
The scheme intends to provide
personal loan to promoters of
stressed MSMEs for infusion as
equity / quasi equity in the business
eligible for restructuring, as per RBI
guidelines for restructuring of
stressed MSME advances.
Eligibility
criteria
• The scheme is applicable to
MSMEs having a valid GSTN
number and registered on Udyam
portal, with a Valid Udyog Aadhar
Number [UAN].
• Coverage to the extent of INR
100 lakh (working capital/ term
loan should have been taken
during the period of Scheme:
2018 to 2021)
MSMEs with outstanding loan of up
to Rs.50 crores as on 29
th
February
2020 and turnover of up to Rs.250
crores in FY 2019-20.
Valid for stressed MSMEs, viz. SMA-
2 and NPA accounts as on 30
th
April
2020 that are eligible for restructuring
as per RBI guidelines on the books
of the Lending institutions.
Funding
mechanism
SIDBI shall act as a Nodal Agency
for the purpose of channelizing of
100 per cent guarantee coverage to
Banks and NBFCs for them to extend
It offers guaranteed coverage for the
CGSSD to provide Sub-Debt support
17
Interest Subvention Scheme for MSMEs – Co-operative banks, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11976&Mode=0
18
Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS) website, available at https://www.eclgs.com/
19
CREDIT GUARANTEE SCHEME FOR SUBORDINATE DEBT (CGSSD), available at -
https://www.cgtmse.in/Default/ViewFile/?id=1607434039202_Scheme%20Document%20%20Subordinate%20Debt%20Scheme.pdf&path=Page 18
interest subvention to the various
lending institutions through their
Nodal office. The interest relief will
be calculated at two percentage
points per annum (2 per cent
p.a.), on outstanding balance from
time to time from the date of
disbursal / withdrawal or the date of
notification of this scheme, whichever
is later, on the incremental amount of
working capital sanctioned or
incremental term loan disbursed by
eligible institutions.
emergency credit facilities up to 20
per cent of total outstanding on 29
th
February 2020.
in respect of restructuring of MSMEs.
Promoters of the MSME will be given
credit equal to 15 per cent of the
stake in MSME entity or Rs.75 lakhs
whichever is lower as per the last
audited balance sheet.
19
The government also provides support to the lending institutions by way of Guarantee Covers. Two primary guarantee funds
provided by Government under the MSME sector are CGTMSE and CGFMU. CGFMU comes under NCGTC which was set up by
the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance. CGTMSE was jointly set up by Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises and SIDBI A comparative analysis of CGTMSE and CGFMU highlighting the similarities and differences between the two
is summarized in the table below:
Table 6: CGS & CGTMSE and PMMY & CGFMU
Credit
Guarantee
Fund
Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small
Enterprises (CGTMSE)
20
Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units (CGFMU);
Ministry Ministry of MSME, Government of India and SIDBI Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India
Year of
launch
2000 2015
Objective To provide collateral-free credit to the MSME sector. It aims to provide loans to income generating micro
enterprises that are engaged in manufacturing, trading,
and services up to INR 10 lakh.
Target
beneficiary
MSMEs Micro Enterprises
Corpus The corpus of the scheme is contributed by Government
of India and SIDBI in 4:1 ratio. Earlier in March 2010, the
corpus was INR 1906.55 crore
21
. Up to May 2016, INR
2477.78 crore
22
as corpus has been contributed, a change
of around 30 per cent.
Credit guarantee fund CGFMU operates with the initial
corpus of INR 3000 crores while the refinance corpus
under MUDRA Bank is INR 20,000 crores as per the
Budget Speech 2015-16
23
.
Guarantee
Cover
The guarantee cover available under the scheme is to
the extent of 50%/ 75% / 80% & 85% of the sanctioned
amount of the credit facility
24
.
The guarantee cover available under the scheme is to
the extent of 50%/ 75% - subject to maximum pay out
cap of 15% of the crystallized portfolio
25
20
MSME Schemes, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, available at https://msme.gov.in/sites/default/files/MSME_Schemes_English_0.pdf
21
MSME, GOI, available at: https://msme.gov.in/sites/default/files/CredirGuranteeFundScheme_1.pdf
22
Development Commissioner Ministry of MSME, available at: http://www.dcmsme.gov.in/old/schemes/sccrguarn.htm
23
Press Information Bureau, Government of India Cabinet, available at: https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=134215
24
CGTMSE, available at: https://www.cgtmse.in/Home/VS/3
25
FAQ, CGFMU, available at: https://www.ncgtc.in/sites/default/files/finalfaq.pdf 20
• 50% - credit from INR 10 lakh to INR 100 lakh per MSE
borrower for retail trade activity
• 75% - credit facility extended by the lending institution
for credit facilities up to INR 200 lakh.
• 80% - i) Micro and Small Enterprises operated and/or
owned by women; and (ii) all credits/loans in the
Northeast Region (NER) for credit facilities up to INR
50 lakh. In case of default
• 85% - micro enterprises for credit up to INR 5 lakh
• For Micro loans sanctioned up to March 31, 2020, First
Loss to the extent of 5% of the crystallized portfolio of
the MLI is borne by the MLI. Out of the balance portion,
the ‘extent of guarantee’ will be to a maximum extent
of 50% of ‘Amount in Default’
• For Micro Loans sanctioned during FY 2020-21 and
after First loss to the extent of 3% of the amount in
default is borne by the MLI. Out of the balance portion,
the “extent of guarantee‟ will be to 75% of “Amount in
Default‟
• For SHGs - Extent of guarantee is 75% of amount in
default. No first Loss.
Eligibility
criteria/
loans
covered
Manufacturing and services including Retail trade are
eligible. However, educational/ training institutions, SHG
and agriculture are ineligible for coverage.
Loans can be availed by new and existing micro
entrepreneurs: small manufacturers, artisan, fruit &
vegetable dealer, shopkeeper, Agri business.
Funding
mechanism
Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI),
established Trust, namely the Credit Guarantee Fund
Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises (CGTMSE)
implements the scheme. The corpus of the scheme is
contributed by Government of India and SIDBI and 75 per
cent of the loan amount to the bank is guaranteed by the
Trust Fund. Credit facility up to Rs. 200 lakhs can be
covered on outstanding basis.
Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units (CGFMU) was
established with established initial corpus of INR 3000
crores in 2015 for guaranteeing loans sanctioned under
PMMY. Lending institutions are NBFCs, Public and
Private sector banks, MFIs, Regional Rural Banks, Small
Finance Banks that can provide loans up to Rs. 10 lakhs. 21
3.2 Sector Level Analysis
3.2.1 Credit Gap – Supply of credit analysis
To arrive at the estimate of the current credit gap, data from SIDBI’s Annual report and IFC has
been extrapolated to estimate the total credit demand by MSMEs from FY 2018 onwards to FY
2021
26
.
The total addressable demand for credit was around INR 27.90 lakh crore
27
and INR 36.70 lakh
crore
28
for the FY 2010 and FY 2017 in the MSME while the credit supply to MSME stood at INR
20.21 lakh crore as of March 2021, with a YoY growth of 6.6 per cent
29
, observing a strong
rebound post the Covid era.
For the FY 2021, the total addressable credit demand is INR 41.95 lakh Cr and the supply of
credit flow to the MSME sector is INR 20.21 lakh Cr, which marks an estimated credit gap of 51.82
per cent of the total addressable credit demand by MSME as per the analysis below.
Table 7: Credit Gap in MSME sector
(Year) (Amt.
in lakh Cr.)
Total Addressable Credit
demand by MSMEs
Total supply of credit
flow to
MSME sector
Credit Gap
2009-10 27.9 7 20.90
2017-18 38.42 16.98 21.44
2018-19 40.22 18.58 21.64
2019-20 40.63 18.97 21.66
2020-21 41.95 20.21 21.74
Source: KPMG India Analysis (in blue), SIDBI Annual Report, 2020-21, IFC, World Bank
26
Refer to Annexure for assumptions and change/ growth per cent calculations
27
IFC, world bank, November 2012, Credit demand for FY2010, available at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/cb7b428f-57c0-
4941-b760-505052b12e93/MSME+Report-03-01-2013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jQUTnU3
28
IFC, world bank, November 2018, Credit demand for FY2017, available at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/dcf9d09d-68ad-
4e54-b9b7-614c143735fb/Financing+India%E2%80%99s+MSMEs+ -
+Estimation+of+Debt+Requirement+of+MSMEs+in+India.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=my3Cmzl
29
SIDBI, Annual Report, 2020-21
The total addressable credit demand by MSME sector are predicted for the FY 2018 and FY 2019 based
on the CAGR of 4.68 per cent (IFC, World Bank, FY2010 and FY2017).
For the FY 2020 and FY 2021, the total addressable demand could be INR 40.63 lakh Cr and INR 41.95
lakh Cr respectively, assuming growth rate changes of the supply of credit flow to MSME sector (Refer
to annexure for detailed assumptions and change/ growth per cent calculations) 22
Figure 4: Credit Gap in MSME Sector (in INR lakh crore)
Source: KPMG India Analysis; SIDBI Annual Report, 2020-21
It can be observed from the figure above that the total credit demand by MSMEs and the projected
supply of credit flow to MSME sector has been moving parallelly since FY 2018 and there has
been no change or improvement in bridging the credit gap as a percent of total demand by
MSMEs. Special efforts would thus be required to encourage lenders and financial institutions to
reverse these trends for the future and bridge gap in access.
3.2.3 Impact on Outstanding Loans in MSME
To observe the impact of launch of PMMY and understand the implication of the amount
outstanding and accounts for PPMY portfolio, time series publication data for the Scheduled
Commercial Banks for Trade, Manufacturing, and other professional services from the FY 2014
up to FY 2022 has been analysed.
The Amount outstanding has been increasing year after year and Outstanding credit (less than
INR 10 lakhs) for scheduled commercial banks is the highest for trade accounts which also saw
a major hike in the financial years 2015-2016.
The number of accounts have also significantly increased for Trade by 70 per cent and
Manufacturing by 67 per cent during 2015-16.
Overall, the number of accounts and amount outstanding in SCBs from FY 2014 to FY 2021 saw
significant year on year increase for manufacturing, trading as well as other professional services.
However, Covid-19 impacted the growth of these accounts, both in terms of number and amount
outstanding which is clearly visible through the negative and low YoY change respectively in all
the three categories – Manufacturing, Trade and Other Professional services for the FY 2022.
27.9
38.42
40.22 40.63
41.95
7
16.98
18.58 18.97
20.21
2009-10 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Total Credit demand by MSMEs Projected supply of credit flow to
MSME sector
21.64
21.44
21.66 21.74
20.90 23
Table 8: YoY change (growth) in number of accounts and amount outstanding for
Manufacturing, Trade, and other professional services in SCBs (for less than INR 10
lakhs)
High Medium Low
YoY
change
per cent
Manufacturing Trade
Other Professional
Services
Year No. of A/c Amt. O/s No. of A/c Amt. O/s No. of A/c Amt. O/s
2014-15 10% 19% 2% 12% 27% 20%
2015-16 67% 9% 70% 25% 23% 15%
2016-17 49% 12% 7% 8% 4% 6%
2017-18 54% 20% 18% 20% 41% 23%
2018-19 11% 11% 15% 16% 13% 12%
2019-20 22% 14% 45% 18% 80% 20%
2020-21 20% 20% 25% 22% 4% 10%
2021-22 -6% 8% -6% 9% -15% -3%
Source: Database on Indian Economy, RBI’s Data Warehouse, Time series publications,
Quarterly BSR-1: Outstanding credit of SCBs
Figure 5: Number of Accounts for Manufacturing, Trade and Other Professional Services
in SCBs
Source: Database on Indian Economy, RBI’s Data Warehouse, Time series publications,
Quarterly BSR-1: Outstanding credit of SCBs
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of Accounts
ManufacturingTradeOther Professional Services 24
Figure 6: Amount Outstanding for Manufacturing, Trade and Other Professional Services
in SCBs
Source: Database on Indian Economy, RBI’s Data Warehouse, Time series publications,
Quarterly BSR-1: Outstanding credit of SCBs
On further analysing the data of SCBs, it is observed that most of the MSME account for
Manufacturing, Trade and other professional services have low quantum of loans such that the
maximum number of loans accounts fall into the category of "Rs25k-2L" category, whereas the
least accounts belong to the category "Rs5L-10L". Likewise, for the amount outstanding,
maximum growth can be observed for the category "Rs5L-10L" and the least for "Upto Rs25k"
category.
However, post the launch of PMMY, in 2015-16, it is observed that the combined number of
accounts and amount outstanding for trade, manufacturing and Professional Services have
increased by 87 per cent and 148 per cent respectively for loan size “Upto Rs25k”.
Figure 7: Number of MSME loans (Trade, Manufacturing and Other Professional Services)
Source: Database on Indian Economy, RBI’s Data Warehouse, Time series publications,
Quarterly BSR-1: Outstanding credit of SCBs
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Amount Outstanding (in Cr)
ManufacturingTradeOther Professional Services
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of MSME Loans
Upto Rs 25k Rs 25k-2L Rs 2L-5L Rs 5L-10L 25
Figure 8: Total Outstanding on MSME loans upto Rs 10 lakhs by SCBs (Trade,
Manufacturing and Other Professional Services)
Source: Database on Indian Economy, RBI’s Data Warehouse, Time series publications,
Quarterly BSR-1: Outstanding credit of SCBs
3.2.3 Relationship between GVA and credit availability
The MSME sector plays a major role and contributed to nearly 34 per cent of India’s GVA in FY
2019. It can also be observed that there is a significant improvement in GVA per cent after the
launch of PMMY starting FY 2016, indicating the scheme contribution in enhancing availability of
credit had a positive role to play in the increasing share of MSME in GVA per cent.
Figure 9: Share of MSME in GVA%
Source: MSME Annual Report, Government of India, 2018-19 and 2020-21
The table below highlights the supply of credit to the MSME sector and the corresponding share
of MSME in GVA per cent. For the FY 2018 and FY 2019, it can be observed that an increase
from INR 16.98 lakh Cr to INR 18.58 lakh Cr is complemented by a increase in the share of
MSME contribution in GVA from 32.79 per cent in FY 2018 to 33.50 per cent in FY 2019.
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Amount Outstanding (in Cr.)
Upto Rs 25k Rs 25k-2L Rs 2L-5L Rs 5L-10L
32.35
32.82
32.71
31.86
32.28 32.24
32.79
33.5
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 26
Table 9: Availability/ supply of Credit to MSME sector, KPMG India Analysis, and
correlation with share of MSME in GVA per cent
(Year) (Amt.
in lakh Cr.)
Availability/ supply of Credit to
MSME
Share of MSME in GVA (%)
2017-18 16.98 32.79
2018-19 18.58 33.50
Source: SIDBI Annual Report, 2020-21; Annual reports, MSME
3.3 Scheme Level Analysis
3.3.1 Category Wise Performance
The three categories of PMMY namely the Shishu, Kishore and Tarun are analysed in this section
basis the number of accounts and the amount disbursed from the launch year i.e. FY 2016 up to
FY 2022.
On analysing the growth of the portfolio, it is observed that the number of Shishu accounts which
was rising till FY 2020, has had a drop in the last year (negative YoY change of 26.2 per cent in
FY 2021) and a consequent decline in the amount sanctioned and disbursed (negative YoY
change of 33.3 per cent in FY 2021). Subsequently, the number of Tarun accounts and the
amount disbursed therein is significantly declining over the past 2 years and only the Kishore
account has faired well with YoY growth of 46.6 per cent and 39.2 per cent in the number of
accounts and amount disbursed respectively in the FY 2021.
Overall, the scheme has not shown much growth post FY 2020, primarily due to economic slow
down during the pandemic – Covid 19 as can be seen in the table and figure below. 27
Table 10: Category-wise details of number of accounts and disbursement amount under PMMY
Year
(Amt. in
Cr.)
Shishu Kishore Tarun
Total
(Loans up to Rs. 50,000)
(Loans from Rs. 50,001 to
Rs. 5.00 Lakh)
(Loans from Rs. 5.00 to
Rs. 10.00 Lakh)
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
2015-16 32,401,046 62,028 2,069,461 41,073 410,417 29,854 34,880,924 132,955
2016-17 36,497,813 83,892 2,663,502 51,063 539,732 40,357 39,701,047 175,312
2017-18 42,669,795 104,228 4,653,874 83,197 806,924 59,012 48,130,593 246,437
2018-19 51,507,438 139,652 6,606,009 99,868 1,756,871 72,292 59,870,318 311,811
2019-20 54,490,617 162,813 6,471,873 91,427 1,285,116 75,475 62,247,606 329,715
2020-21 40,180,115 108,637 9,486,160 127,240 1,068,771 75,878 50,735,046 311,754
2021-22
41,721,154 123,969 11,088,206 133,389 986,166 74,044 53,795,526 331,402
299,467,978 785,219 43,039,085 627,257 6,853,997 426,911 349,361,060 1,839,387
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 28
Table 11: YoY change in Mudra accounts and amount disbursed category wise
High Medium Low
Financial
Year
Shishu Kishore Tarun
Total
(Loans up to Rs. 50,000)
(Loans from Rs. 50,001
to Rs. 5.00 Lakh)
(Loans from Rs. 5.00 to
Rs. 10.00 Lakh)
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
No. of A/c
Disburse-
ment
Amt.
2016-17 13% 35% 29% 24% 31% 35% 14% 32%
2017-18 17% 24% 75% 63% 49% 46% 21% 41%
2018-19 21% 34% 42% 20% 118% 22% 24% 26%
2019-20 6% 17% -2% -8% -27% 4% 4% 6%
2020-21 -26% -33% 47% 39% -17% 0% -18% -5%
2021-22 4% 14% 17% 5% -8% -2% 6% 6%
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 29
Figure 10: Number of Accounts for Shishu, Kishore and Tarun category
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Further, as a share of the total portfolio of PMMY, the majority loan accounts (77.56 per cent) are
in the Shishu category. However, gradually the share is declining compared to the year of launch
wherein Shishu loans comprised of a whopping share of 92.89 per cent. This movement can be
seen shifting and contributing to the share of Kishore loans as it now stands at 20.61 per cent
compared to just 5.93 per cent in the FY 2016. Also, the Kishore category has grown to acquire
the major share with respect to the amount disbursed for any category with a share of around 41
per cent, first time in FY 2021 since the launch, surpassing the Shishu category that had been
dominant both in terms of number of accounts and the amount disbursed over the years. Lastly,
for the Tarun category, we did not see any significant change both in terms of loan accounts and
amount disbursed.
