Financial Performance of Banks in India

Harish Kumar Singla* The present study was undertaken to examine and understand how financial management plays a crucial role in the growth of banking. It is concerned with examining the profitability position of the selected sixteen banks (BANKEX-based) for a period of five years (2000-01 to 2006-2007). The study reveals that the profitability position was reasonable during the period of study when compared with the previous years. Return on Investment proved that the overall profitability, and the position of selected banks was sustained at a moderate rate. With respect to debt equity position, it was evident that the companies were maintaining 1:1 ratio, though at one point of time it was very high. Interest coverage ratio was continuously increasing, which indicated the companys ability to meet the interest obligations. Capital adequacy ratio was constant over a period of time. During the study period, it was observed that the return on net worth had a negative correlation with the debt equity ratio. Interest income to working funds also had a negative association with interest coverage ratio and the Non-Performing Assets (NPA) to net advances was negatively correlated with interest coverage ratio.

Introduction: Indian Banking Sector

The banking sector picked up momentum during 2005-06. Bank credits witnessed a strong expansion for the second year in succession. A steady growth in deposits was also observed. It was the first time, since the nationalization of banks in 1969, that investment by the commercial banks in the government securities declined in absolute terms (by Rs. 19,514 cr.) in any single year. Currently banking in India is considered as fairly mature in terms of supply, product range and reach. In terms of quality of assets and capital adequacy, Indian banks are considered to have a strong and transparent position. As the growth in the Indian economy is expected to be strong for quite some time, especially in its services sector, the demand for banking services is also expected to be stronger.

Indian Banking Sector Banking on Reforms

The financial sector reforms set in motion in 1991 have greatly changed the face of Indian banking. While the banking system in India has done fairly well in adjusting to the new market dynamics, greater challenges lie ahead.

Senior Lecturer, The Icfai Business School, Dehradun, India. E-mail: harishsingla@mail2.ibsindia.org

2008 The Icfai University Press. All Rights Reserved. 50 The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

The Indian banking system has witnessed significant changes during the last decade. There have been new banks, new instruments, mergers and takeovers, reconstruction, new opportunities and, along with all these, new challenges. While deregulation of banks opened up new vistas to augment revenues, it has also posed greater competition and risks. The financial sector reforms introduced in the early 1990s as a pa rt o f the str uctur al r efor ms ha ve a ffected almo st a ll t he b anki ng o pera tions. The broader objectives of the financial sector reforms were to enhance efficiency and productivity. Financial sector reforms were carried out in two phases. To create productive and profitable financial institutions; and To strengthen the financial system and put it on a par with global standards.

Financial sector reforms in India started with the deregulation of interest rates. Banks now have complete flexibility to decide their interest rate structures and manage their assets and liabilities accordingly. The SLR has been gradually reduced from a peak of 38.5% to 25%. The Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) was reduced from its peak level of 15% maintained during 1989-92 to 4.5% in June 2003; presently it is at 6%. In the second phase, persistent efforts have been made towards the adoption of international benchmarks by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). As a part of the financial sector reforms, the regulatory norms with respect to capital adequacy, income recognition, asset classification and provisioning have moved towards convergence with the international accounting standards. In turn, these measures have enhanced the transparency of the balance sheet of the banks and infused accountability in their functioning. Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 has helped to reduce the levels of NPAs targeted, towards improved risk management practices. The minimum Capital to Risk Assets Ratio (CRAR) was set and the banks which were not able to comply with the new norms were allowed to raise the capital from the market. In line with the amendment to incorporate market risk in Basel I, separate capital charge for market risk was also introduced in 2004. The banks are required to disclose capital adequacy, asset quality, and maturity distribution of select items of assets and liabilities, profitability, country risk exposure, risk exposures in derivatives, segment reporting, and related party disclosures as per the accounting standards. RBI issued guidelines on asset-liability management and risk management systems in banks in 1999, guidance notes on credit risk management and market risk management in october 2002, and the guidance note on operational risk management in 2005. RBI set guidelines for the establishment of new banks in the private sector and the foreign banks with a view to enhance efficiency and productivity through competition. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the private sector banks is now allowed up to 74%. The smooth functioning of the payment and settlement system is a pre-requisite for financial stability. The Board for Regulation and Supervision of Payment and Settlement Systems (BPSS), was set up in March 2005 for giving policy direction in the area of payment and settlement systems. A risk free payments and settlements system in government securities and foreign exchange was established by the Clearing Corporation of India Limited (CCIL), which is set up by the banks.
Financial Performance of Banks in India 51

