Screen Reader Access
Draft Final Report of the Task Force on Revival of Cooperative Credit Institutions
| Tier | - | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No of SCBs | - | 29 | 30 | 30 |
| No. in Profits | 24 | 24 | 25 | |
| No. in Losses | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
| No. that have eroded net worth | 6 | 9 | 8 | |
| Total Accumulated losses (Rs. Crore) | 492 | 567 | 281 | |
| No of DCCBS | - | 367 | 368 | 367 |
| No. in Profits | 247 | 243 | 237 | |
| No. in Losses | 120 | 125 | 130 | |
| No. that have eroded net worth | 139 | 139 | 144 | |
| Total Accumulated losses (Rs. Crore) | 3,177 | 3,770 | 4,401 | |
| PACS3 (Total number approximately one lakh) | No. in Profits | 46,807 | 45,292 | 58,683 |
| No. in Losses | 41,991 | 43,511 | 53,626 | |
| Total Accumulated losses (Rs. Crore) | 2,112 | NA | 4,595 |
Source: For SCB and DCCB: NABARD, For PACS: NAFSCOB
State-wise details of PACS reporting profit for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 are given in Annexure VIII
3.30 Based on available data, while the large majority of SCBs were reporting profits during this period, more than 35 per cent of DCCBs and more than half the PACS were reporting losses. About one in five SCBs and almost 38 per cent of the DCCBs have eroded their net worth. Accumulated losses of DCCBs amounted to around Rs 3,200 crore in 2000-2001 and increased to Rs 4,400 crore two years later. Accumulated losses of PACS exceed that of DCCBs.
3.31 Considering that the upper tier cooperatives largely depend on the primaries for their business, it can be said that the structure stands on very weak foundations. It is also evident from the above that data, that current profits or losses could be misleading, especially since some of the institutions that are making current profits could have heavy accumulated losses and that all of them may not have made the required provisions against their NPAs. Statistics on cooperative banks that do not comply with Section 11 of the Banking Regulation Act is also given and we find that some of these institutions may have current profits, but accumulated losses.
3.32 In 2002-2003, for instance, eight out of the 30 SCBs and 144 out of 367 DCCBs are not compliant with Section 11 of the Banking Regulation Act, which means that they have completely eroded their net worth. The amount of deposits eroded (over and above the net worth erosion) at the DCCB and the SCB level in loss making banks is also significant. The erosion of deposits was at Rs 3,100 crore at the level of DCCBs and Rs 142 crore at the level of SCBs. The data relating to the erosion of deposits in PACS is, however, not available.
3.33 The performance of these institutions vary across States and across regions. While the number of loss making DCCBs far outnumber the profit making ones in the eastern region, the performance in the northern region seems to be much better. In southern and western India, the number of profit and loss making DCCBs even out. Detailed Region wise profitability analysis of DCCBs is given in Annexure IX