Figure 11: Share of Mudra Accounts category wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of Accounts
Shishu Kishore Tarun
93% 92% 88% 86% 87%
79% 77%
6% 7% 10%
11% 11%
19% 21%
1% 1% 2%
3% 2% 2% 2%
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
ShishuKishoreTarun 30
Figure 12: Share of Shishu, Kishore and Tarun loans in the total PMMY portfolio
(Disbursed Amount)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
3.3.7 Sub-category Analysis
This section presents the trends, pattern, and distribution of the PMMY for the subcategories
based on castes (SC, ST, OBC), gender, minorities, and new entrepreneurs (new accounts – first
time borrowers).
For an overview, people belonging to SC, ST, OBC have more number of Shishu accounts (83.92
per cent, 83.53 per cent, 78.68 per cent respectively for FY 2022) and only a few among them
belong to the Kishore and least to the Tarun category.
Further, the women entrepreneurs have always had the major share of PMMY loans. For the FY
2022, they are holding around 71.4 per cent of the total number of accounts in their name in. Out
of this, however it can be observed that they are majorly given loans in the Shishu category (79.22
per cent).
PMMY scheme was designed to target and benefit the new to credit customers
30
. In this context,
we observe from the table below that majority of the amount for new entrepreneurs is disbursed
to the Tarun category while majority of the new entrepreneur borrowers belong to the Shishu
category (71.70 per cent).
30
PM launches Mudra bank to ‘fund the unfunded’ small entrepreneurs; available at https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/pm-
launches-mudra-bank-to-fund-the-unfunded-small-entrepreneurs/story-0pdua6ML9noC1NqqoPDnNM.html
47% 48%
42% 45%
49%
35% 37%
31% 29%
34% 32%
28%
41%
41%
22% 23% 24% 23% 23% 24% 22%
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun 31
Table 12: Sub category under the PMMY, FY 2022
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Category
(Amt. in
Cr.)
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
% of
total
no.
of
A/c
% of
total
Amt.
General 19,185,749 59,382 5,977,398 88,234 830,992 66,268 25,994,139 213,884 48 63
SC 7,858,637 22,633 1,480,309 12,949 25,756 1,721 9,364,702 37,304 17 11
ST 2,938,831 8,086 562,237 5,241 17,016 1,125 3,518,084 14,453 7 4
OBC 11,737,937 34,646 3,068,262 31,220 112,402 7,604 14,918,601 73,470 28 22
Total 41,721,154 124,747 11,088,206 137,644 986,166 76,719 53,795,526 339,110 1 1
Out of the above:
Women 30,441,921 89,622 7,892,778 70,028 94,560 6,773 38,429,259 166,422 71 49
New
Entrepre
-neur
4,682,019 13,025 1,463,027 28,231 385,305 31,429 6,530,351 72,685 12 21
Minor-
ities
5,411,850 15,077 1,971,117 21,468 65,872 4,765 7,448,839 41,311 14 12 32
Table 13: Distribution of subcategory according to Loan size category, FY 2022
Sub-Category
Shishu Kishore Tarun
No. of
A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
General 74% 28% 23% 41% 3% 31%
SC 84% 61% 16% 35% 0% 5%
ST 84% 56% 16% 36% 0% 8%
OBC 79% 47% 21% 42% 1% 10%
Out of the above:
Women 79% 54% 21% 42% 0% 4%
New Entrepreneur 72% 18% 22% 39% 6% 43%
Minorities 73% 36% 26% 52% 1% 12%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Detailed Analysis for the subcategories:
Women
The in-depth analysis from the period FY 2016 to FY 2022 revealed around a 10-percentage point
dip in the amount sanctioned for women entrepreneurs from its launch. From the figure below, we
can also observe that the ratio of disbursement is almost 50:50 for men and women in the current
times.
Additionally, the number of women account holders as a per cent of the total accounts under the
Mudra scheme witnessed a fall from 79% in FY 2016 to 71% in FY 2022. However, despite of
this, they continue to maintain their presence and hold the majority of accounts in the scheme
compared to other genders. 33
Figure 13: Share of Number of Accounts for women entrepreneurs as a percentage of
total accounts under MUDRA
31
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 14: Share of Sanctioned amounts for women entrepreneurs as a percentage of
total sanctioned amount under MUDRA
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
31
Men*: May or may not include other gender as well
84%
78%
75%
65% 66%
69%
73%
23% 23%
29%
44%
46%
58%
71%
13%
9% 10%
45%
31%
8%
10%
79%
73%
70%
62% 63%
66%
71%
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun Overall
110%
79%
76%
68% 67% 68%
72%
21%
18% 19%
26%
28%
38%
51%
13%
9% 10%
13% 12%
8% 9%
60%
44%
41% 41%
43%
41%
49%
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun Overall 34
Table 14: Women: Share of Women in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned
category-wise
Women Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
Year
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
2015-16 84% 110% 23% 21% 13% 13% 79% 60%
2016-17 78% 79% 23% 18% 9% 9% 73% 44%
2017-18 75% 76% 29% 19% 10% 10% 70% 41%
2018-19 65% 68% 44% 26% 45% 13% 62% 41%
2019-20 66% 67% 46% 28% 31% 12% 63% 43%
2020-21 69% 68% 58% 38% 8% 8% 66% 41%
2021-22 73% 72% 71% 51% 10% 9% 71% 49%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Also, as stated earlier, women are majority Shishu account holders in the PMMY scheme.
However, the trend of women having majority of the Shishu accounts, has over the years gradually
shifting and seeing a ray of light with graduation to the Kishore category, more so evidently, post
the pandemic, in the last 2 years, especially for the amount sanctioned per cent that has risen
from 11.03 per cent in FY 2016 to 42.08 per cent in FY 2022.
Table 15: Women: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according
to loan size category
Women Shishu Kishore Tarun
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 98% 84% 2% 11% 0% 5%
2016-17 98% 83% 2% 12% 0% 5%
2017-18 96% 78% 4% 16% 0% 6%
2018-19 90% 72% 8% 20% 2% 8%
2019-20 91% 76% 8% 18% 1% 6%
2020-21 83% 57% 16% 39% 0% 5%
2021-22 79% 54% 21% 42% 0% 4%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
New entrepreneur/ accounts
The sanctioned amount for New entrepreneurs has increased from INR 61,650 Crore to INR
72,685 Crore and the number of accounts have decreased from 124.7 lakhs to 65.3 lakhs.
For the FY 2022, only 12 per cent of the total loan accounts belong to new entrepreneurs
compared to 36 per cent at the time of launch of the scheme. The share of the amount sanctioned
as a per cent of total sanctioned amount under MUDRA has also shown a decline of around 24
percentage point over the last 7 financial years. 35
Figure 15: Share of Number of New entrepreneur accounts as a percentage of total
accounts under MUDRA
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 16: Share of New entrepreneur sanctioned amount as a percentage of total
sanctioned amount under MUDRA
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Similarly, not only overall, but the same downward trend, both for the number of accounts as well
as the amount sanctioned to the new entrepreneur accounts as a per cent of the total continues
to fall for all the categories irrespective of the loan size value.
34%
22%
24%
21%
18%
14%
11%
58%
60%
45%
31%
28%
17%
13%
49%
54%
50%
25%
33%
44%
39%
36%
25% 26%
22%
19%
15%
12%
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun Overall
34%
22% 21% 20%
17%
12%
10%
56%
59%
51%
42% 41%
26%
21%
51%
54%
51%
45%
41%
45%
41%
45%
40%
38%
33%
29%
26%
21%
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun Overall 36
Table 16: New Entrepreneurs Account: Share of New Entrepreneur in total number of
accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
New
Entrepr
eneur
Year
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
No. of
A/c
Sanctio
ned
Amt.
2015-16 34% 34% 58% 56% 49% 51% 36% 45%
2016-17 22% 22% 60% 59% 54% 54% 25% 40%
2017-18 24% 21% 45% 51% 50% 51% 26% 38%
2018-19 21% 20% 31% 42% 25% 45% 22% 33%
2019-20 18% 17% 28% 41% 33% 41% 19% 29%
2020-21 14% 12% 17% 26% 44% 45% 15% 26%
2021-22 11% 10% 13% 21% 39% 41% 12% 21%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
However, on analyzing the distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according
to loan size category from the table below, it can be observed that there is a gradual increase in
Kishore and Tarun category portfolios from 1/10
th
in FY 2016 to almost more than 1/4
th
as a share
of the total portfolio accounts belonging to new entrepreneurs in FY 2022, an indication of a
migration to higher categories both in terms of number of accounts and amount sanctioned.
Figure 17: Number of New Entrepreneur Accounts category wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 18: Sanctioned Amount for new Entrepreneur Accounts category wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of Accounts
Shishu Kishore Tarun
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Sanctioned Amount (in cr)
Shishu Kishore Tarun 37
Table 17: New Entrepreneurs Account: Distribution of number of accounts and
sanctioned amount according to loan size category
New
Entrepr
eneur
Shishu Kishore Tarun
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 89% 35% 10% 39% 2% 26%
2016-17 81% 26% 16% 44% 3% 31%
2017-18 80% 23% 17% 45% 3% 32%
2018-19 82% 27% 15% 41% 3% 32%
2019-20 81% 28% 15% 39% 4% 33%
2020-21 73% 16% 21% 41% 6% 42%
2021-22 72% 18% 22% 39% 6% 43%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
SC, ST, OBC, Minorities
The SC, ST, OBC and the minority
32
communities exhibit similar trend for PMMY portfolios, be it
for the number of accounts, the amount sanctioned, or share of distribution in Shishu, Kishore
and Tarun categories:
1. Majority people under the SC,ST, OBC and minorities belong to the Shishu category, both
for the number of accounts as well as the amount sanctioned (around 70 per cent to 90 per
cent of the account holders in these categories have loans of ticket size less than INR
50,000).
2. The number of accounts as a per cent of total accounts and the sanctioned amount as a
per cent of total sanctioned amount for PMMY has not shown any significant change from
FY 2016 to FY 2022 for the SC, ST, OBC or minorities.
3. Gradual movement in the Kishore category, both as a share of the number of accounts as
well as the amount sanctioned. Around 35 per cent to 50 per cent of the amount is
disbursed in the range of INR 50,000 to INR 5,00,000 in these sub-categories as can be
seen from the tables below.
4. The analysis as a share of total number of accounts and amount sanctioned for all the
Social groups have remained almost constant over the years
32
the six (6) centrally notified minority communities namely Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Jains;
Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1807697 38
Table 18: SC: Share of SCs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
SC
Year
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 18% 17% 7% 6% 5% 4% 17% 11%
2016-17 19% 19% 5% 4% 2% 2% 18% 10%
2017-18 19% 18% 7% 5% 2% 1% 18% 10%
2018-19 17% 16% 8% 5% 8% 2% 16% 9%
2019-20 17% 17% 11% 6% 3% 2% 16% 10%
2020-21 18% 18% 11% 7% 2% 2% 17% 10%
2021-22 19% 18% 13% 9% 3% 2% 17% 11%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 19: SC: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size category and as a share of
total portfolio under PMMY
SC Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
as a
percent of
total A/c
Sanctioned
Amt. as a
percent of
total
sanctioned
amt.
2015-16 97% 72% 2% 19% 0% 9% 18% 11%
2016-17 98% 85% 2% 11% 0% 4% 18% 10%
2017-18 96% 80% 4% 16% 0% 4% 18% 10%
2018-19 93% 78% 6% 18% 1% 5% 16% 9%
2019-20 93% 79% 7% 17% 0% 4% 17% 10%
2020-21 87% 64% 12% 31% 0% 5% 17% 10%
2021-22 84% 61% 16% 35% 0% 5% 17% 11%
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 39
Table 20: ST: Share of STs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
ST
Year
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 5% 4%
2016-17 5% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3%
2017-18 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3%
2018-19 6% 5% 3% 2% 7% 1% 6% 3%
2019-20 7% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 6% 4%
2020-21 7% 7% 5% 3% 2% 1% 6% 4%
2021-22 7% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1% 7% 4%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 21: ST: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size category and as a share of
total portfolio under PMMY
ST Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
as a
percent of
total A/c
Sanctioned
Amt. as a
percent of
total
sanctioned
amt.
2015-16 96% 62% 4% 26% 1% 12% 5% 4%
2016-17 96% 73% 3% 20% 0% 8% 5% 3%
2017-18 95% 70% 4% 22% 0% 7% 5% 3%
2018-19 90% 70% 6% 21% 4% 9% 6% 3%
2019-20 92% 73% 7% 21% 1% 6% 6% 4%
2020-21 85% 57% 14% 34% 1% 9% 6% 4%
2021-22 84% 56% 16% 36% 0% 8% 7% 4%
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 40
Table 22: OBC: Share of OBCs in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 31% 32% 20% 17% 10% 10% 30% 22%
2016-17 35% 35% 21% 18% 10% 10% 34% 24%
2017-18 33% 32% 20% 17% 9% 9% 32% 21%
2018-19 27% 26% 21% 17% 11% 8% 26% 19%
2019-20 25% 24% 26% 20% 9% 8% 25% 19%
2020-21 28% 28% 23% 18% 10% 9% 26% 19%
2021-22 28% 28% 28% 23% 11% 10% 28% 22%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 23: OBC: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size category and as a share
of total portfolio under PMMY
OBC Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
as a
percent of
total A/c
Sanctioned
Amt. as a
percent of
total
sanctioned
amt.
2015-16 96% 66% 4% 24% 0% 10% 30% 22%
2016-17 95% 69% 4% 22% 0% 9% 34% 24%
2017-18 93% 63% 6% 27% 0% 10% 32% 21%
2018-19 90% 60% 9% 29% 1% 10% 26% 19%
2019-20 88% 60% 11% 30% 1% 10% 25% 19%
2020-21 83% 50% 16% 39% 1% 11% 26% 19%
2021-22 79% 47% 21% 42% 1% 10% 28% 22%
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 41
Table 24: Minorities: Share of Minorities in total number of accounts and amount sanctioned category-wise
Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
2015-16 12% 11% 11% 11% 8% 8% 12% 10%
2016-17 13% 13% 12% 11% 8% 8% 13% 11%
2017-18 11% 12% 11% 9% 6% 6% 11% 9%
2018-19 11% 11% 11% 9% 4% 7% 10% 9%
2019-20 10% 10% 11% 10% 5% 7% 10% 9%
2020-21 7% 7% 13% 12% 5% 5% 8% 8%
2021-22 13% 12% 18% 16% 7% 6% 14% 12%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 25: Minorities: Distribution of number of accounts and sanctioned amount according to loan size category and as a
share of total portfolio under PMMY
Minorities Shishu Kishore Tarun Total
Year No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
Sanctioned
Amt.
No. of A/c
as a
percent of
total A/c
Sanctioned
Amt. as a
percent of
total
sanctioned
amt.
2015-16 94% 50% 5% 32% 1% 18% 12% 10%
2016-17 93% 56% 6% 28% 1% 16% 13% 11%
2017-18 89% 51% 10% 32% 1% 16% 11% 9%
2018-19 87% 50% 12% 32% 1% 18% 10% 9%
2019-20 88% 52% 11% 31% 1% 17% 10% 9%
2020-21 69% 30% 30% 57% 1% 14% 8% 8%
2021-22 73% 36% 26% 52% 1% 12% 14% 12%
Source: MUDRA 42
3.3.7 Regional Level Analysis
This section explores and analyses the performance of the scheme in various regions of the
country. To serve the purpose, states have been clustered into 5 regions (North, East, Northeast,
South, and West) basis the classification provided in the annual reports of Mudra as given in the
table below.
An overview from the data reveals a downturn impact of Covid-19 on the performance of scheme
across regions. Period post covid i.e. FY 2020 to FY 2021, the number of accounts under PMMY
have shown a negative YoY per cent change (13% to 26%) for all the regions, alongside a drop
in the amount disbursed for majority of the regions during the same period.
Table 26: Number of Accounts, region-wise
Year North East North East South West Total
2015-16 6,825,247 8,935,827 563,010 11,376,361 7,180,479 34,880,924
2016-17 6,667,731 12,838,524 1,599,339 11,430,144 7,165,309 39,701,047
2017-18 8,464,083 12,764,868 4,395,809 14,464,973 8,040,680 48,130,413
2018-19 11,292,193 18,658,660 3,060,244 17,315,948 9,543,273 59,870,318
2019-20 12,456,705 19,589,404 2,278,699 17,454,720 10,468,078 62,247,606
2020-21 10,405,478 17,088,159 1,681,086 13083,599 8,476,724 50,735,046
2021-22 11,545,805 18,724,571 1,174,574 13,329,413 9,021,163 53,795,526
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 27: Amount sanctioned (in crore), region-wise
Year North East North East South West Total
2015-16 31,725 26,492 2,794 48,067 28,371 137,449
2016-17 41,885 43,115 6,650 52,877 36,001 180,529
2017-18 60,535 48,744 18,554 76,260 49,584 253,677
2018-19 74,437 79,581 13,145 96,930 57,629 321,721
2019-20 82,045 84,574 10,824 98,767 61,285 337,495
2020-21 78,555 85,472 11,511 90,325 55,897 321,722
2021-22 82,700 98,637 8,682 91,765 57,327 339,110
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 43
Analysing further, the top performing regions are South and East, followed by North and West,
with North-east being at the bottom of the pyramid considering the absolute values of the total
number of accounts and the amount sanctioned in different states of the country for the period
ranging from 2015 to 2022.
Figure 19: Cumulative number of accounts (2015 – 2022), region-wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
44
Figure 20: Cumulative sanctioned amount (2015 – 2022), region-wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Additionally, the number of accounts and the amount sanctioned under the Mudra scheme for the
Northeast region is not only the lowest but is also decreasing year after year post FY 2018.
Further, region wise analysis of the number of accounts and amount sanctioned also reveals:
• Maximum CAGR increase for both the number of accounts and amount sanctioned from
2015 onwards is from East region
• Regionally, the number of accounts and the amount sanctioned under the Mudra scheme
for the Northeast region is not only the lowest but is also decreasing year after year post
FY 2018
• An overview from the data reveals a downturn impact of Covid-19 on the performance of
scheme across regions. 45
• For FY 2021, the number of accounts under PMMY have shown a negative YoY per cent
change (13% to 26%) for all the regions, alongside a drop in the amount disbursed for
majority of the regions during the same period, possibly due to covid
Figure 21: Number of Accounts under PMMY region wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 22: Amount Sanctioned under PMMY region wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Further, category-wise analysis indicates that East region has the maximum CAGR increase for
the number of accounts in all the three categories (Shishu (7 per cent), Kishore (34.4 per cent)
and Tarun category (15 per cent)).