In the post-reform period, assets/liabilities of banks have grown consistently at a high rate. The financial performance of banks also improved as reflected in their increased profitability. Another important development is the sharp reduction in the NPA to net advances (Appendix). It is evident that we are at the beginning of this new phase in the Indian banking, but with a competitive pressure, both domestic and external, public sector banks have to push hard.

Future of Indian Banking

A few broad challenges facing the Indian banks are: Threat of risks from Internationalization; Implementation of Basel II norms; Improvement of advanced risk management systems; Implementation of new accounting standards and reporting norms; Enhancement of transparency; Enhancement of customer support; and Application of information technology (security system).

Indian banking stands at the threshold of a mega change in the next three to five years. Many new situations as compared to the present scenario are predicted to emerge. However, participants and analysts in the industry have to seize the opportunities. Standard and Poors, which compares Indian and Chinese banking, prescribes risk management as a thrust area for India. The Indian banking has come of age in the past few years. Overall, it has been a period when banks have thrived. We have seen the growth of some Indian banks to great levels. But there is still a fair way to go before an Indian bank can truly announce its global arrival. The Indian rural market is playing a big role in charting out a trend for the growth of banks. With the economy surging, the income levels have increased in rural areas. Finally, if there is something to watch out for in the coming decade or so it is the case for Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As). Instead of a large number of small banks, we need to have a small number of large banks. Its high time that India also gets some share on the list of the largest banks in the world. Consolidation is the way to go. To conclude, banks in India, be it public, private Indian or foreign, have to use the following three mantras for success and meet the future challenges. Tapping into the rural market; Risk management under Basel perspective; and Consolidation

Research Methodology
Problem Statement
Financial statements have two uses in financial analysis. First, they are used to present a historical record of the firms over a period of time, and a trained analyst can use this to find the factors that have influenced the growth of the firm. Second, they are used to forecast a course of action for the firm.

52

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

The development of industries depends on several factors such as human, technology, and quality, marketing and financial, among which the financial aspect assumes a significant role in determining the growth of industries. In this context, the researcher is interested in undertaking an analysis of the financial performance of the banking sector companies to examine and understand how management of finance plays a crucial role in the growth. Hence, the present study entitled as Financial Performance of Banks in India: Some Evidence to Select Banks has been undertaken.

Objectives of the Study

To study the growth and development of Indian banking sector; To study the behavior of profitability of select banks; and To analyze the factors determining the profitability.

Testing of Hypothesis
When Return on Investment (ROI) increases, Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT) remain the same. When Interest income increases, ROI remains the same. When ROI increases, Net NPA to Net advances remains the same. When interest coverage ratio increases, debt equity ratio remains the same.

Data and the Source

The study is entirely based on secondary data. All the banks of BANKEX Index are sample units. Data regarding performance of banks was collected for a period of six years, i.e., 2001-06. Necessary data was obtained from CMIE-PROWESS.

Framework of Analysis
For the purpose of analysis, various ratios are studied extensively. Statistical measures like correlation analysis, multiple regression (linear) analysis and testing of hypothesis are used for comparison.

Significance of the Study

The study will throw light on the overall financial performance of banking sector as a whole in the past five years.

Highlights of the Ratio Analysis

The primary objective of any business is to earn. The investors want adequate return on their investment. Tables 1(a, b, c, d, e, f, h and i) throw light on the various dimensions of business. Table 1(a) shows that the interest coverage ratio is continuously increasing, which indicates the companys ability to meet the interest obligations. Table 1(b)displays net profit ratio, which shows a continuous decline, nearly 7% in the past five years. Table 1(c)is the ratio of debt to equity. Debt equity ratio was highest in year 2003 and later reduced to reach a level of 1:1 apex. Table 1(d)displays the return on net worth which shows an exceptionally poor performance in the year 2004.

Financial Performance of Banks in India

53

Analysis of Data Table 1a: Ratio Analysis

Interest Coverage % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 119.375 112.5 25.07555 628.7833 11.26099 3.238613 103 207 207 103 2002 123.625 118 31.49365 991.85 2003 127.125 127 19.70744 388.3833 2004 137.5 137 34.18187 1168.4 2005 133.8125 132 22.51583 506.9625 2006 132.4375 131 018.25 333.0625

009.630193 002.600671 005.421835 001.230355 003.31296 002.474353 000.620503 70 229 229 70 92 178 178 92 1.355460 36 199 199 36 -0.529310 79 173 173 79 0.62204 84 17 170 84

Table 1b: Net Profit Ratio

NP Ratio % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 70.80688 70.27 5.281681 27.89616 2.447236 1.152431 22.47 62.6 85.07 85.07 62.6 2002 69.68563 71.495 6.779461 45.96109 6.592492 2.26922 28.17 48.25 76.42 76.42 48.25 2003 69.02688 70.565 5.809152 33.74625 1.190823 0.96472 23.82 54.81 78.63 78.63 54.81 2004 64.61813 66.89 13.70915 187.9408 9.219947 2.52976 66.04 18.85 84.89 84.89 18.85 2005 62.04125 63.35 9.312341 86.71969 7.121573 2.20516 41 32.28 73.28 73.28 32.28 2006 63.8925 68.775 9.621619 92.57555 7.211428 2.47414 38.46 32.9 71.36 71.36 32.9

Table 1c: Ratio of Debt To Equity

DE Ratio % Mean Median 2001 138.5625 91.5 2002 164.375 94 212.7784 45274.65 10.2227 3.079709 2003 172.9375 93.5 214.2477 45902.06 5.129249 2.405769 2004 118.9375 84.5 108.7943 11836.2 9.402674 2.93009 2005 101 80 73.08169 5340.933 5.833998 2.228481 2006 106.0625 91 64.69773 4185.796 1.02578 0.525596 (Contd...)

Standard Deviation 135.3814 Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness 18328.13 5.278822 2.348741

54

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

Table 1c: Ratio of Debt to Equity

DE Ratio % Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 524 15 539 539 15 2002 849 45 894 894 45 2003 751 45 796 796 45 2004 445 41 486 486 41 2005 286 41 327 327 41

(...contd) 2006 189 28 217 217 28

Table 1d: Return on Net Worth (RONW)

RONW % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 14.76938 12.57 7.7605 60.22535 0.200013 0.536531 29.91 1.28 31.19 31.19 1.28 2002 14.51875 21.53 27.48248 755.2866 12.85136 3.44404 118.51 84.07 34.44 34.44 84.07 2003 17.95688 24.51 23.83017 567.8772 6.317239 2.24625 100.6 56.66 43.94 43.94 56.66 2004 4.220625 25.43 86.36268 7458.512 15.74735 3.95515 358.16 318.58 39.58 39.58 318.58 2005 17.89063 17.315 12.08318 146.0034 2.43356 0.65545 51.68 13.61 38.07 38.07 13.61 2006 15.80438 16.31 9.914521 98.29773 3.896808 1.08713 45.91 11.94 33.97 33.97 11.94

Table 1e: Capital Adequacy Ratio

Capital Adequacy Ratio % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 10.82188 10.975 3.392276 11.50754 7.456338 2.06137 16.49 0 16.49 16.49 0 2002 12.3675 11.03 5.070484 25.70981 12.6389 3.344905 23.73 6.74 30.47 30.47 6.74 2003 12.40938 12.02 4.378714 19.17314 7.570327 1.506838 22.95 3.02 25.97 25.97 3.02 2004 12.44813 12.59 1.819924 3.312123 2.776364 1.22811 7.76 7.49 15.25 15.25 7.49 2005 12.89813 12.49 2.576559 6.638656 8.697602 2.5285 12.21 9.21 21.42 21.42 9.21 2006 12.31938 12.205 1.085642 1.17862 1.52536 0.165405 3.25 10.75 14 14 10.75 (Contd...)