Also, the CAGR of the number of accounts for the Shishu (0.1 per cent) and Kishore category
(14.4 per cent) is the lowest in the South region, however cumulatively the South region has the
highest number of Kishore and Tarun accounts (132.3 lakhs and 21.6 lakhs respectively).
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
2015-162016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22
Number of Accounts
North
East
North
East
South
West
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2015-162016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-22
Sanctioned Amount (in cr)
North
East
North East
South
West 46
Figure 23: Shishu: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 24: Kishore: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
62.7 58.5 71.3
95.8 106.9
80.8 87.5
85.1
123.7
138.7
168.0
179.8
140.4
146.7
5.0
15.3
20.2
26.5
20.7
12.0
7.9
103.6
101.9
125.9
145.7
147.9
101.2
104.367.6
65.6
70.5
79.0
89.6
67.4
70.9
324.0
365.0
426.7
515.1
544.9
401.8
417.2
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West
4.3 6.5
10.8 13.4 14.2
20.2
25.1
3.6
3.9
9.4
16.2 14.5
28.7
38.8
0.5
0.6
2.0
3.7
1.9
4.5
3.6
8.9
10.9
16.4
21.2
22.4
26.4
26.0
3.3
4.7
7.9
11.6 11.7
15.1
17.3
20.7
26.6
46.5
66.1 64.7
94.9
110.9
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West 47
Figure 25: Tarun: Region-wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Further, cumulative maximum amount disbursed for the Shishu, Kishore and Tarun category is
in the East (253.2 thousand crores), South (194.9 thousand crores) and North region (132.4
thousand crores) respectively.
East region also has the maximum CAGR increase in all the three categories (Shishu (7 per
cent), Kishore (34.4 per cent) and Tarun category (15 per cent)) for the amount disbursed.
Figure 26: Shishu: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand
crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
1.2 1.7
2.6
3.8 3.4 3.1 2.90.6
0.8
1.1
2.4
1.6 1.8 1.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2 0.3
0.3
1.3
1.4
2.3
6.2
4.3
3.2
3.0
0.9
1.4
1.9
4.8
3.3
2.2
2.0
4.1
5.4
8.1
17.6
12.9
10.7
9.9
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West
12.0 13.3 16.9
23.9
30.4
21.8 25.4
14.6
28.2
33.3
45.2
53.0
36.3
42.7
1.0
4.5
5.6
8.0
6.4
3.1
2.2
20.8
23.0
29.8
40.8
46.3
29.0
33.3
13.5
14.8
18.6
21.7
26.7
18.3
20.3
62.0
83.9
104.2
139.7
162.8
108.6
124.0
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West 48
Figure 27: Kishore: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand
crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Figure 28: Tarun: Region-wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand
crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
9.6
14.1
22.5 25.2 24.9
31.3 33.4
6.7
7.6
14.5
20.5 17.7
33.6
39.8
1.0
1.2
2.3
3.6
2.5
5.8
4.3
16.6
17.8
27.9
32.4
29.6
35.9
34.9
7.1
10.4
16.0
18.2
16.7
20.7
21.0
41.1
51.1
83.2
99.9
91.4
127.2
133.4
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West
9.0
13.1
19.1
22.4 24.2 22.6 22.04.1
6.0
8.5
10.8
11.8
12.2 13.1
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.6 2.1 1.7
9.3
10.5
16.6
21.6
21.3 23.7 22.3
6.8
10.0
13.7
16.1
16.6 15.3
14.9
29.9
40.4
59.0
72.3
75.5 75.9
74.0
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
North East North East South West 49
Table 28: State Classification region wise
Regional
Classification
33
States
34
North
Chandigarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi, Uttar
Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, and Rajasthan
East Odisha, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh
Northeast
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim,
Tripura
South
Karnataka, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh,
Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep
West
Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Gujarat, Goa, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra
3.3.7 State-wise Performance
The overall performance of the top 10 states cumulatively since 2015, based on the number of
accounts and the amount sanctioned is analysed in the section.
The figure below analyses the state-wise amount sanctioned under the scheme PMMY,
cumulatively from 2015 to 2022. It can be observed that the Per Capita Amount Sanctioned for
different states under PMMY ranges between INR 5,848 and INR 29,688 cumulatively.
Analysis also reveals that Tripura, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are the top 3 states to have
the highest per capita amount sanctioned under PMMY whereas bottom 3 states with the
lowest per capita amount sanctioned under PMMY are Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and
Nagaland respectively
33
Annual Report, Mudra, 2020-21
34
Regional classification available from 2016-17 Annual reports 50
Figure 29: State-wise Per Capita Amount Sanctioned under PMMY (2015-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd and Census 2011 data
In 2015-16, the share of top 10 states in the total number of accounts and sanctioned amount
was 80.41 per cent and 72.53 per cent respectively
Cumulatively (2015-22), 79.18 per cent and 72.82 per cent of the total number of accounts and
the sanctioned amount belong to the top 10 states
51
Figure 30 : Top 10 states (Number of Accounts) (2015-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
52
Figure 31: Top 10 states (Amount Sanctioned) (2015-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
For the period 2021-22, sanctioned amount per registered MSME data (as per UDYAM portal)
has been analysed and it can be observed that an average of INR 658,697 was sanctioned per
MSME. Now, since the average loan size in 2021-22 was INR 63,067, it implies that many non-
registered MSMEs and individuals are availing MUDRA loans across states.
Tripura state has the highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 3,716,329 and while West
Bengal had the highest amount sanctioned and amount sanctioned per MLI in FY 2022, it has the
second highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 2,048,144, primarily because of high
number of MSMEs in the state. Below is the list of top ten states for the FY 2022 based on the
amount sanctioned per MSME and MLI:
53
Table 29: Top 10 States as per Sanctioned amount per MSME, 2021-2022
Sr.No
.
State/ UT
Amt Sanctioned
per MSME (in
lakhs)
Number of
MSMEs
Amt
Sanctioned
(in Cr.)
1 Tripura 37.1 6,718 2,497
2 West Bengal 20.4 170,365 34,893
3 Odisha 15.9 105,959 16,900
4 Bihar 14.5 221,205 32,097
5 Jharkhand 10.6 83,099 8,817
6 Union Territory of Ladakh 10.1 2,304 234
7 Kerala 9.9 117,905 11,698
8 Pondicherry 9.7 8,231 801
9 Meghalaya 9.5 2,228 212
10 Sikkim 9.1 1,771 163
Total
719,785 108,312
Source: Ministry of MSME and MUDRA Ltd.
Table 30: Top 10 states as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022
Sr.No
.
State/ UT
Amt Sanctioned
per MLI (in Cr.)
Number of MLIs
Amt
Sanctioned
(in Cr.)
1 West Bengal 49.1 710 34,893
2 Andhra Pradesh 38.8 305 11,830
3 Karnataka 30.7 935 28,695
4 Kerala 29.6 395 11,698
5 Tamil Nadu 27.1 1197 32,478
6 Bihar 25.1 1279 32,097
7 Maharashtra 24.9 1034 25,798
8
Union Territory of Jammu
and Kashmir
24.8 233 5,788
9 Odisha 18.1 710 34,893
10 Rajasthan 18.0 305 11,830
Total
8,078 183,277
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
3.3.7 District and Aspiration District wise Performance
Regional patterns district wise
This section explores the credit supply in the form of amount sanctioned to various regions and
districts in the country under PMMY for FY 2022. Top 10 districts based on amount sanctioned
in 2022 are Bangalore Urban, Belgaum, Pune, Jaipur, Chennai, Howrah, Murshidabad,
Nadia, North 24 Parganas, and South 24 Parganas. These 10 districts form around 8.9 per
cent share in the total sanctions during FY 2022 whereas it was only 0.66 per cent in FY 2017.
The amount sanctioned to the top 10 districts (amounting to INR 26669.74 crore) is 54
approximately equal to the amount sanctioned the lowest 318 districts (amounting to INR
26525.15 crore). These districts are mapped in the figure
35
below, where the districts marked in
red were ranked lowest and the districts marked green were the top 10 to have the highest
sanctioned amount under PMMY. The districts are chosen basis such that the sanctioned
amount for both the lowest (318 districts) and highest (10 districts) is roughly equal (Refer to
Annexure for detailed list of districts plotted) indicating a picture of an unequal distribution of
credit across districts in the country.
Table 31: Top 10 districts as per Sanctioned amount, 2021-2022
Sr.
No.
District State
Amt
Sanctio
ned (in
Cr.)
Numbe
r of
MLIs
Amt
Sanctio
ned per
MLI (in
Cr.)
Number
of
MSMEs
Amt
Sanctione
d per
MSME (in
lakhs)
1 Murshidabad West Bengal 3,727 35 106 8,989 41.5
2
North 24
Parganas
West Bengal 3,363 39 86 21,931 15.3
3
Bangalore
Urban
Karnataka 3,230 35 92 89,773 3.6
4 Howrah West Bengal 2,464 36 68 11,537 21.4
5 Pune Maharashtra 2,437 41 59 144,427 1.7
6 Nadia West Bengal 2,404 37 65 7,217 33.3
7 Belgaum Karnataka 2,359 34 69 22,157 10.7
8 Chennai Tamil Nadu 2,339 38 62 68,180 3.4
9
South 24
Parganas
West Bengal 2,195 34 65 13,324 16.5
10 Jaipur Rajasthan 2,148 46 47 85,354 2.5
Total (8.9
per cent of
the total
sanctioned
amount)
26,670
Avg
no. of
MLIs =
38
Avg
amt
sanctio
ned per
MLI =
72
Avg no.
of
MSMEs =
47,289
Avg
sanctione
d per
MSME
=5.6
Source: Ministry of MSME and MUDRA Ltd.
35
The heat map used has districts as per census 2011 and hence some districts might not have been marked in the figure. Refer to
Annexure for detailed list of districts plotted) 55
Table 32: Top 10 districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MSME, 2021-2022
Sr.No. District State Number of MSMEs
Amt Sanctioned per
MSME (in lakhs)
1 Bijapur Chhattisgarh 177 147.3
2 Malerkotla Punjab 380 109.6
3 Niwari
Madhya
Pradesh
361 84.2
4 Sepahijala Tripura 529 73.3
5 Alipurduar West Bengal 1,729 51.5
6 Longleng Nagaland 7 50
7 South tripura Tripura 636 46.9
8 Khowai Tripura 364 42.4
9 Dhalai Tripura 404 42.3
10 Murshidabad West Bengal 8,989 41.5
Total
Avg no. of MSMEs =
1,630
Avg sanctioned per
MSME = 46.4
Source: MUDRA Ltd
9 out of the top 10 districts as per amount sanctioned also have the highest amount sanctioned
per MLI. Bijapur in Chhattisgarh have the highest amount sanctioned per MSME. The top 10
districts with high sanctioned amount per MSME have comparatively low number of MSMEs.
Table 33:Top 10 districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022
Sr.No. District State Number of MLIs
Amt Sanctioned per
MLI (in Cr.)
1 Murshidabad West Bengal 35 106
2
Bangalore
Urban
Karnataka 35 92
3
North 24
Parganas
West Bengal 39 86
4 Belgaum Karnataka 34 69
5 Howrah West Bengal 36 68
6
South 24
Parganas
West Bengal 34 65
7 Nadia West Bengal 37 65
8 Chennai Tamil Nadu 38 62
9 Pune Maharashtra 41 59
10 Nagpur Maharashtra 36 56
Total Avg no. of MLIs = 36
Avg amt sanctioned
per MLI = 73
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Murshidabad has the highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 41.5 lakhs and also the
highest amount sanctioned overall. It was also observed that the number of average MLIs per
district was around 24, and while the top 10 districts had an average of 38 MLIs per districts, the
bottom 318 MLIs only had around 16 MLIs per districts. Thus, it can be inferred that low number
of MLIs in the bottom districts can be one of the reasons for limited sanction in these regions. 56
However, it is crucial to note that while the overall average amount sanctioned per MLI across
districts is around INR 22 crore and for top 10 districts is around INR 72 crore; the bottom 318
districts have an average sanctioned amount of only INR 5 crore per MLI indicating a possibility
of low demand of PMMY loans in these regions. These bottom 318 districts also have only an
average of 1,744 MSMEs per district compared to an average of 6,575 number of MSMEs per
districts overall and 47,289 MSMEs per top 10 districts.
Figure 32: Regional distribution of sanctioned amount, 2021-2022
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Top 10 districts having a total sanctioned amount of INR 26669.74 crore under PMMY in 2021-
2022 is approximately same as the amount sanctioned for bottom 318 districts in the same year
indicating an unequal distribution of credit sanction across districts in the country regionally
through PMMY 57
Performance of Aspirational Districts
Aspiration districts have been performing decently over the years. The YoY change per cent
slowed down and witnessed a change of only 2.1 per cent for the amount sanctioned and a
negative growth of 7.9 per cent for the number of accounts during the FY 2021 which was also
the Covid year. However, the aspirational districts are quickly recovering from the impact of the
pandemic as is evident by the increase in the number of loan accounts under PMMY or the
amount sanctioned to these districts with a YoY change of 12 per cent and 14.7 per cent
respectively.
Below is the list of top ten aspirational districts for the FY 2022 which is around 3.3 per cent of
the total sanctioned amount under PMMY.
Table 34: Top 10 Aspirational districts as per Sanctioned amount, 2021-2022
Sr.
No.
District
Amt
Sanction
ed (in
Cr.)
Number of
MLIs
Amt
Sanctioned
per MLI (in
Cr.)
Number
of
MSMEs
Amt
Sanctione
d per
MSME (in
lakhs)
1 Muzaffarpur 1,638 44 37 14,441 11.3
2 Begusarai 1,391 41 34 7,260 19.1
3 Araria 1,320 34 39 5,277 25
4 Visakhapatnam 1,195 27 44 14,182 8.4
5 Aurangabad 1,058 30 21 3,549 29.8
6 Ranchi 1,022 35 29 14,254 7.1
7 Purnia 966 40 24 8,204 11.7
8 Sitamarhi 963 37 26 5,686 16.9
9 Giridih 847 34 25 5,374 15.7
10 Gaya 812 31 26 7,849 10.3
Total 11,212
Avg
number of
MLIs = 35
Avg amt
sanctioned
per MLI =
30
Avg no.
of
MSMEs =
8,608
Avg
sanctioned
per MSME
= 13
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Among the aspirational districts, Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh has the highest amount
sanctioned per MLI whereas Bijapur in Chhattisgarh has the highest amount sanctioned per
MSME.
Following is the list of top ten aspirational districts for the FY 2022 based on the amount
sanctioned per MSME and MLI:
58
Table 35:Top 10 aspirational districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MSME, 2021-2022
Sr.No. District State Number of MSMEs
Amt Sanctioned per
MSME (in lakhs)
1 Bijapur Chhattisgarh 177 147.3
2 Dhalai Tripura 404 42.3
3 Garhwa Uttarakhand 1,278 37.9
4 Pakur Jharkhand 1,259 32.9
5 Palamu Jharkhand 2,213 29.9
6 Aurangabad Bihar 3,549 29.8
7 Araria Bihar 5,277 25.0
8 Sahebganj Jharkhand 1,496 23.1
9 Dahod Gujarat 2,478 22.9
10 Nuapada Odisha 908 22.8
Total
Avg no. of MSMEs =
1,904
Avg sanctioned per
MSME = 16
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Table 36: Top 10 aspirational districts as per Amount Sanctioned per MLI, 2021-2022
Sr.No. District State Number of MLIs
Amt Sanctioned per
MLI (in Cr.)
1
Visakhapatnam Andhra
Pradesh
27 44
2
Baramulla Union Territory
of Jammu and
Kashmir
11 41
3 Araria Bihar 34 39
4 Muzaffarpur Bihar 44 37
5
Cuddapah Andhra
Pradesh
18 35
6 Begusarai Bihar 41 34
7
Kupwara Union Territory
of Jammu and
Kashmir
9 34
8 Aurangabad Maharashtra 33 32
9 Ranchi Jharkhand 35 29
10 Sitamarhi Bihar 37 26
Total Avg no. of MLIs = 29
Avg amt sanctioned
per MLI = 35
Source: MUDRA Ltd
Aurangabad has the highest amount sanctioned per MSME of INR 29.8 lakhs among the top 10
districts based on the sanctioned amount. Hence, while Muzaffarpur has the highest sanctioned
amount, the amount sanctioned per MSME is low compared to a few top districts because of high
number of MSMEs. It was also observed that the number of average MLIs per aspirational district
was around 25, and while the top 10 aspirational districts had an average of 35 MLIs per districts,
the bottom 50 MLIs only had around 19 MLIs per districts. Thus, it can be inferred that low number 59
of MLIs in the bottom districts can be one of the reasons for limited sanction in these regions.
However, it is crucial to note that while the overall average amount sanctioned per MLI across
aspirational districts is around INR 12 crore and for top 10 districts is around INR 30 crore; the
bottom 50 aspirational districts have an average sanctioned amount of only INR 5 crore per MLI
indicating a possibility of low demand of PMMY loans in these regions.
Further, a total of 50 out of 112 aspirational districts i.e. almost 44% of the total aspirational
districts are among these bottom 318 districts. This indicates, the remaining 62 aspirational
districts have more amount sanctioned under PMMY than amount sanctioned by bottom 268 non-
aspirational districts meaning many aspirational districts are doing better. It can be also observed
that the top 10 aspirational districts have an average sanctioned per MSME of INR 13 lakhs
compared to top 10 districts that have an average sanctioned per MSME of INR 5.6 lakhs,
implying there is more demand per MSME in these aspirational districts.
Table 37: Number of loan accounts and amount disbursed to Aspirational Districts
Amt in Cr. 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of loan
accounts
4,257,452 4,881,529 5,967,643 6,777,162 6,245,070 6,997,424
Amount sanctioned 16,406 21,477 27,387 31,700 32,378 37,144
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 38: YoY change per cent for Aspirational Districts
High Medium Low
YoY change per cent 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of loan accounts 15% 22% 14% -8% 12%
Amount sanctioned 31% 27% 16% 2% 14%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 33: Number of loan accounts for aspirational districts over the years under PMMY
Source: MUDRA Ltd
4,257,452
4,881,529
5,967,643
6,777,162
6,245,070
6,997,424
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 60
Figure 34: Amount sanctioned for aspirational districts over the years under PMMY (in
INR Crore)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
3.3.7 Performance of Member Lending Institutions (MLIs)
This section aims to analyses the performance of member lending institutions for the Public sector
banks, Private sector banks, Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs), Non-Banking Financial
Corporations (NBFCs), and the Small Finance Banks for the FY 2021 as well as over the years
since its launch in FY 2016.
An analysis of the MLIs based on average loan size over the years from FY 2016 to FY 2021
indicates there has been a gradual increase in the loan size over the year for almost all the banks.
However, this is also attributed as a result of reduced number of loan accounts particularly for
MFIs, NBFCs and SFBs whose number of accounts have observed a negative CAGR of 24.8 per
cent, 33.2 per cent and 24.6 per cent respectively from 2018 to 2021, and hence not necessarily
an indicator of only enhanced disposal of credit to the micro entrepreneurs.
The table below summarizes the average loan size, and it is evident that NBFCs and the public
sector banks tend to lend higher value of credit compared to other MLI categories. However, as
discussed earlier a low average loan size for banks could be because of higher number of loan
accounts in the banks, as in the case of MFIs who tend to have had extremely large number of
loan accounts but a low sanctioned value (until FY 2019) (see figures below)
16,406
21,478
27,387
31,700 32,378
37,144
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 61
Table 39: Institution wise Average loan size
Institutions 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance
Institutions
19,334 21,165 22,889 25,548 29,542 33,209 35,138
Non-Banking
Finance
Companies
NA 162,034 99,545 80,525 79,530 122,444 114,661
Private Sector
Banks (incl.
Foreign Banks)
66,639 44,257 47,381 48,226 43,984 46,720 47,935
Public Sector
Banks (incl.
Regional Rural
Banks & State
Co-operative
Bank)
88,545 134,159 163,016 143,506 123,873 134,447 167,465
Small Finance
Banks
NA 23,506 29,580 38,583 41,200 44,753 47,023
Total 39,405 45,472 52,706 53,736 54,218 63,419 63,037
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
The year-on-year analysis from the FY 2016 to FY 2022 reveals a cumulative aggregate growth
rate of 16.44 per cent for the amount disbursed. From the table below, it can be observed that the
most growth in the disbursed amount over the years occurred in NBFCs, Private Sector Banks
and SFBs at CAGR of 28.00 per cent, 34.26 per cent and 34.11 per cent respectively. 62
Table 40: CAGR and Disbursed Amount by MLI type
High Medium Low
Institutions (Amt. in Cr.) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 CAGR
Micro Finance Institutions 45,904 44,668 48,863 61,473 57,865 46,387 48,848 1%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies
- 5,440 26,960 46,865 40,109 31,856 18,697 28%
Private Sector Banks (incl.
Foreign Banks)
20,047 38,787 49,293 63,655 91,368 93,086 117,406 34%
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks and
State Co-operative Bank)
67,003 79,687 102,322 110,055 110,933 120,862 117,261 10%
Small Finance Banks - 6,729 18,999 29,763 29,440 19,563 29,190 34%
Total 132,955 175,312 246,437 311,811 329,715 311,754 331,402 16%
Source: MUDRA Ltd. 63
Only the Public and Private sectors have been showing an upward movement as far as the
disbursed or sanctioned amount is concerned with Private Banks sanctioning a sum of INR 91,780
crore during FY 2020, registering 43 per cent growth over the previous years
36
, whereas for the
other three sub-categories of MLIs i.e., the MFIs, NBFCs, and Small Finance Banks, the scheme
has not been performing too well as can be seen through a downward movement post FY 2019.
This was primarily on account of merger of SKS Microfinance (Bharat Finance Ltd.) with IndusInd
Bank, who topped the list with sanction of INR 38,199.43 crore grabbing over 41% of the
aggregate sanctions by Private Sector Banks. Thus, the Merger of SKS Microfinance with
IndusInd Bank resulted in lower performance of MFI category during FY 2020, registering a
decline by 9% to the previous FY. MFIs sanctioned a total Loan amount of INR 57,967 crore to
1.96 crore Borrowers
37
. Also, for the FY 2021, it was difficult for the MFIs to continue their
operations under the microfinance model due to the pandemic, hence, MUDRA focused on private
Banks and Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) to reach out to the target segments, thereby increasing
the total sanctions to commercial banks and RRBs
38
.
Number of accounts wise, MFIs have been the top performing until the FY 2019. Post covid, there
has been a drastic fall in the number of accounts for them, while only the private sector banks
have come out exceedingly well in these tough times. However, the FY 2021 has been hard for
almost all the MLIs in terms of the performance as per the number of loan accounts as most of
them appear to have had a stagnant growth in the past year.
Figure 35: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) (in lakh)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
For the Shishu accounts, we can observe that the MFIs have been ahead of all the MLIs for having
the most number of Shishu accounts throughout till FY 2020. The Merger of SKS Microfinance
with IndusInd Bank resulted in lower performance of MFI category during FY 2020 and during the
36
Annual Report, Mudra, 2019-2020
37
Annual Report, Mudra, 2019-2020
38
Annual Report, Mudra, 2020-2021
237.9
214.2 219.1
248.4
196.2
140.3 139.7
3.4
27.1
58.5
50.9
26.1 16.3
30.7
88.2
104.6
132.8
208.7
200.4
245.5
80.2
62.6
66.2
81.7
95.0
96.6
74.3
28.6
64.3
77.2
71.6
43.9
62.1
348.8
397.0
481.3
598.7
622.5
507.4
538.0
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks)Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks 64
same time, private sector banks got the lead and are currently the MLI with the most number of
Shishu accounts. Further, the NBFCs though being a small contributor, are growing at a CAGR
of 45.84 per cent since 2016. However, contrary to this, the MFIs have a negative CAGR of 10.16
per cent whereas the Public Sector Banks have a negative CAGR of 6.34 per cent.
Figure 36: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Shishu (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Overall, the Kishore category accounts have had the highest CAGR of 32.28 per cent compared
to Shishu and Tarun at CAGR of 4.30 per cent and 15.73 per cent respectively. Among the MLIs,
the Public Sector Banks have had the highest number of accounts in the Kishore category until
FY 2020, however they have had the lowest CAGR of 8.01 per cent compared to the other Banks.
Post 2020, Private sector banks have become the front runner under the Kishore category.
Figure 37: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Kishore (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
237.0
213.1 218.3
244.3
188.9
129.2 124.6
2.0
18.5
44.6
46.3
19.3
12.9
26.7 84.2
94.0
112.3
187.8
157.7 188.9
60.4
37.2
33.2
49.6
63.4
58.7
40.828.5
62.6
64.1
58.5
37.0
50.1
324.0
365.0
426.7
515.1
544.9
401.8
417.2
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks) Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
1.01.10.72.9
7.3
11.2
15.1
1.1
7.5
11.9 2.8
5.1
2.6
3.03.0
9.3
19.0
19.1
41.0
54.8
16.7
21.3
27.7
26.1
25.7
31.0
26.6
0.1
1.3
6.0
9.9
6.7
11.8
20.7
26.6
46.5
66.1 64.7
94.9
110.9
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks)Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks 65
From the figure below, one can observe that the Public Sector Banks have been steadily
performing well in the Tarun category (with a CAGR of 14.57 per cent). Compared to the Public
Sector Banks (that has a 65.4 per cent of the total accounts under the Tarun category in FY 2021),
the other MLIs have had a low share of the total Tarun accounts over the years.
Further, one can also observe an outlier for the Small Finance Bank in the Tarun category.
According to the data on performance of MLIs under PMMY, the changes in the number of
accounts for the Small Finance Banks is due to sudden rise and fall in the number of accounts for
the SFB – Fincare (who was a major shareholder of accounts under the Small Finance Banks
during FY2019 and FY2020), with number of accounts being at 922; 680,371; 289,978; and zero
in FY2018, FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 respectively.
Figure 38: Institution wise Performance (Number of Accounts) Tarun (in lakhs)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Amount disbursed wise, both the Private and Public sector banks are among the top performers
under Mudra. The performance of MFIs have also remained at par with the Private sector banks
in terms of the amount disbursed until 2019. Post the Covid, the amount disbursed has
significantly declined for MFIs, SFBs, and NBFCs.
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.1
0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.3
1.2
2.0
1.9 1.7
0.91.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.8 1.8
1.8
3.1
4.1
5.3
5.9
5.9
7.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
7.1
3.2
0.2
0.3
4.1
5.4
8.1
17.6
12.9
10.7
9.9
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks) Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks 66
Figure 39: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) (in INR thousand Crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Among all the three categories, the Shishu accounts are the one to have the lowest CAGR of
12.23 per cent for the amount disbursed value, compared to Kishore and Tarun at 21.69 per cent
and 16.35 per cent respectively.
From the figure below, one can observe that the Private Sector Banks and MFIs are at the top of
the list in terms of contribution to the amount disbursed for the Shishu category borrowers.
However, post Covid trends show an overall downfall for all MLIs for the amount disbursed under
the Shishu category.
Figure 40: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Shishu (in INR thousand
Crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
45.9 44.7 48.9
61.5 57.9
46.4 48.8
5.4
27.0
46.9
40.1
31.9
18.720.0
38.8
49.3
63.7 91.4
93.1 117.4
67.0
79.7
102.3
110.1
110.9
120.9
117.3
6.7
19.0
29.8
29.4
19.6
29.2
133.0
175.3
246.4
311.8
329.7
311.8
331.4
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks)Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks
45.0 43.7
48.2
59.1
53.0
38.8 38.8
0.4
5.2
13.3
17.1
7.6 6.0
5.9
24.7
27.7
34.3
57.8
39.6
53.4
11.0
8.4
9.6
13.0
16.1
10.3
8.0
6.6
13.5
20.0
18.8
12.3
17.8
62.0
83.9
104.2
139.7
162.8
108.6
124.0
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks) Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks 67
Further, it can be observed from the figure below that the Public Sector Banks are among the
major contributors under the Kishore category, amount disbursed wise. However, the Private
sector Banks are growing at a much faster pace with a CAGR of 39.95 per cent, compared to the
CAGR of Public Sector Banks which is growing at a CAGR of only 8.29 per cent. Also, post Covid,
in FY 2021, almost all the MLIs have bounced back by registering a positive growth rate. The only
exception to the trend are SFBs, who registered a negative growth of 26.8 per cent under the
Kishore category for FY 2021.
Figure 41: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Kishore (in INR thousand
Crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
In the Tarun category also, Public Sector banks are among the front runners of the scheme,
amount disbursed wise (they are also the only MLI to have a positive growth rate of 16.2 per cent
post Covid). The second and third position is shared among the NBFCs and the Private Sector
Banks. Also, as MFIs and Small Finance Banks do not lend much in the Tarun category due to
their small scale of operation, they have a comparatively low contribution (combined share of 3.15
per cent in the total disbursed value under loan size value of more than INR 5 lakhs) to the Tarun
category, compared to the other MLIs.
0.80.90.62.14.67.6 10.0
3.1
14.1
20.9
8.2
13.2 7.5
7.0
7.1
13.0
19.8
21.6
43.2 52.6
33.3
39.9
52.4
51.6
49.1
57.5
53.7
0.1
3.1
5.5
7.8
5.7
9.6
41.1
51.1
83.2
99.9
91.4
127.2
133.4
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks)Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks 68
Figure 42: Institution wise Performance (Amount Disbursed) Tarun (in INR thousand
Crores)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Further, Public sector banks constitute 44% of the total MLIs in aspirational districts, followed by
Private sector banks at 24%.
Figure 43:Number of MLIs giving PMMY loans in aspirational districts, 2021-22
Source: MUDRA
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.01.9
7.6
12.7 14.8
11.0
5.37.1
6.9
8.6
9.6
11.9
10.2
11.4
22.7
31.4
40.4
45.4
45.7
53.1
55.6
0.0
2.4
4.2
2.7 1.5
1.7
29.9
40.4
59.0
72.3
75.5 75.9
74.0
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance Companies
Private Sector Banks (incl. Foreign Banks) Public Sector Banks (incl. Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks
Micro Finance Institutions
580, 21%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies
18, 1%
Private Sector Banks (incl.
Foreign Banks)
669. 24%
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks &
State Co-operative Bank)
1222, 44%
Small Finance Banks
282, 10% 69
However, only 12% of total PMMY accounts in aspirational districts belong to the Public sector
banks, whereas Private sector banks have the most accounts (51%) in aspirational districts.
Figure 44: MLI-wise number of accounts in aspirational districts, 2021-22
Source: MUDRA
Also, out of all the MLIs in aspirational districts, Public sector banks disburse around 32% of total
amount disbursed, implying they mostly provide high value loans in either the Kishore or Tarun
category. MFIs have ~30% of total number accounts and disburse ~20% of total amount
disbursed in aspirational districts.
Figure 45: MLI-wise amount disbursed in aspirational districts (in INR Crore, 2021-22)
Source: MUDRA
Micro Finance Institutions,
2,026,661.00 , 29%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies, 3,803.00 ,
0%
Private Sector Banks
(incl. Foreign Banks),
3,571,704.00 , 51%
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks &
State Co-operative Bank),
806,023.00 , 12%
Small Finance Banks ,
589,233.00 , 8%
Micro Finance Institutions,
7,143.4 , 20%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies, 114.5 , 0%
Private Sector Banks (incl.
Foreign Banks), 14,569.1
, 40%
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks &
State Co-operative Bank),
11,484.9 , 32%
Small Finance Banks ,
2,773.5 , 8% 70
3.3.7 Loan Size Analysis
This section aims at analysing the average loan size credited to micro entrepreneurs and the
trend post the launch of the scheme.
Over the years i.e., 2015 onwards, the average loan size for Shishu accounts showed a positive
trend of increase in size (CAGR of 7.47 per cent), however, for the years 2020-21 it started to
decline and has observed a YoY decrease of around 8.8 per cent, possibly due to covid.
Further, the average loan size under the Kishore category is declining year after year from FY
2016 and is at INR 124,136 in FY 2022 witnessing a fall of around 40 per cent from INR 208,037
in FY 2016.
From the figure and table below, one can observe for the Tarun category, that even though the
range of credit varies from INR five lakh to INR 10 lakh, but the data shows that the average
loan size during 2018-19 was INR 426,843.29. Overall, Tarun category has had a stagnant
growth since 2015 and close to no shift in the average loan size over the years.
Overall, the average loan size value has increased by a CAGR of around 8.15 per cent from FY
2016 to FY 2022 with the current average loan size standing at INR 63,037. Going by the shift, it
might look as if there is a growth in the credit disbursed, however, the primary reason for a YoY
increase of around 17 per cent in the average loan size in FY 2021 is not due to the increase in
sanctioned amount (rather there was a YoY fall of around five per cent in the total sanctioned
amount from INR 337,495.52 in FY 2020 to INR 321,759.25 in FY 2021) but a fall in the total
number of loan accounts from 62,247,606 in FY 2020 to 50,735,046 in FY 2021 i.e., a negative
YoY change of 18 per cent.
Figure 46: Average loan amount under PMMY category wise (in INR)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
19,411
23,317
24,842
27,636
30,016
27,365
29,900
208,037
201,033
186,365
158,018
147,683
139,694
124,136
767,555
775,990
755,255
426,843
609,737
741,876
777,948
39,405
45,472
52,706
53,737
54,218
63,419
63,037
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Shishu Kishore Tarun Overall 71
Table 41: Average Loan Size category-wise under PMMY
Year Shishu Kishore Tarun
Total Average
loan size
(Amt. in Cr.)
2015-16 19,411 208,037 767,555 39,405
2016-17 23,317 201,033 775,990 45,472
2017-18 24,842 186,365 755,255 52,706
2018-19 27,636 158,018 426,843 53,737
2019-20 30,016 147,683 609,737 54,218
2020-21 27,365 139,694 741,876 63,419
2021-22 29,900 124,136 777,948 63,037
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
3.3.7 Non-Performing Assets
This section analyses the non-performing assets under the Mudra scheme from FY 2017 to FY
2022 across figures of total NPA accounts, NPA amount in absolute values as well a per cent
against total number of accounts and disbursement for Shishu, Kishore, and Tarun category.
The absolute values indicates that the number of NPA accounts and the amount have been
increasing year after year with a CAGR of 22.51 per cent and 36.61 per cent respectively from
FY 2017. However, as a percent against the number of account and disbursement, the NPA
increase was not much significant, but the pandemic has surely affected the repayments leading
to a rising NPA per cent against the number of account and disbursement from the last two years.
NPA per cent against total disbursement has remained between 2.51% to 3.61% which is low
compared to the overall MSME NPA of 12.8% and Micro enterprises NPA of 12% as on March
2022.
39
39
SIDBI MSME Pulse August 2022 72
Table 42: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) over the years
Amt (in
Cr.)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 CAGR
Total No.
of NPA
A/c
2,394,509 1,799,028 3,696,019 3,823,311 5,413,216 6,608,103 23%
Total
NPA Amt.
8502 9770 17713 26078 34090 40456 37%
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Table 43: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) per cent over the years
Per cent 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
% of NPA A/c (against
total A/c)
3.56 2.71 3.14 2.06 4.15 3.58
% of NPA Amt. (against
total disbursement)
2.89 2.51 2.51 2.53 3.61 3.17
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 47: Total Number of NPA Accounts
Figure 48: Total NPA Amount (in INR Crore)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
2,394,509
1,799,028
3,696,019 3,823,311
5,413,216
6,608,103
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
8,502 9,770
17,713
26,078
34,090
40,456
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 73
A deeper analysis also reveals that the number of NPA accounts for the Shishu category have
always been more than that of the Kishore and Tarun category. For FY 2022, one can also
observe the gap between the three categories with NPA accounts for Shishu being the highest at
42,20,135 followed by Kishore and Tarun category at 22,11,095 and 1,76,873 respectively (see
figure below).
Amount wise, the Kishore account holders, have been the highest contributor of NPA since FY
2018. On the contrary, the Shishu category accounts have the lowest NPA amount to their share,
and they are the only category to observe a YoY fall of 11.5 per cent in the FY 2022, post
pandemic. Although the NPA amount for Tarun (INR 8773.95 crore) was close to the Shishu
category (INR 8258.2 crore) in FY 2021, a steep rise in the former has stimulated a gap of INR
3331.32 crore between the two in FY 2022.
Figure 49: Total Number of NPA Accounts category wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
2,242,106
1,438,770
2,975,735
2,603,356
3,898,751
4,220,135
136,655
321,757
651,368
1,099,922
1,367,160
2,211,095
15,748 38,501
68,916 120,033 147,305 176,873
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Number of NPA accounts
Shishu Kishore Tarun 74
Figure 50: Total NPA Amount category wise
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
NPA against amount disbursed
A further analysis of the NPA based against the number of accounts and disbursement reveals
a comparative better performance of the Shishu category both for the non-performing accounts
against number of accounts and the amount per cent against disbursement by reducing from
3.64 per cent in FY 2017 to 2.95 per cent in FY 2022 and 4.14 per cent in FY 2017 to 1.88 per
cent in FY 2022 respectively. Contrary to this, the other two categories (Kishore and Tarun)
have had a shot up of NPA per cent against the number of accounts and disbursement for both,
the NPA accounts as well as the NPA amount over the years.