Financial Performance of Banks in India

55

Table 1f: Interest Income in Proportion to Working Funds

Interest Income to Working Funds % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 9.32375 9.815 2.579475 6.653692 13.37411 3.51546 11.54 0 11.54 11.54 0 2002 9.515625 9.455 0.835559 0.69816 -0.81968 0.299591 2.72 8.39 11.11 11.11 8.39 2003 9.195625 9.15 0.808166 0.653133 0.74762 0.02514 2.6 7.89 10.49 10.49 7.89 2004 8.304375 8.215 0.795244 0.632413 2.235845 1.055697 3.23 7.19 10.42 10.42 7.19 2005 7.55625 7.535 0.75401 0.568532 3.787752 1.584356 3.03 6.71 9.74 9.74 6.71

(...contd) 2006 7.403125 7.3 0.466086 0.217236 0.74216 0.408411 1.49 6.69 8.18 8.18 6.69

Table 1g:
Operating Profit Ratio % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 1.569375 1.47 0.652119 0.42526 1.54802 0.30294 2.83 0 2.83 2.83 0 2002 2.48 2.17 1.327584 1.76248 6.763178 2.03314 6.33 0.32 6.65 6.65 0.32

Operating Profit
2003 2.668125 2.605 0.953361 0.908896 3.891249 0.721173 4.63 0.61 5.24 5.24 0.61 2004 2.916875 2.965 0.859494 0.73873 4.54265 1.64983 3.72 0.38 4.1 4.1 0.38 2005 2.3875 2.5 0.617754 0.38162 3.990322 1.3017 2.87 0.65 3.52 3.52 0.65 2006 2.20875 2.185 0.348824 0.121678 0.00493 0.41337 1.26 1.49 2.75 2.75 1.49

Table 1h: Non-Performing Assets

NPA to Net Advances % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis 2001 5.116875 5.435 3.146752 9.90205 0.31725 2002 4.93875 5.4 2.761125 7.623812 0.845846 2003 3.9 4.18 2.226187 4.955907 0.45443 2004 2.188125 2.61 1.447472 2.095176 0.99339 2005 1.505625 1.42 0.900577 0.81104 1.16679 2006 0.8525 0.855 0.509608 0.2597 0.28708 (Contd...)

56

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

Table 1h:
NPA to Net Advances % Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 0.213572 11.23 0 11.23 11.23 0

Non-Performing Assets
2003 0.1355 7.81 0.11 7.92 7.92 0.11 2004 0.09841 4.5 0 4.5 4.5 0 2005 0.11569 2.6 0.2 2.8 2.8 0.2

(...contd) 2006 0.319159 1.87 0 1.87 1.87 0

2002 0.203729 11.09 0 11.09 11.09 0

Table 1i: Return on Investment (ROI)

ROI % Mean Median Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Largest (1) Smallest (1) 2001 7.6302 7.02125 1.954304 3.819302 9.42432 2.780251 8.8005 5.4237 14.2242 14.2242 5.4237 2002 7.118744 7.14095 1.735144 3.010726 5.29169 1.83366 7.6181 1.865 9.4831 9.4831 1.865 2003 7.31265 7.20585 0.777802 0.604976 0.12886 0.142676 3.0065 5.8015 8.808 8.808 5.8015 2004 6.01045 6.1675 1.297793 1.684268 2.107684 0.98087 5.5541 2.7055 8.2596 8.2596 2.7055 2005 5.105294 5.1366 0.526581 0.277288 0.67277 0.266146 1.6894 4.3679 6.0573 6.0573 4.3679 2006 5.094881 5.13445 0.434716 0.188978 1.08627 0.38724 1.3697 4.3466 5.7163 5.7163 4.3466