Table 44: Per cent of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) Accounts against total number of
accounts
Category (in %) 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu 3.64 2.53 2.98 1.62 3.81 2.95
Kishore 2.89 4.03 4.53 5.34 5.84 6.23
Tarun 1.66 2.57 2.05 2.67 3.09 3
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
5,475.95
2,502.59
3,305.77
4,863.78
8,285.20
7,334.29
1,972.48
4,737.93
8,346.03
14,253.52
17,031.19
22,456.08
1,053.23 2,529.47
6,060.83
6,961.13
8,773.95
10,665.61
-
5,000.00
10,000.00
15,000.00
20,000.00
25,000.00
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
NPA Amount (in cr)
Shishu Kishore Tarun 75
Table 45: Per cent of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) Amount against disbursement
Category (in %) 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Shishu 4.14 1.93 1.27 1.12 2.89 1.88
Kishore 2.14 3.18 3.3 4.2 4.51 4.28
Tarun 1.5 2.27 3.18 2.74 3.14 2.96
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Member Lending Institution-wise NPA
Also, as most of the NPA has been reported for the Public sector banks by MLIs, a comparative
analysis of NPA is done for all member lending institutions.
Analysis revealed that the Public sector banks have the highest NPA per cent of 23 per cent and
17 per cent against the number of account and disbursement respectively, followed by SFBs
Figure 51: Non-Performing Assets (NPA) per cent, MLI-wise (2016-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
A cumulative analysis also revealed that 45 per cent and 79 per cent of the cumulative NPA
accounts and NPA amount respectively belong to Public Sector Banks whereas NPA as a
percent against the number of account and disbursement is low for MFIs, NBFCs and Private
sector bank
2.5%
1.3%
4.3%
22.6%
16.1%
1.1%0.5%
2.9%
16.9%
8.4%
Micro Finance InstitutionsNon-Banking Finance
Companies
Private Sector Banks
(incl. Foreign Banks)
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks)
Small Finance Banks
NPA account / Total number of accounts NPA amount/ Total amount disbursed 76
Figure 52:Cumulative Number of NPA Accounts (in lakhs) (2016-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Figure 53:Cumulative NPA Amount (in INR thousand crores) (2016-2022)
Source: MUDRA Ltd.
Micro Finance
Institutions,
28.9, 12%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies,
2.3, 1%
Private Sector Banks
(incl. Foreign Banks),
42.4, 18%
Public Sector Banks (incl.
Regional Rural Banks),
107.9, 45%
Small Finance
Banks, 55.8, 24%
Micro Finance
Institutions,
3.4, 3%
Non-Banking Finance
Companies,
0.8, 1%
Private Sector Banks
(incl. Foreign Banks),
12.9, 9%
Public Sector Banks
(incl. Regional Rural
Banks),
108.2, 79%
Small Finance Banks,
11.3, 8% 77
4. Primary Analysis and Stakeholder discussions
Based on the primary analysis with Member Lending Institutions on the performance of PMMY, this section presents the key findings
and challenges with the scheme on different parameters in the table below:
Table 46: Key findings from MLI Discussions
Parameter Public Sector
Banks
Private Sector
Banks
Non-Banking
Financial
Companies
(NBFCs)
Micro Finance
Institutions (MFIs)
Small Finance
Banks (SFBs)
Scheme
Design
• Ticket size value
is restricted to
INR 10 lakhs and
may be
increased
• The 15 per cent
pay out cap is
not economical in
CGFMU
• Operational ease
and more
coverage in
CGTMSE
compared to
CGFMU
• Scope for
increasing
coverage under
CGTMSE
• Guarantee fee
under CGFMU
may be reduced
as it indirectly
increases the
burden borne by
the beneficiary of
• Ticket size may
be increased to
cover more
requirements of
funds by
entrepreneurs,
then the scheme
will be able to
cater a broader
segment of
beneficiaries
• Lengthy claim
settlement
process under
CGFMU.
• Government may
charge a nominal
fee for claiming
guarantee cover
under CGFMU
• 15% pay out cap
under CGFMU is
a reason for low
signups for cover
by many Private
sector Banks.
• The guarantee
cover is not
economical
• Refinancing
under Mudra is
difficult to avail
because of 8
per cent cap on
interest rate
charge
• The INR 10 lakh
limit is suitable
for micro loans
under the
scheme
• Lack of
collateral
increases the
security risk for
MFIs and
develops fear
of NPA in
banks
• Highlighted need
for change in
coverage
restriction ceiling
of 15% as
increased cap
would
encourage
banks to provide
more quantum of
loans to the
budding
entrepreneurs
• Scheme only
beneficial for
micro
entrepreneurs
because of cap
on maximum
ticket size of INR
10lakhs 78
Parameter Public Sector
Banks
Private Sector
Banks
Non-Banking
Financial
Companies
(NBFCs)
Micro Finance
Institutions (MFIs)
Small Finance
Banks (SFBs)
the scheme in
terms of
increased cost of
borrowing
• The refinancing
rates are
considered high
by a few banks
Implementation • Bank appoints
BCs (Banking
Correspondents)
to market
information and
handholding of
the customer
across different
regions
• Bank advertises
about the
scheme on the
website and
other media
channels
• Challenge in
catering to the
large pool of
customers due to
limited number of
employees and
staff
• Need for
awareness
programs to build
credit discipline
among borrowers
• Branches of bank
have asset
officers which are
responsible for
marketing of
different
government
schemes as
customer
understanding of
pre sanction
documents, and
their availability
are some of the
key challenges
• The branch
people help these
individuals to
prepare
documents when
the borrower
does not have
access to
facilitate the
same
• Lack of
documentation
hinders the
• Highlighted
need for mass
promotional
campaigns as
people do not
approach the
bank to avail
mudra loans
directly
• Borrowers lack
knowledge of
basic
documentation
requirement
• Connectivity
may be
enhanced to
remote areas
• No separate
team to cater to
the
requirements of
the potential
beneficiaries.
Hence, they
mostly lend to
repeat
borrowers
• Most rejection
of loan
applicants
happen at
CIBIL check
level and as a
failure to submit
the required
documents.
• Beneficiaries
lack knowledge
of basic
documentation
requirements
• Internal team of
people and
trainers look into
facilitating and
transmitting
information to
the potential
customers about
the scheme and
documentation
process
• Only require
KYC, Aadhar
card
(mandatory),
PAN card/ Form
60 (hence,
customers do
not face any
significant
challenge in
availing through
the MUDRA
scheme)
79
Parameter Public Sector
Banks
Private Sector
Banks
Non-Banking
Financial
Companies
(NBFCs)
Micro Finance
Institutions (MFIs)
Small Finance
Banks (SFBs)
smooth
implementation of
the scheme
Institutional
Mechanism
• Lack of
transparency and
a lot of hassle in
offline
disbursement of
loans
• Reported a lack
of centralized
database for
collecting
information about
customers and
enablement of
bank account
formalization
• Funding support
from
Government
and other banks
should be
increased
• Difficulty in data
capturing of
borrowers
• Need for a
digitized platform
for quick
addressal of
queries on
issues pertaining
to guarantee
covers or other
operational/
technical
guidelines
Monitoring and
Evaluation
• High NPA across
banks need
proper
monitoring
• Targets for the
bank are set by
DFS based on
previous year
performances
• Frequent
migration of
borrowers from
one category to
another is done
through internal
process of
• For the migration
to higher
categories, there
is no documented
cash flow
available with the
bank as largely
these account
holders have
cash businesses
• A proper
mechanism for
target setting is
needed by DFS
for all the MLIs
under PMMY
• Fear of NPA in
banks
• Lack of clarity
about the
regulator and
reporting
authority –
SIDBI or RBI
• Highlighted
need for
adequate
control
mechanism to
supervise as the
control
mechanism and
• Own targets
based on
historical data
and current
trend
• Use of Aadhar
card as a
unique ID may
be permitted for
bureau to aid
the
underwriting
process
• Operates on
own internal
targets
• Need for a
standardized
process for
monitoring
performance of
micro
entrepreneurs as
frequent
migration of
borrowers
happens from
one category to
another 80
Parameter Public Sector
Banks
Private Sector
Banks
Non-Banking
Financial
Companies
(NBFCs)
Micro Finance
Institutions (MFIs)
Small Finance
Banks (SFBs)
monitoring
performances of
businesses
which is not
uniform across
• Lack of sufficient
documents, a
poor CIBIL/ credit
score or low
viability of the
business project
are primary
reasons for
rejection of loan
application. This
creates a need
for standardized
credit and
background
checks
• Operational
challenges with
the scheme and
almost 90%
unregistered
MSMEs which
have a lack of
documentary
evidence such as
GST or PAN card
makes it difficult
for them to get
categorized as
MSME
ownership lies
with the bank
officials for
encouraging
people to apply
for loans 81
Summary of Primary analysis with MLIs
The findings, issues and challenges have been summarized below across four parameters (i)
Scheme Design, (ii) Implementation, (iii) Institutional Mechanism and (iv) Monitoring and
Evaluation:
Scheme Design
Responsiveness of Financial Institutions to PMMY
The overall take of the scheme has been positive across all types of MLIs be it the public sector
banks, the private sector banks, NBFCs, MFIs, or the Small Finance Banks.
The scheme has helped banks build their loan book portfolios and the small entrepreneurs to
get easy access to micro credit.
Many MLIs also reported that the scheme has in particular been very beneficial for the women
of our country. They also mentioned that millions of common men that run small business but
remained outside the net of formal institutional finance in spite of their large contribution to the
economy, have been brought under the umbrella of banking sector through the PMMY.
The scheme has thus created inclusion by helping fund the unfunded and making the financing
sector more organised for the micro entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Category of Borrowers
The mudra loans are extended for different purpose and activities (income generation and
employment creation). Though the eligibility mentions various borrower categories such as private
limited companies, public company, partnership firms among others; the banks tend to have more
accounts in the name of individuals and sole proprietors.
Bank officials also stated that the scheme attracts first-time entrepreneurs, as well as there are
repeat customers. They also observed that majority of these entrepreneurs take loans under the
service sectors in PMMY.
Cap on guarantee cover under CGFMU
The maximum pay out cap in CGFMU is 15 per cent of the crystallized portfolio
40
.
Additionally, the first loss to the extent of 5% of the crystallized portfolio of the MLI is borne
by the MLI for Micro loans sanctioned up to March 31, 2020 and therefore excluded for the
claim. For Micro Loans sanctioned during FY 2020-21, the first loss to the extent of 3% of
the amount in default is excluded for claim and is to be borne by the MLI
41
. Thus, bank’s
claim can be received only after the second loss, as a result of which they are able to reap only
10 per cent -15 per cent claim from the government under CGFMU which makes the cap of 15
per cent in CGFMU not economically viable to many banks.
40
FAQ, CGFMU, 2021, Available at: https://www.ncgtc.in/sites/default/files/faqs_25_06_2021.pdf
41
FAQ, CGFMU, 2021, available at: https://www.ncgtc.in/sites/default/files/faqs_25_06_2021.pdf 82
For instance, in the example below, the maximum pay out cap is 150 (D4) and as the bank has
balance of more than 150 in default, only 150 will be given as claim (E3, E4), thereby meaning
that the bank will have to incur the remaining amount as loss, making it economically non-viable
to many MLIs.
Table 47: Example for Eligible Claim Pay-out under CGFMU
1 2 3 4
For Micro Loans
Sanctioned upto
March 31, 2020
For Micro Loans
Sanctioned during
FY 2020-21 onwards
A
Crystallized Sanctioned Amount (Rs.) 1000 1000
B
Amount Assessed to be in default
(lower of amount outstanding on date
of NPA and date of claim lodgment)
250 250
C
First loss to be borne by MLI
50
(5% of A)
7.5
(3% of B)
D Maximum Cap on Claim (15% of A) 150 150
E Balance Amount in Default (B-C) 200 242.5
F
Eligible Claim Pay-out
100
(50% of E, subject
to D)
150
(75% of E, subject
to D)
Source: FAQ, CGFMU, 2021
Further, CGFMU is portfolio based, and the guarantees are availed on the portfolios
42
. Banks
have reported that as a result of this, the entire portfolio, many times, gets stuck if there is error
even in a single entry, as errors made are not easily rectifiable because of XML formats, making
it very complex to use and leading to further delays in submission of claims.
It can be observed from the table below that mostly the Public Sector Banks avail the benefit
under the Guarantee Cover whereas for the other MLI types, the signup for the cover is very low.
Table 48: Guarantee Cover taken by MLIs granting loans under PMMY
Guarantee Cover
CGFMU Cover
Yes No
Public Sector Banks 6 1
Private Sector Banks 2 5
NBFCs 0 1
NBFCs-MFIs 0 3
Small Finance Banks 1 0
Source: Primary Research, KPMG India
42
FAQ, CGFMU, 2021, Available at: https://www.ncgtc.in/sites/default/files/faqs_25_06_2021.pdf 83
Refinancing Obligations under Mudra
Banks are able to apply for refinance at certain rates and only if they charge a stipulated interest
rate. The interest rate limit is not beneficial for most of the banks as the cost outweighs the benefits
of refinance.
The funding support from MUDRA are of two types:
• Micro Credit Scheme (MCS) for loans up to 1.5 lakhs finance through MFIs. (50%
ceiling considering 3 lakhs family income).
• Refinance Scheme for Commercial Banks / Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) / Small
Finance Banks / Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs).
In the case of Banks, RBI has put a cap on the interest rate at Base rate/ MCLR for lending
micro units by Commercial Banks by availing of MUDRA refinance. Similarly, the RRBs
have been given an interest cap of 3.50 per cent over and above MUDRA refinance rate,
while lending a PMMY loan by availing of MUDRA refinance. In case of NBFCs, RBI has
also stipulated an interest cap of 8 per cent over and above MUDRA refinance while their
lending to MUDRA segment
43
.
Refinancing the obligation to avail benefit under Mudra scheme is thus reported not economical
and feasible by many of the MLIs.
Implementation
Geographical and Sector-wise distribution
The PMMY scheme is spread across a wide market. Even the MLIs interviewed, mentioned
having different branches spread across different regions to cover the urban, semi-urban and
rural areas.
Hence, regionally, on one hand, if the NBFCs, MFIs mostly cater to specific regions in rural
areas which is crucial for the development of the country; the public sector and private sector
banks have a wide reach and cover broader geographical areas.
For the sector wise distribution, although the scheme aims to target the trading, manufacturing,
and service sectors alike; majority of the banks stated that the scheme attracts individuals and
sole proprietors to avail the loan primarily in the service sectors across geographies.
Terms of Sanction
This section discusses a few of the loan sanction terms and documentations requirements stated
by banks on majority.
43
Mudra Ltd., available at:
https://www.mudra.org.in/offerings#:~:text=MUDRA%20provides%20refinance%20support%20to,development%20support%20to%2
0the%20sector. 84
Different banks ask for different documentation proof depending on the ticket size of the loan.
These documentation proofs vary and generally increases in number basis the loan size –
• application form,
• KYC,
• Aadhar card,
• Pan card,
• Form 16,
• ITR, or
• income declarations,
• household income,
• family liability,
• credit bureau report,
• CIBIL score
• credit underwriting,
• loan proposal for documenting the purpose and need for credit by the entrepreneurs
Lack of knowledge of the basic documentation requirements is a big challenge for many banks.
To facilitate information dissemination, few banks also form groups of interested beneficiaries and
train them on various models, terms of availing finance, which is a 2 to 3 days long process, post
which they initiate the documentation process for the potential customers. Some NBFC-MFI also
operate on a Joint Liability Group (JLG) basis with a core emphasis on joint liability to a group of
individuals.
Lack of Awareness and Outreach issues
Awareness and knowledge of the scheme, both at the end of mass public as well as banking
officials at the lower levels emerged as one of the bottlenecks in ensuring equitable access to
finance. Most of the times, it is the Bank who approaches the customer as the latter has limited
access to information about the scheme. Additionally, for such customers, the information
transmission, documentation, and disbursements are to be handled manually. With limited
number of support staffs and on-field officers, it gets operationally difficult for banks to serve the
large pool of customers. Many NBFCs-MFI also do not have any established teams for promotion
and awareness of schemes. Hence, information and awareness about the scheme needs to be
disseminated more effectively by the government.
MLI’s fear of risk
The MLIs have expressed fear of NPAs with respect to applicants with no prior credit history. In
addition, the banks reported that the changing contact details makes it difficult to keep a track of
the borrowers. This also increases the cost of interaction per customer. It was also observed that
the collection issue existed especially with NBFCs and MFIs.
85
Institutional Mechanism
Need for a Centralized Database of Customers
The issues related to customer credibility or documentation verification calls for a need of a
centralized system wherein the information related to the beneficiaries can be stored safely and
retrieved easily as per convenience of the banks for customer enrollments under the scheme.
Need for Digitization
Handling offline disbursements is challenging for large Public and Private Sector Banks due to
limited resources. Many banks in Public Sector reported lack of transparency and a lot of hassle
in handling offline credit sanctions to the beneficiaries. Some banks also highlighted a need for a
digitized platform for quick addressal of queries on issues pertaining to guarantee covers or other
operational/ technical guidelines faced by the lending institutions.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Financial Performance of Borrowers
Also, many banks first only give loans under the Shishu category and if the repayment is done
timely, they transfer the borrowers to Kishore and further to the Tarun category as per the needs.
Hence, the earlier performance acts a ticket of graduation for migration to higher categories for
majority of the new borrowers or new to credit customers.
Some banks also have a process wherein the branch managers are given the incentive to
graduate them to higher levels based on the entrepreneur’s business performance assessed via
account statements on the cash flow basis.
Many banks also do frequent business visits and study the credit bureau report to get a better
understanding of the track record and financial performance of borrowers.
Based on improved performance, the credit demand sometimes overshoots the limit catered by
PMMY and in such cases, the borrowers are transferred to different schemes accordingly.
Primary reasons of rejection of loan applicants
Lack of documents and low CIBIL scores are the primary reasons for the rejection of loan
applicants.
Other reasons for rejection of loan applications:
• Customer understanding of pre sanction documents,
• Default in earlier loans,
• Unsatisfactory account conduct,
• A poor credit score,
• Low viability of the business project or lack of license to continue business operation,
• Indebtedness caps - number of loans taken up by individual, or the number of lenders, or 86
• Repayment obligations - failure to comply with Fixed obligation to income ratio (FOIR) metric
(most banks keep FOIR at 50 per cent).
Non-Performing Assets
The data on NPA analysed earlier has been substantiated and validated through the discussions
with the MLIs under this section.
Below mentioned are some of the statements given by the MLIs from different categories that are
in line with the analysis done earlier:
• High NPA percentages in public sector banks – A few Banks quoted: (“20 per cent – 30 per
cent of the mudra loans goes into NPA”, “bad loans around 12.34 per cent of the total credit
granted under PMMY”, “NPA of 11.66 per cent for MUDRA loans”, “a total 30 per cent stress
prevails for the mudra loans comprising 16 per cent NPA and 14 per cent special monitoring
account”)
• Most instances of bad loans in the Shishu category for public sector banks
• NPA in private banks on average is high. A few banks quoted: (“economic imbalance due to
Covid-19, the NPA percentage shot up to 6 per cent -7 per cent”, “major cause of concern for
the bank is NPA which is as high as around 19 per cent for the Mudra scheme”)
• NBFCs-MFI – “NPA 5 per cent -7 per cent (increase due to Covid scenario)”, “bad loans 4 per
cent -5 per cent mainly due to covid”
• NPA for NBFCs – “NPA around 4 per cent”
The YoY increase of NPA has been very high for almost all the banks and the NPA accounts and
amount have been increasing ever since the inception of the scheme PMMY. However, the NPA
Account and Amount per cent of the disbursed amount is significantly lower for the MFIs, NBFCs
and Small Finance Banks with highest being in the Public sector banks, followed by the private
sector commercial banks
44
.
Credit appraisal and monitoring
For the migration to higher categories, there is no documented cash flow available with the bank
as largely these account holders have cash businesses. Additionally, this leads to difficulty
monitoring the appropriate use of the amount required for ensuring targeted lending under the
scheme. Many Banks also reported that they face operational challenges with the scheme in
recognizing the businesses under MSME as there are many unregistered (not registered on
UDYAM) MSMEs which lack even the basic documentary evidence such as GST or PAN
Target setting by MLIs
For yearly target setting, Private and Public banks work as per targets given by DFS; however,
the SFBs and NBFCs-MFI have their own internal targets based on historical data and current
trends. Uniformity across the MLIs is needed with respect to the target setting mechanism for a
standardized process to leap in the system.
44
Refer to annexure for detailed YoY increase and NPA per cent against disbursement 87
5. Recommendations
Traditional Advertising
Mass promotions may be facilitated in television, newspapers, radio or by way of display of
posters and banners in regional languages to attract customers in villages and rural areas
Online Advertising
With the uses or application of smart phones and computers becoming more rampant, it is
critical for the government to shift to online modes of promotion which help inform, persuade
and reinforce the benefits of scheme through social media platforms, Facebook ads, google
ads and other online websites and sources.
Public Relation Activities
The ministry concerned may take active steps to interact with customers and other
stakeholders of the scheme to create and maintain the image/ branding of the scheme
Awareness on GST enrollment
Entrepreneurs may also be encouraged to go for GST to claim benefits and in turn become
more formalized
Banks Interventions for Digital Promotions
Many Banks do digital promotions and advertise about the scheme on the website and other
media channels to improve the reach among rural as well as urban areas. This may be
implemented across every bank with due diligence as there is a growing need for E – platforms
to bring in more people under the formal banking sector.
Digitization of the lending process
Entire process can be digitized making it more transparent and hassle free for the potential
beneficiaries. Many banks have made online credit disbursement possible for their existing
customers and Shishu category loans. Also, this has helped a few banks to reduce the
workload to a significant level as they encourage potential customers to apply online if found
eligible.
Real time upload of beneficiary data
A Portal enabling real-time upload of beneficiary data will help streamline the beneficiary data
collection. It will also help enhance the overall efficiency and transparency of the scheme with
a better data management.
88
Feedback/ Query Redressal Portal and Chatbots
A quick redressal of issue helps effectively run a scheme. Hence it is essential to have
Chatbots or portal for query redressal to benefit both the Member lending institutions as well
as the beneficiaries or borrowers of the scheme.
Guidelines for Credit/ Background Checks
A set of guidelines for assessing the credit worthiness and background verification must be
enlisted to provide a security net to the banks, considering the loans are collateral free and a
proper risk check and assessment has critical role to play in the sustainability of results and
success of the scheme. Additionally, E-KYC authentication may be encouraged for loan
underwriting to ensure proper assessment checks. Udyam registration may be utilized for this.
Recognition Mechanism
A proper reward mechanism is needed for different banks based on their scale of operation
and performance. A reward mechanism would help incentivize well performing MLIs to
perform better. For instance, to motivate MLIs, their achievements can be facilitated online on
the MUDRA portal stating highest achievers in multiple categories such as MLI with the most
amount disbursed, highest number of accounts, highest sanction to SC,ST,OBC, Women
categories, maximum disbursement in aspirational districts etc 89
6. Conclusion
The scheme has done fairly well and with the promise of serving to help MSMEs, it has a huge
scope to fund the unfunded small entrepreneurs and improve the access of credit to Micro
enterprises. Schemes like PMMY serves as an important tool for small businesses to access
commercial capital. However, for its success hinges on its design and with the right mechanism
and risk management processes alongside the efficient administration and governing bodies, can
further make the MUDRA scheme financially sustainable, generating positive additionalities.
Summary of Scheme Rationalization
Table 49: Summary of Scheme Rationalization
Scope for Scheme
Convergence
Scope and Impact of
Guarantee Cover
Discussion on Way
Forward
PMMY • Different schemes have
different purpose and
target beneficiaries.
• Thus, the scheme may
continue on a
standalone basis going
forward
• The cover may be
continued with the pay
out cap at 15%.
• Scheme may be
continued with
changes
recommended
90
Annexure
1. List of MLIs for Primary Discussions:
Annexure List of MLIs for Primary Discussions
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India
2 Bank of Baroda
3 Bank of India
4 State Bank of India
5 Canara Bank
6 Central Bank of India
7 UCO Bank
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank
2 ICICI Bank
3 Axis Bank
4 Bandhan Bank
5 IDBI Bank
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank
7 IndusInd Bank
NBFCs
1 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Grameen Koota Financial Services Private Limited
2 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
3 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd.
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank
91
2. Discussion Guide for Member Lending Institutions (MLIs)
1. Has PMMY able improve availability of credit to MSME enterprises?
2. What are key benefits of PMMY compared to other credit guarantee schemes?
3. Has the scheme been able to attract new borrowers and first-time entrepreneurs?
4. Is the information dissemination about scheme sufficient to attract potential beneficiaries?
5. What is the share of existing customers to new customers applying for loans under the
scheme? What is the number of new to credit borrowers?
6. Are the borrowers/ applicants aware of the process, documentation, etc?
7. What are key challenges you face in credit appraisal process? How can these be
addressed?
8. What are the primary reasons for rejection of loan applications?
9. What is the share of loans under PMMY as percentage of loans sanctioned by your
institution for MSME sector?
10. In which category – Shishu, Kishor, Tarun – do you find more instances of bad loans?
11. Have you been able to meet your targets for PMMY schemes? If not, what are the key
reasons?
12. Are there any initiatives to deal with loan processing by having a tie-up with a few
nonprofit agencies for guidance & handholding of MSME entrepreneurs?
13. Is there any power asymmetry between branch managers which may lead to inefficiency
in scheme performance?
14. Are there any convergence issues, considering multiple schemes for MSMEs?
15. How many Shishu Mudrapreneurs are able to graduate to Kishore and further to Tarun
category?
16. Does your bank take guarantee cover under Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and
Small Enterprises (CGTMSE) and Credit Guarantee Fund for Micro Units (CGFMU)?
17. What changes would you recommend to improve the scheme from the perspective of
financial institutions?
18. What changes in the scheme would benefit MSME enterprises?
92
3. Success Stories, Best Practices and Case Studies
This section lists out some of the best practices facilitated by the banks interviewed.
• Central Bank of India, IDBI, ICICI, Yes Banks and many other banks have integrated the
MUDRA scheme with the “Loans in 59 minutes” scheme wherein people can apply for
credit on their portal
• UCO bank celebrates a MUDRA Day in every month to promote, improve availability and
accessibility of the scheme through campaigns and personal interactions.
• IndusInd’s fundamental strength - subsidiary - Bharat financial Inclusion Ltd (business
correspondent) that offers product solutions from the bank for microfinance loans to the
customers.
• Group based lending system by Bandhan and IndusInd Bank wherein individuals are
grouped and informed about the scheme has helped them reduce NPA to a significant
level.
Further, some bank appoints BCs (Banking Correspondents) to market information and
handholding of the customer across different regions. The BCs help borrowers with the
documentation process such as filling up of forms, KYC details, Aadhar card, pan card etc.
bank promotes the implementation of scheme by giving BCs incentives from its own
depository. There are a few banks that conducts workshops or credit camps to train the
beneficiaries and have special government scheme centers to cater to government schemes.
Applicants approach the bank after getting information through on field relationship teams and
information dissemination meetings with entrepreneurs. As Banks are reaching out to potential
beneficiaries, hence the chances of rejection of applicants are reduced. However, few bank
suggest that there is a growing need to break the intermediary barriers (Business
correspondents) as there exists a knowledge gap among them and the interaction between
the branch managers.
Other best practices:
Financial Literacy and information dissemination
The financial literacy among the customers is one of the major challenges for almost all the
banks. To combat this, many banks use the local or the regional language for posters and
promotion. Some, even make available the application forms in the local languages for the
better understanding of customers at large
Reducing risk of Power Misuse
The misuse of power by the branch managers is another risk which needs proper monitoring.
To ensure this, it is critical that the complete manual dependency is not left to be addressed
by a single department. Many banks thus have a process in line of granting loans which
undergoes different levels of delegation. A few banks reported to have separate teams
wherein the sourcing is done by branches while the sanction of amount is handled by a
different credit team. Some banks also have a rotation policy wherein the employees are
moved to different locations/ regions, as well as random audit visits/ checks to prevent and
keep in check the mis-utilization of power mechanism by the employees or branch officials. 93
Background Verification and Credit Check
The majority of borrowers under Mudra are small entrepreneurs who have very limited
documents. This makes it difficult for the banks to run verification checks as it requires more
staffing and employees. To address the issue, some banks have done tie-ups with fintech
company for background and credit checks which has helped them reduce the workload to a
considerable level. A few of them have also gone digital to help fix the processing issues via
the online platform, helping them save resource as well as time on initial checks and
verification.
Target Monitoring
Meeting targets is very crucial for the banks to ensure an effective working of the scheme. But
to achieve this, it is necessary to reward or incentivize the employees for target completion.
Many banks thus do periodical review of targets and make it a part of performance review for
their employees and since meeting targets is a key aspect in the appraisal process, the bank
managers try their best efforts in accomplishing in the same, helping bank perform effectively
and efficiently.
Case Studies
Table Case Study – FOGAPE, Chile
Scheme
Name
FOGAPE
Country Chile
About the
Scheme
The Fondo de Garantia para Pequenas Empresas (Small Enterprise
Guarantee Fund) (FOGAPE) is a credit guarantee scheme started in 1980
by the Chilean government and managed by BancoEstado, a large, state-
owned retail bank.
Objective The mission of the scheme is to provide credit guarantees to formal
Financial Institutions to enable credit for Micro Enterprises (with less than
around INR 74 lakh
45
in annual sales) and Small-Scale firms (up to around
INR 7.39 crore
46
in annual sales) across all the sectors
47
.
Performance
48
A study by Cowan, Drexler and Yañez in 2015, stated the positive impact of
the scheme on credit availability for beneficiary firms such that an additional
INR 1 guarantee generated INR 0.8 in loans for SMEs for new to credit
customers and INR 0.7 for repeat borrowers. Additionally, the study found
no evidence of increased risk of default
45
Converted at the average exchange rate for 2021 (US$1 = INR73.9339), Source exchangerate.org.uk
46
Converted at the average exchange rate for 2021 (US$1 = INR73.9339), Source exchangerate.org.uk
47
Impact evaluation of credit guarantee schemes, 2021, Food and agriculture organization of UN, available at:
https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Impact-evaluation-of-credit-guarantee-schemes-in-agriculture.pdf
48
Impact evaluation of credit guarantee schemes, 2021, Food and agriculture organization of UN, available at:
https://www.rfilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Impact-evaluation-of-credit-guarantee-schemes-in-agriculture.pdf 94
Another study by Mullins and Toro (2018) shows the scheme in positive light
by having the firms in the credit group doubling their banking credit within
the same year, with a gradual increase throughout the year.
Success
Factors
49
:
1. Strong regulatory and supervisory system.
2. Transparency and fairness: through Auction
50
Mechanism wherein
guarantees are allocated to FIs through a sealed bid auction. This
acts as an incentive for lenders that limits risk shifting by keeping
operating costs low preventing adverse selection and moral hazard
among borrowers and lenders.
3. Effective communication and awareness:
- Publicity and promotional campaign launched by government on
the scheme’s benefits
- Additionally, training to participating FIs to assimilate them with the
scheme policies and mechanism.
49
Facilitating access to finance, Discussion paper on Credit Guarantee Scheme, OECD, available at: https://www.oecd.org/global-
relations/45324327.pdf
50
Refer to Annexure for detailed explanation 95
The Auction system of the Chilean Fund - FOGAPE
51
Table Case Study – Loans in 59 minutes, India
Initiative
Name
Loans in 59 minutes
52
Country India
About the
Initiative
psbloansin59minutes.com is a new-age digital lending platform that aims at
providing technology based financial solutions to address issues (tedious
application writing, documentation, and verification processes) faced by
MSMEs. It has tied up with several banks to offer Mudra loans, MSME loans,
home loans, and a few other loans through their online portal in a quick and
hassle freeway.
Services and
benefits
• Faster and contactless digital approval in 59 minutes
• One form for all the lenders on the platform
• Real time tracking of applications can be done online
• MSMEs can choose preferred lender products from multiple loan offers
• Sanction and disbursement take 7-10 working days
51
Facilitating access to finance, Discussion paper on Credit Guarantee Scheme, OECD, available at: https://www.oecd.org/global-
relations/45324327.pdf
52
SIDBI, psbloansin59minutes, available at: https://www.psbloansin59minutes.com/mudra-loan
Annexure Box Auction Mechanism, FOGAPE, Chile
- The bidding takes place four to six times per year
- Only supervised financial institutions can participate
- FIs participating are responsible for analyzing the risk of loans and respecting the conditions
set forth by FOGAPE
- In every auction FOGAPE distributes resources for three types of credit guarantees:
1. 50 per cent - Short term
2. 30 per cent - Long term, exporters, and new entrepreneurs
3. 20 per cent - Other credit
- Tenders are selected based on the coverage rates proposed by FIs (lower coverage rates
are selected before higher coverage rates)
- A contract is established by FOGAPE with the winning FI fixing the coverage and
commission rates, and outlining the contractual obligations of both parties in the case of
default
- Once the contract is concluded between FOGAPE and the lending institution, loans based
on the guarantees must be distributed to borrowers within a two-month time frame. If the FI
fails to do during that period, the guarantee is not used, and FOGAPE calls for a new bid. 96
Process
Image Source: psbloansin59minutes.com
Performance • 21+ partner banks
Image Source: psbloansin59minutes.com
• 6 lakhs+ journeys completed
• 70,000 crores+ loans disbursed
• 5000+ video testimonials
97
4. Credit Gap Analysis – Assumptions/ Calculations
Annexure Credit Gap Analysis – Change per cent
Demand and Supply of
Credit to MSME Year
Chang
e per
cent Assumptions/ Calculations
Growth per cent for supply of
credit to MSME
18-19 9.42 YOY change per cent calculated based on
supply of credit figures, (SIDBI, Annual
Report, 2020-21)
19-20 2.1
20-21 6.54
Growth per cent for demand
of credit by MSME
17-19 4.68
Calculated CAGR based on FY2010 and
FY2017 credit demand figures, (IFC, world
bank)
19-20 1.04 Unitary method applied based on growth per
cent for supply of credit to calculate the
change per cent for demand of credit by
MSME for Covid Period 20-21 3.24
98
5. State-wise Per capita amount sanctioned under PMMY (2015-2022)
State
2015-
16
2016-
17
2017-
2018
2018-
19
2019-
2020
2020-
21
2021-
2022
Andaman
and Nicobar
Islands
5,738
2,106
2,697
2,410
1,987
3,232
2,034
Andhra
Pradesh
1,175
1,177
2,063
2,264
2,314
2,244
2,128
Arunachal
Pradesh
538
589
791
853
1,128
1,296
654
Assam
582
1,573
2,137
3,185
2,496
2,454
1,559
Bihar
726
1,171
1,529
2,344
2,636
2,458
3,083
Chandigarh
2,013
2,170
3,979
4,039
3,830
4,257
2,669
Chhattisgarh
887
1,305
1,858
2,330
2,724
2,641
2,321
Dadra and
Nagar Haveli
632
683
1,070
1,295
1,293
1,535
1,467
Daman and
Diu
511
518
968
768
1,013
1,153
820
Delhi
1,756
2,241
2,651
3,436
3,103
2,460
1,559
Goa
2,738
2,675
3,423
3,446
3,479
3,796
3,369
Gujarat
998
1,288
1,884
2,187
2,274
1,916
2,011
Haryana
1,286
1,516
2,343
2,969
3,100
2,979
3,064
Himachal
Pradesh
1,455
1,867
2,769
3,437
3,501
3,445
3,136 99
Jammu &
Kashmir
945
1,471
2,063
2,714
2,975
4,578
4,802
Jharkhand
893
1,214
1,640
2,119
2,414
2,568
2,673
Karnataka
2,760
2,947
3,766
4,910
4,941
4,943
4,697
Kerala
1,454
1,882
2,832
3,646
3,935
3,417
3,502
Lakshadweep
1,021
875
2,009
1,143
1,287
3,577
2,584
Madhya
Pradesh
1,115
1,447
2,050
2,397
2,624
2,544
2,591
Maharashtra
1,229
1,538
2,025
2,353
2,483
2,243
2,296
Manipur
460
546
769
1,265
1,445
1,525
1,448
Meghalaya
561
640
729
910
922
1,398
714
Mizoram
788
922
1,437
2,115
2,277
2,236
1,926
Nagaland
434
576
687
824
930
1,320
1,157
Odisha
1,357
1,880
2,754
3,757
3,673
3,652
4,026
Pondicherry
2,707
3,931
7,173
10,008
6,126
4,958
6,422
Punjab
1,288
1,673
2,424
2,986
3,202
2,672
2,948
Rajasthan
800
1,317
2,022
2,554
2,868
2,709
2,772
Sikkim
975
1,636
1,905
3,413
2,886
3,291
2,662 100
Tamil Nadu
2,196
2,502
3,511
4,749
4,854
4,015
4,502
Tripura
1,013
2,720
4,042
5,046
4,310
5,762
6,796
Uttar Pradesh
614
765
1,105
1,311
1,549
1,463
1,685
Uttarakhand
1,773
1,957
2,551
2,948
2,919
3,074
2,990
West Bengal
880
1,720
2,252
2,899
2,935
3,214
3,823
101
6. Top 10 states Category Wise (Number of Accounts (2015-2022))
State
Shishu
Accounts State
Kishore
Accounts State
Tarun
Accounts
Tamil Nadu
21,401,266 Karnataka
1,754,500 Tamil Nadu
447,211
Karnataka
16,678,956 Tamil Nadu
1,543,774 Karnataka
335,160
West Bengal
16,400,450 West Bengal
1,426,071 Maharashtra
333,883
Bihar
15,503,668 Maharashtra
1,240,170 Gujarat
317,178
Uttar Pradesh
14,631,035 Uttar Pradesh
1,182,731 Rajasthan
272,832
Maharashtra
13,287,767
Andhra
Pradesh
1,139,412 Uttar Pradesh
246,341
Odisha
12,039,026 Bihar
907,164
Madhya
Pradesh
241,524
Madhya
Pradesh
10,399,449 Rajasthan
777,604 West Bengal
191,866
Rajasthan
5,788,547 Kerala
774,481
Andhra
Pradesh
129,667
Kerala
5,352,060 Gujarat
743,688 Bihar
111,824
102
7. Top 10 states Category Wise (Disbursed Amount (2015-2022) (in Cr))
State
Shishu
Accounts State
Kishore
Accounts State
Tarun
Accounts
Tamil Nadu
50,964 Karnataka
27,090 Maharashtra
22,760
West Bengal
41,349 Tamil Nadu
24,427 Uttar Pradesh
18,538
Karnataka
41,019 Maharashtra
24,040 Karnataka
17,497
Bihar
36,359 Uttar Pradesh
23,203 Tamil Nadu
16,651
Maharashtra
31,558
Andhra
Pradesh
19,316 Rajasthan
14,739
Uttar Pradesh
30,957 West Bengal
18,542 Gujarat
12,193
Odisha
26,524 Rajasthan
15,725
Madhya
Pradesh
11,036
Madhya
Pradesh
24,781 Bihar
13,718 West Bengal
9,193
Assam
14,995 Gujarat
13,680
Andhra
Pradesh
8,642
Rajasthan
14,119 Kerala
13,351 Punjab
7,790
103
8 District-wise performance basis the sanctioned amount for FY 2021-2022
Source: Mudra Ltd.
Annexure Bottom 318 districts as per Sanctioned amount, 2021-2022
Sr.No. District
Amt. Sanctioned
(in cr)
1 Nicobar 1.43
2 North and middle andaman 21.27
3 South Andaman 54.7
4 Anjaw 0.24
5 Changlang 0.93
6 Dibang Valley 1.61
7 East Kameng 2.77
8 East Siang 5.45
9 KAMLE 0
10 Kra Daadi 1
11 Kurung Kumey 0.63
12 LEPARADA 0.05
13 Lohit 10.92
14 Longding 0.44
15 Lower Dibang Valley 0.63
16 LOWER SIANG 0
17 Lower Subansiri 5.58
18 NAMSAI 1.24
19 Other 0
20 PAKKE KESSANG 0
21 Papum Pare 34.18
22 SHI YOMI 0
23 SIANG 0.24
24 Tawang 5.14
25 Tirap 0.93
26 Upper Siang 0.65
27 Upper Subansiri 4.04
28 West Kameng 8.38
29 West Siang 5.46
30 Baksa 36.36
31 Barpeta 210.23
32 Biswanath 62.78
33 Bongaigaon 145.41
34 Charideo (Other) 37.46
35 Chirang 49.67
36 Darrang 120.87
37 Dhemaji 94.43 104
38 Dima Hasao 8.36
39 Goalpara 127.12
40 Golaghat 171.59
41 Hailakandi 83.2
42 HOJAI 80.95
43 Jorhat 173.04
44 Karbi Anglong 19.55
45 Karimganj 204.7
46 Kokrajhar 51.15
47 Lakhimpur 161.27
48 MAJULI 11.5
49 Morigaon 97.95
50 Nalbari 95.73
51 Sivasagar 175.38
52 SOUTH SALMARA MANCACHAR 1.64
53 Tinsukia 212.62
54 Udalguri 28.99
55 WEST KARBI ANGLONG 1.69
56 Arwal 80.13
57 Jehanabad 198.83
58 Lakhisarai 210.45
59 Sheikhpura 109.27
60 Sheohar 148.38
61 Balod 179.76
62 Baloda Bazar 149.66
63 Balrampur 97.47
64 Bastar 153.23
65 Bemetara 58.31
66 Dantewada 22.76
67 Dhamtari 164.3
68 Gariyaband 61.5
69 Jashpur 122.76
70 Kabirdham 88.44
71 Kanker 130.3
72 Kondagaon 75.1
73 Koriya 95.56
74 Mungeli 83.92
75 Narayanpur 35.74
76 Sukma 5.94
77 Surajpur 59.15
78 Surguja 179.35
79 Dadra and Nagar haveli 50.42
80 Daman 16.68 105
81 Diu 2.77
82 Other 0.5
83 North delhi 126.81
84 North-east delhi 55.05
85 North-west delhi 201.91
86 Other 186.31
87 Shahdara 64.61
88 South-east delhi 80.99
89 South-west delhi 98.67
90 Other 8.12
91 South Goa 187.24
92 Amreli 74.28
93 Aravalli 148.1
94 Botad 51.9
95 Chhotaudepur 100.85
96 Dang 5.83
97 Devbhumi dwarka 37.84
98 Gir Somnath 52.62
99 Jamnagar 187.63
100 Junagadh 106.82
101 Mahisagar 201.6
102 Morbi 83.64
103 Narmada 122.13
104 Patan 103.88
105 Porbandar 60.84
106 Surendranagar 183.72
107 Tapi 84.98
108 CHARKI DADRI 146.97
109 Jhajjar 199.29
110 Mewat 37.53
111 Palwal 148.01
112 Panchkula 136.58
113 Bilaspur 114.45
114 Chamba 89.04
115 Hamirpur 173.01
116 Kinnaur 36.05
117 Kullu 149.08
118 Lahul & Spiti 12.68
119 Other 119.34
120 Sirmaur 140.3
121 Una 211.35
122 Chatra 168.55
123 Gumla 90
124 Jamtara 67.91 106
125 Khunti 60.18
126 Latehar 154.62
127 Lohardaga 54.78
128 Seraikela-Kharsawan 125.92
129 Simdega 27.84
130 West Singhbhum 193.69
131 Lakshadweep 16.66
132 Agar Malwa 178.5
133 Alirajpur 53.14
134 Anuppur 139.72
135 Ashoknagar 78.19
136 Barwani 203.95
137 Bhind 80.92
138 Burhanpur 129.75
139 Damoh 144.34
140 Datia 89.87
141 Dindori 105.5
142 Harda 140.12
143 Morena 108.14
144 Panna 87.66
145 Sheopur 59.91
146 Sidhi 121.61
147 Singrauli 81.71
148 Tikamgarh 156.33
149 Umaria 76.98
150 Vidisha 190.33
151 Gadchiroli 109.13
152 Nandurbar 145.17
153 Sindhudurg 207.87
154 Bishnupur 17.27
155 Chandel 4.17
156 Churachandpur 16.04
157 Imphal East 71.4
158 Imphal West 148.94
159 JIRIBAM 2.47
160 KAKCHING 9.87
161 KAMJONG 0
162 KANGPOKPI 6.39
163 NONEY 1.72
164 Other 62.71
165 PHERZAWL 0.18
166 Senapati 17.02
167 Tamenglong 2.49
168 TENGNOUPAL 5.47 107
169 Thoubal 43.17
170 Ukhrul 4.13
171 East Garo Hills 6.28
172 East Jaintia Hills 6.6
173 East Khasi Hills 111.99
174 Jaintia Hills 15.51
175 North Garo Hills 2.91
176 Other 3.83
177 Ribhoi 24.7
178 South Garo Hills 3.12
179 South West Garo Hills 3.56
180 South West Khasi Hills 1.52
181 West Garo Hills 25.95
182 West Khasi Hills 5.88
183 Aizawl 94.52
184 Champhai 20.23
185 Hnahthial 2.23
186 KHAWZAWL 4.98
187 Kolasib 24.81
188 Lawngtlai 10.08
189 Lunglei 18.29
190 Mamit 12.73
191 Saiha 3.04
192 SAITUAL 9.25
193 Serchhip 11.15
194 Dimapur 108.27
195 Kiphire 7.35
196 Kohima 54.32
197 Longleng 3.5
198 Mokokchung 18.48
199 Mon 8.56
200 Other 0
201 Peren 6.48
202 Phek 2.79
203 Tuensang 5.68
204 Wokha 7.78
205 Zunheboto 5.8
206 Boudh 124.92
207 Debagarh 73.45
208 Gajapati 122.91
209 Kandhamal 183.26
210 Malkangiri 152.78
211 Nuapada 207.28
212 Karaikal 118.61 108
213 Mahe 25.24
214 Other 99.1
215 Yanam 6.28
216 Barnala 145.79
217 Faridkot 177.91
218 Fatehgarh Sahib 147.63
219 Mansa 212.75
220 Pathankot 135.68
221 Bharatpur 201.21
222 Dholpur 141.84
223 Jaisalmer 79.31
224 Karauli 100.99
225 Sawai Madhopur 150.73
226 East sikkim 105.96
227 North sikkim 4.44
228 Other 15.18
229 South sikkim 25.83
230 West sikkim 11.12
231 Chengalpet 127.92
232 Kallakurichi 190.62
233 Karur 187.62
234 Perambalur 134.92
235 Ranipet 91.4
236 Tenkasi 115.13
237 Tirupattur 161.52
238 Adilabad 113.69
239 Bhadradri 107.96
240 Jagitial 53.47
241 Jangaon(New) 72.56
242 Jayashankar 10.66
243 Jogulamba 38.81
244 Kamareddy 80.2
245 KomramBheem 15.85
246 Mahabubabad 16.28
247 Mahbubnagar 196.36
248 Mancherial 59.07
249 Medak 115.5
250 Mulugu 20.48
251 Nagarkurnool 28.06
252 Narayanpet 18.4
253 Nirmal 37.19
254 Peddapalli 41.39
255 Rajanna 25.9
256 Sangareddy 122.75 109
257 Siddipet 56.98
258 Suryapet 101.91
259 Vikarabad 35.87
260 Wanaparthy 23.88
261 Warangal(rural) 62.37
262 Yadadri 41.58
263 Dhalai 171
264 Khowai 154.64
265 North Tripura 171.86
266 Other 71.51
267 Unakoti 137.28
268 Bandipore 169.91
269 Doda 199.24
270 Kishtwar 119.64
271 Kulgam 199.53
272 Other 55.85
273 Poonch 161.21
274 Ramban 96.24
275 Reasi 115.18
276 Samba 202.1
277 Shupiyan 124.68
278 Udhampur 197.7
279 Kargil 95.21
280 Ladakh 138.59
281 Amethi 184.96
282 Auraiya 60.83
283 Baghpat 193.25
284 Balrampur 104.01
285 Banda 192.81
286 Budaun 178.35
287 Chitrakoot 156.54
288 Etah 163.64
289 Etawah 98.96
290 Farrukhabad 111.29
291 Hamirpur 68.25
292 Hathras 200.59
293 Jalaun 80.28
294 Jyotiba Phule Nagar 168.75
295 Kanpur Dehat 129.8
296 Kanshiram Nagar 54.25
297 Kaushambi 195.64
298 Lalitpur 56.2
299 Mahoba 40.61
300 Mainpuri 145.71 110
301 Pilibhit 150.41
302 Rampur 203.86
303 Sambhal 116.69
304 Sant Kabir Nagar 191.62
305 Shravasti 42.37
306 Siddharthnagar 146.03
307 Almora 176.05
308 Bageshwar 41.69
309 Chamoli 84.56
310 Champawat 63.91
311 Garhwal 124.96
312 Other 43.24
313 Pithoragarh 88.76
314 Rudraprayag 40.95
315 Tehri Garhwal 91.69
316 Uttarkashi 53.1
317 Jhargram 140.3
318 Kalimpong 25.49
Total 26525.15 111
9 Source for NPA Data: Mudra Ltd
Table NPA Accounts for Shishu category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 61% 89% 53% 267% 108%
2 Bank of Baroda 95% 21% 89% -7% -8%
3 Bank of India 108% 44% 14% 30% 58%
4 State Bank of India 20% 46% 61% 18% 97%
5 Punjab National Bank 104% 41% 27% 143% 7%
6 Canara Bank 94% 12% 19% 96% 47%
7 Indian Bank 179% 8% 22% 157% 115%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 179% 0% 8% 73% 98%
9 Central Bank of India 98% 25% 51% 59% 86%
10 UCO Bank 230% 65% 148% 7% 116%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 228% 18% -17% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 208% 26% 25% -15% -13%
3 Axis Bank NA NA 153% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 586% 62% -93% 6292% -47%
5 IDBI Bank 118% -22% -41% -8% 17%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 13294% -100% 950% 517% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 1193% -26% 404% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 55% 177% 92% 39% 134%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs 112
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA 146% 341% NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 124% NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 368% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 15838% -100% NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -93% 22480% -99%
Table NPA Accounts for Kishore category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 124% 262% 93% 91% 70%
2 Bank of Baroda 80% 34% 153% -17% 29%
3 Bank of India 199% 82% 43% 34% 39%
4 State Bank of India 33% 132% 198% 3% -2%
5 Punjab National Bank 309% 72% 57% 89% 21%
6 Canara Bank 163% 49% 40% 157% 20%
7 Indian Bank 361% 17% 69% 87% 74%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 226% 36% 25% 18% 41%
9 Central Bank of India 229% 92% 136% 31% 36%
10 UCO Bank 240% 104% 144% 9% 64%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 94% -15% -6% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 297% 75% 60% 46% -42%
3 Axis Bank NA NA -15% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank NA 768000% 184% 167% 231%
5 IDBI Bank 179% 43% 58% 24% 9%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank NA 69% 116% 106% NA 113
7 IndusInd Bank 482% 60% 55% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 45% 79% 222% 38% 41%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA NA NA NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 9644% NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 51% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -97% 57535% -98%
Table NPA Accounts for Tarun category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 154% 180% 95% 141% 47%
2 Bank of Baroda 185% 52% 369% -27% 33%
3 Bank of India 236% 70% 44% 13% 35%
4 State Bank of India 0% 129% 108% 6% 2%
5 Punjab National Bank 349% 51% 66% 158% 20%
6 Canara Bank 209% 45% 59% 181% 17%
7 Indian Bank 507% 6% 76% 171% 43%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 142% 35% 20% 5% 16%
9 Central Bank of India 317% 110% 202% 16% 30%
10 UCO Bank 152% 79% 216% 25% 51%
Private Sector Banks 114
1 HDFC Bank 128% 13% 27% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 234% 71% 78% 62% -51%
3 Axis Bank NA NA -18% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank NA NA NA -57% 478%
5 IDBI Bank 225% 48% 35% 35% 29%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 7800% 111% 92% 49% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 973% 108% 6% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 100% 153% 371% 56% 35%
NBFCs
1
Shriram Tranport Finance Company
Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA NA NA NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA NA NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA NA NA -100%
Table Total NPA Accounts, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 84% 160% 77% 157% 88%
2 Bank of Baroda 90% 28% 131% -14% 13%
3 Bank of India 137% 58% 27% 31% 48%
4 State Bank of India 22% 75% 117% 9% 42% 115
5 Punjab National Bank 167% 55% 43% 116% 14%
6 Canara Bank 115% 25% 29% 126% 32%
7 Indian Bank 251% 12% 46% 120% 90%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 194% 17% 17% 40% 69%
9 Central Bank of India 123% 44% 85% 45% 64%
10 UCO Bank 231% 81% 148% 9% 90%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 221% 17% -16% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 252% 62% 59% 43% -43%
3 Axis Bank NA NA 140% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 586% 74% -74% 1798% -19%
5 IDBI Bank 138% 0% 5% 17% 14%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 13272% -89% 114% 104% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 1111% -21% 362% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 50% 107% 188% 40% 60%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA 146% 342% NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 160% NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 366% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 15838% -100% NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -93% 23800% -99%
116
Table NPA Amount for Shishu category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 30% 85% 35% 177% 56%
2 Bank of Baroda 64% 14% 131% -13% -10%
3 Bank of India 92% 70% 29% -10% -3%
4 State Bank of India -64% 34% 26% 47% -17%
5 Punjab National Bank 130% 36% 10% 107% -3%
6 Canara Bank 54% 18% 20% 166% -5%
7 Indian Bank 139% -20% -7% 413% 41%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 172% 0% 1% 33% 42%
9 Central Bank of India 146% -12% 41% 28% 31%
10 UCO Bank 229% 119% 68% 13% 67%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 144% -1% -31% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 254% -54% 15% 43% -18%
3 Axis Bank NA NA 444% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 392% 33% -88% 8695% -66%
5 IDBI Bank 68% -18% -29% -19% 12%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 2567% -91% -14% 350% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 413% -7% 380% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 44% 76% 45% 92% 38%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA 613% 139% NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 115% NA NA 117
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 621% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 26063% -100% NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -84% 13012% -99%
Table NPA Amount for Kishore category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 131% 214% 85% 98% 66%
2 Bank of Baroda 80% 52% 140% -20% 35%
3 Bank of India 169% 66% 34% 38% 37%
4 State Bank of India 34% 118% 156% 0% -8%
5 Punjab National Bank 293% 53% 44% 115% 29%
6 Canara Bank 146% 36% 40% 191% 20%
7 Indian Bank 337% -4% 17% 204% 86%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 190% 52% 21% 16% 33%
9 Central Bank of India 216% 99% 127% 28% 25%
10 UCO Bank 240% 106% 153% 10% 53%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 83% -9% -3% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 270% 47% 38% 48% -48%
3 Axis Bank NA NA -40% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank NA 295200% 595% 60% 321%
5 IDBI Bank 172% 39% 57% 12% 6%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank NA 94% 86% 100% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 510% 69% 15% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 52% 90% 176% 56% -86%
NBFCs 118
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA NA NA NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 7225% NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 293% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -96% 38300% -98%
Table NPA Amount for Tarun category, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 122% 151% 86% 171% 45%
2 Bank of Baroda 161% 81% 281% -25% 41%
3 Bank of India 216% 56% 27% 19% 39%
4 State Bank of India 1% 125% 74% 8% 16%
5 Punjab National Bank 319% 42% 44% 201% 18%
6 Canara Bank 186% 39% 57% 179% 16%
7 Indian Bank 882% -45% 80% 167% 47%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 113% 58% 17% 3% 6%
9 Central Bank of India 285% 103% 192% 14% 24%
10 UCO Bank 139% 78% 218% 29% 48%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 103% 1% 30% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 222% 52% 56% 63% -58%
3 Axis Bank NA NA -32% NA NA 119
4 Bandhan Bank NA NA NA -60% 347%
5 IDBI Bank 207% 41% 32% 14% 20%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 4575% 92% 67% 53% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 2911% -37% -6% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 80% 141% 298% 62% -87%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA NA NA NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA NA NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA NA NA -100%
Table Total NPA Amount, YoY change per cent
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 105% 176% 81% 125% 58%
2 Bank of Baroda 91% 53% 178% -21% 33%
3 Bank of India 167% 63% 30% 23% 33%
4 State Bank of India -20% 101% 113% 6% -3%
5 Punjab National Bank 254% 47% 38% 138% 21%
6 Canara Bank 129% 34% 41% 184% 15%
7 Indian Bank 423% -24% 35% 203% 65%
8 Bank of Maharashtra 160% 45% 18% 14% 27% 120
9 Central Bank of India 198% 60% 129% 23% 26%
10 UCO Bank 210% 102% 149% 15% 54%
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 116% -3% -10% NA NA
2 ICICI Bank 239% 48% 49% 58% -55%
3 Axis Bank NA NA 19% NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 392% 57% 20% 767% -1%
5 IDBI Bank 166% 33% 37% 12% 13%
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 5064% 67% 71% 66% NA
7 IndusInd Bank 570% 4% 184% NA NA
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 58% 103% 208% 59% -84%
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited NA NA 613% 141% NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services
Private Limited NA NA 242% NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. NA NA 626% NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 26063% -100% NA NA NA
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank NA NA -87% 15330% -98%
121
NPA against number of account/ disbursement
Less than 3 per cent 3 per cent -10 per cent More than 10 per cent
Table NPA Accounts per cent for Shishu category (against number of accounts)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 3.46 4.56 7 9.01 5.85 10.28
2 Bank of Baroda 3.86 5.98 3.75 3.05 2.6 2.05
3 Bank of India 3.66 4.99 5.5 4.96 3.96 4.99
4 State Bank of India 4.39 3.64 2.94 2.85 3.07 5.7
5 Punjab National Bank 2.3 3.87 4.88 5.79 9.03 8.99
6 Canara Bank 3.42 4.94 4.12 3.71 4.43 5.39
7 Indian Bank 1.55 3.89 3.97 4.73 4.08 7.64
8 Bank of Maharashtra 7.61 18.01 16.08 2.91 2.62 3.64
9 Central Bank of India 1.22 2.22 1.77 1.92 2.25 3.53
10 UCO Bank 0.22 0.6 0.75 1.74 1.56 3.22
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 2.03 4.45 3.92 2.54 NA 4.08
2 ICICI Bank 0.11 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.16 0.13
3 Axis Bank 0.95 NA 0.7 1.39 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0.22 0.78 0.93 0.05 2.89 1.28
5 IDBI Bank 3.1 5.15 3.42 1.79 1.56 1.77
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.05 1.76 0 0.01 0.04 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.38 3.12 1.15 2.13 NA 0.17
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.4 0.42 0.76 0.93 0.63 1.26
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.31 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 4.52 NA NA 122
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 13.04 NA 0.54 0.85 2.79 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0.04 NA 0.3 0.47 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0.33 NA 0.36 1.25 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0.08 4.44 0 1.19 NA 3.77
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 1.55 NA 0.72 0.05 9.52 0.08
Table NPA Accounts per cent for Kishore category (against number of accounts)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 2.09 2.53 6.37 9.9 7.34 9.84
2 Bank of Baroda 6.41 5.6 5.12 6.01 4.09 4.44
3 Bank of India 3.05 5.23 6.37 6.62 6.3 7.24
4 State Bank of India 5.24 4.16 6.9 16.01 13.22 11.61
5 Punjab National Bank 3.6 8.75 11.22 14.3 14.42 14.62
6 Canara Bank 2.64 4.41 4.98 5.84 8.36 8.77
7 Indian Bank 3.07 7.58 6.58 9.43 6.88 10.47
8 Bank of Maharashtra 5.1 10.44 10.48 10.41 9.37 10.9
9 Central Bank of India 1.93 3.34 4.39 7.58 6.54 7.59
10 UCO Bank 0.74 1.41 2.3 4.58 4.12 5.88
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 2.4 3 1.65 1.05 NA 1.05
2 ICICI Bank 0.76 1.8 1.99 2.53 3.26 1.75
3 Axis Bank 0.49 NA 1.17 0.72 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0 0 0.41 1.1 1.4 2.64
5 IDBI Bank 3.82 7.32 7.9 10.78 11.43 11.45
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0 0.95 0.84 1.53 0.57 NA 123
7 IndusInd Bank 0.48 1.76 1.67 0.9 NA 10.98
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.48 0.39 0.45 1.02 0.83 0.94
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.04 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 0 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0 NA 0.03 1.16 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 2.35 NA 5.53 2.42 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0 0 0 0 NA 2.78
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 3.53 NA 2.49 0.03 9.59 0.11
Table NPA Accounts per cent for Tarun category (against number of accounts)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 2.05 2.77 4.78 6.97 5.67 6.61
2 Bank of Baroda 2.15 2.73 2.55 4.84 2.56 2.76
3 Bank of India 2.41 4.54 5.17 5.36 4.68 5.19
4 State Bank of India 1.99 1.14 1.78 2.85 2.25 1.96
5 Punjab National Bank 2.01 5.31 5.72 7.4 8.9 7.99
6 Canara Bank 1.64 3.1 2.64 3.01 5.07 4.8
7 Indian Bank 1.74 7.12 5.79 8.35 7.15 8.7
8 Bank of Maharashtra 3.26 4.67 4.46 4.48 4.24 4.32
9 Central Bank of India 0.64 1.4 2.12 4.67 3.83 4.02
10 UCO Bank 0.66 1.02 1.26 3 2.92 3.44
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 1.53 2.04 1.58 1.49 NA 2.56 124
2 ICICI Bank 0.78 1.65 1.97 2.73 4.04 1.8
3 Axis Bank 0.72 NA 1.46 0.97 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.7
5 IDBI Bank 3.46 7.24 6.85 7.75 7.62 8.47
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.02 1.05 1.31 2.07 2.86 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.14 0.89 1.11 0.69 NA 0.94
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.22 0.22 0.31 1 0.93 1
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.05 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 0 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0 NA 0 0 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0 NA 0 4.1 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0 0 0 0 NA 0
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 0 NA 0 0 4.6 0
Table Total NPA Accounts per cent (against number of accounts)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 2.81 3.41 6.49 9.33 6.4 9.86
2 Bank of Baroda 4.65 5.57 4.19 4.26 3.16 3.03
3 Bank of India 3.4 5.03 5.77 5.58 4.78 5.73
4 State Bank of India 4.34 3.48 3.65 5.13 4.9 6.45
5 Punjab National Bank 2.54 5.14 6.69 8.48 10.83 10.89
6 Canara Bank 3.1 4.66 4.31 4.32 5.76 6.42
7 Indian Bank 1.87 7.12 4.97 6.72 5.23 8.68 125
8 Bank of Maharashtra 5.97 12.33 11.28 4.82 3.93 4.84
9 Central Bank of India 1.28 2.38 2.22 2.95 3.08 4.26
10 UCO Bank 0.31 0.79 1.1 2.44 2.21 3.9
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 2.04 4.36 3.78 2.44 NA 3.8
2 ICICI Bank 0.29 0.64 0.73 0.9 1.23 0.66
3 Axis Bank 0.92 NA 0.73 1.36 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0.22 0.73 0.86 0.18 2.6 1.63
5 IDBI Bank 3.25 5.72 4.67 4.27 4.5 4.86
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.04 1.7 0.08 0.16 0.16 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.39 2.97 1.19 2.02 NA 1.27
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.44 0.38 0.5 1 0.79 1.03
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.05 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 4.52 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 13.04 NA 0.54 0.85 2.79 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0.04 NA 0.29 0.51 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0.33 NA 0.37 1.25 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0.08 4.44 0 1.19 NA 3.65
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 1.57 NA 0.76 0.05 9.52 0.08
Table NPA Amount per cent for Shishu category (against disbursement)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 4.36 4.42 6.98 8.48 5.63 7.48
2 Bank of Baroda 6.06 6.8 3.84 3.83 3.04 2.47 126
3 Bank of India 4.67 5.85 7.36 8.45 6.06 5.3
4 State Bank of India 30.3 6.5 3.73 2.5 3.48 2.75
5 Punjab National Bank 7.42 12.63 14.12 13.7 14.65 12.83
6 Canara Bank 4.81 4.75 4.43 4.44 7.43 6.32
7 Indian Bank 4.41 8.08 5.67 5.09 6.47 7.99
8 Bank of Maharashtra 8.87 20.41 18.26 4.43 3.13 2.96
9 Central Bank of India 5.12 9.44 6.82 8.23 7.36 8.76
10 UCO Bank 0.43 1.04 1.99 3.09 3.07 4.97
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 0.91 1.44 1.02 0.53 NA 1.73
2 ICICI Bank 0.1 0.22 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07
3 Axis Bank 0.31 NA 0.12 0.5 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0.17 0.42 0.39 0.03 2.59 0.74
5 IDBI Bank 3.05 3.68 2.44 1.48 1.14 1.24
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.03 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.01 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.36 1.14 0.53 0.91 NA 0.29
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.42 0.4 0.54 0.58 0.54 0.54
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.22 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 2.16 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 1.95 NA 0.22 0.91 1.49 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0.02 NA 0.18 0.27 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0.17 NA 0.16 0.78 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0.03 2.57 0 0.53 NA 1.37
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 1.7 NA 0.31 0.05 4.84 0.06
127
Table NPA Amount per cent for Kishore category (against disbursement)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 1.73 2.11 4.53 6.79 5.43 7.13
2 Bank of Baroda 4.61 3.97 3.99 4.35 2.81 3.17
3 Bank of India 2.82 4.38 4.98 4.95 5.15 5.85
4 State Bank of India 3.27 2.57 4.01 8.15 6.38 5.19
5 Punjab National Bank 3.39 7.99 9.33 10.98 11.58 12.21
6 Canara Bank 2.21 3.49 3.42 3.84 6.25 6.38
7 Indian Bank 2.6 6.79 4.83 4.66 5.04 8.05
8 Bank of Maharashtra 4.16 7.35 8.13 8.06 7.57 8.57
9 Central Bank of India 1.29 2.24 3.16 5.37 4.76 5.12
10 UCO Bank 0.67 1.28 2.06 4.22 3.92 5.24
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 1.28 1.38 0.87 0.65 NA 0.73
2 ICICI Bank 0.57 1.29 1.28 1.44 1.89 0.9
3 Axis Bank 0.41 NA 0.75 0.35 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0 0 0.24 1.61 0.91 2.11
5 IDBI Bank 2.26 4.32 4.49 6.18 6.34 6.14
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0 0.22 0.59 0.92 1.27 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.21 0.72 0.78 0.44 NA 1.69
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.35 0.27 0.3 0.58 0.55 0.06
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.03 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 0 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0 NA 0.03 0.87 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 1.33 NA 1.69 2.04 NA NA 128
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0 0 0 0 NA 0.99
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 3.72 NA 1.58 0.03 6.22 0.08
Table NPA Amount per cent for Tarun category (against disbursement)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 2.32 2.76 4.53 5.93 5.07 5.7
2 Bank of Baroda 1.84 2.13 2.35 3.74 2.05 2.35
3 Bank of India 2.46 4.37 4.62 4.26 4.08 4.65
4 State Bank of India 1.68 0.97 1.49 2 1.61 1.55
5 Punjab National Bank 2.12 5.22 5.31 5.97 7.91 7.1
6 Canara Bank 1.6 2.77 2.23 2.49 4.28 3.93
7 Indian Bank 1.6 6.51 4.5 6.74 5.88 7.27
8 Bank of Maharashtra 2.94 3.67 4.09 3.99 3.69 3.42
9 Central Bank of India 0.56 1.2 1.83 4.02 3.29 3.35
10 UCO Bank 0.66 0.97 1.2 2.9 2.92 3.48
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 1.16 1.41 0.99 0.97 NA 1.72
2 ICICI Bank 0.64 1.31 1.38 1.67 2.5 0.96
3 Axis Bank 0.63 NA 0.99 0.52 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.56
5 IDBI Bank 2.73 5.31 4.68 5.14 5.08 5.15
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.03 0.66 0.76 1.1 1.62 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.11 0.63 0.73 0.42 NA 0.6
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.82 0.79 0.08
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.06 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 0 NA NA 129
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 0 NA 0 0 0 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0 NA 0 0 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0 NA 0 0.74 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0 0 0 0 NA 0
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 0 NA 0 0 2.41 0
Table Total NPA Amount per cent (against disbursement)
Sl.
No Name of Financial Institution 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Public Sector Banks
1 Union Bank of India 2.19 2.48 4.6 6.6 5.31 6.61
2 Bank of Baroda 3.79 3.48 3.33 4.05 2.49 2.75
3 Bank of India 2.93 4.37 5.1 4.99 4.81 5.31
4 State Bank of India 4.25 1.97 2.65 4.2 3.48 2.9
5 Punjab National Bank 3.41 7.37 8.11 9.06 10.14 9.79
6 Canara Bank 2.37 3.43 3.08 3.35 5.59 5.36
7 Indian Bank 2.46 6.51 4.79 5.41 5.49 7.76
8 Bank of Maharashtra 3.95 6.27 6.55 5.75 5.17 5.33
9 Central Bank of India 1.42 2.42 2.86 4.96 4.3 4.55
10 UCO Bank 0.61 1.16 1.81 3.66 3.49 4.61
Private Sector Banks
1 HDFC Bank 1.05 1.41 0.98 0.66 NA 1.44
2 ICICI Bank 0.55 1.16 1.18 1.38 2 0.84
3 Axis Bank 0.44 NA 0.53 0.48 NA NA
4 Bandhan Bank 0.17 0.37 0.36 0.33 1.96 1.37
5 IDBI Bank 2.58 5.31 4.3 5.04 5.05 5.05 130
6 Kotak Mahindra Bank 0.02 0.5 0.43 0.67 0.72 NA
7 IndusInd Bank 0.27 0.92 0.63 0.74 NA 0.7
8 Jammu & Kashmir Bank 0.33 0.26 0.31 0.66 0.63 0.08
NBFCs
1 Shriram Tranport Finance Company Ltd. NA NA 0 0.05 NA NA
2 L&T Finance Ltd. NA NA NA 2.16 NA NA
NBFCs-MFIs
1 Samasta Microfinance Limited 1.95 NA 0.22 0.91 1.5 NA
2
Grameen Koota Financial Services Private
Limited 0.02 NA 0.17 0.37 NA NA
3 Arohan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 0.17 NA 0.16 0.79 NA NA
4 Svatantra Microfin Pvt Ltd. 0.03 2.57 0 0.53 NA 1.3
SMALL FINANCE BANKS
1 Ujjivan Small Finance Bank 1.76 NA 0.39 0.04 5.09 0.06
131
Disclaimers
1. This report has been prepared exclusively for NITI Aayog (“Client”) based on the terms of the
Letter of Invitation dated 31
st
December 2021 issued by Client, KPMG Advisory Services
Private Limited’s (“KPMG” or “we”) proposal for services dated 21
st
January 2022, the Letter
of Award issued to KPMG dated 28th February 2022, and the bond form dated 11
th
March
2022 (collectively ‘Contract’).
2. The performance of KPMG’s services and the report issued to the Client are based on and
subject to the terms of the Contract.
3. This report sets forth our views based on the completeness and accuracy of the facts stated
to KPMG and any assumptions that were included. If any of the facts and assumptions is not
complete or accurate, it is imperative that we be informed accordingly, as the inaccuracy or
incompleteness thereof could have a material effect on our conclusions.
4. While performing the work, we assumed the genuineness of all signatures and the
authenticity of all original documents. We have not independently verified the correctness or
authenticity of the same.
5. We have not performed an audit and do not express an opinion or any other form of
assurance. Further, comments in our report are not intended, nor should they be interpreted
to be legal advice or opinion.
6. While information obtained from the public domain or external sources has not been verified
for authenticity, accuracy or completeness, we have obtained information, as far as possible,
from sources generally considered to be reliable. We assume no responsibility for such
information.
7. Our views are not binding on any person, entity, authority or Court, and hence, no assurance
is given that a position contrary to the opinions expressed herein will not be asserted by any
person, entity, authority and/or sustained by an appellate authority or a Court of law.
8. Performance of our work was based on information and explanations given to us by key
stakeholders of the project. Neither KPMG nor any of its partners, directors or employees
undertake responsibility in any way whatsoever to any person in respect of errors in this
report, arising from incorrect information provided by the Client. 132
9. Our report may make reference to ‘KPMG Analysis’; this indicates only that we have (where
specified) undertaken certain analytical activities on the underlying data to arrive at the
information presented; we do not accept responsibility for the veracity of the underlying data.
10. In accordance with its policy, KPMG advises that neither it nor any of its partner, director or
employee undertakes any responsibility arising in any way whatsoever, to any person other
than Client in respect of the matters dealt with in this report, including any errors or omissions
therein, arising through negligence or otherwise, howsoever caused.
11. In connection with our report or any part thereof, KPMG does not owe duty of care (whether
in contract or in tort or under statute or otherwise) to any person or party to whom the report
is circulated to and KPMG shall not be liable to any party who uses or relies on this report.
KPMG thus disclaims all responsibility or liability for any costs, damages, losses, liabilities,
expenses incurred by such third party arising out of or in connection with the report or any
part thereof.
12. By reading our report, the reader of the report shall be deemed to have accepted the terms
mentioned hereinabove
133