Table 1(e)capital adequacy ratio remains more or less constant over a period of time. Table 1(f)Interest income in proportion to working funds is reducing overall though marginally. Table 1(g)operating profit is very low and sustained at 2%, not showing any signs of growth. Table 1(h)Non-performing assets are continuously reducing in percentage to net advances. Table1(i)Return on Investment (ROI) is also a good sign. reducing, which is not

Highlights of the Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis helps in understanding how two variables are related to each other and how a cause and effect relation can be established among them (Table 2). Interest coverage ratio has a strong negative correlation with net profit ratio, debt equity ratio, interest income to working funds ratio, ROI and net NPA to net advances ratio,

Financial Performance of Banks in India

57

Table 2: Correlation Analysis

Interest Net Profit Coverage Ratio Ratio Interest Coverage Ratio Net Profit Ratio Debt Equity Ratio Interest Operating Net NPA Capital Income to Profit to to Net ROI Adequacy Working Working Advance Ratio Funds Funds Ratio

0.8921*

1 0.851095* 1

Debt Equity 0.64467* Ratio Capital Adequacy Ratio Interest Income to Working Funds Operating Profit to Working Funds Net NPA to Net Advance Ratio ROI

0.735902* 0.68321*

0.21535

0.77931*

0.950428*

0.902935* 0.50258

0.681754* 0.36383

0.100254

0.798289* 0.13406

0.87111*

0.953617*

0.821529* 0.60461*

0.976463*

0.31872 1

0.81614*

0.971849*

0.867313* 0.6309

0.974271*

0.25223 0.962074*

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

while it has a positive relation with the operating profit to working funds. Net profit ratio has a strong negative relation with capital adequacy while strong positive relation with debt equity, Interest income to working funds, net NPA to Net advances and ROI. Debt equity ratio has positive relations with interest income to working funds, net NPA to net advances and ROI. Capital adequacy ratio is linked negatively with net NPA to net advances. Interest income to working funds is having a strong degree of positive relation with net NPA to net advances and ROI.

Multiple Regression Analysis

The following multiple regression equation is used in the model to describe the relationship between dependent and independent variables: Y= + 1X1+ 2X2+ 3X3+ 4X4+ 5X5+ 6X6

58

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

Where Y = Earnings before Interest and Tax (EBIT) (dependent variable)

= Intercept

1 = Coefficient of Interest Coverage Ratio 2 = Coefficient of Debt Equity Ratio 3 = Coefficient of Capital Adequacy Ratio 4 = Coefficient of Net NPA to Net Advances Ratio 5 = Coefficient of Interest Income to Working Funds Ratio 6 = Coefficient of ROI
X1 = Interest Coverage Ratio X2 = Debt Equity Ratio X3 = Capital Adequacy Ratio X4 = Net NPA to Net Advance Ratio X5 = Interest Income to Working Funds X6 = ROI Table 3a: Model Summary (2001-06)
Model 6 R 0.476 R Square 0.226 Adjusted R Square 0.289 Std. Error of the Estimate 6535.38

Table 3b: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Model Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 112434297.658 384401127.428 496835425.086 df 6 9 15 Mean Square 18739049.610 42711236.381 F 0.439 Sig. 0.836(f)

It is observed from the multiple regression equation for the period (2001-06) that the correlation coefficient was 0.476 (Table 3a). The six selected independent variables in the study collectively contributed 22.6% to earnings before interest and taxes. The analysis of variance (multiple regressions) in Table 3b shows F value of 0.439; it indicated that the multiple regression equation is not significant.

Testing of Hypothesis
Hypothesis is an assumption to be tested. The statistical testing of hypothesis is the most important technique in statistical inference. Hypothesis tests are widely used in business and industry for making decisions. The following are the hypotheses framed and tested by using test of significance (t-test) at 1% level of significance (Tables 3c, 4a, b, c and d).

Financial Performance of Banks in India

59

Table 3c: Coefficients

Model (Constant) Interest Coverage Ratio Debt Equity Ratio Capital Adequacy Ratio Net NPA to Net Advance Ratio Interest Income to Working Funds ROI Un-Standardized B 44261.027 171.765 7.806 1467.863 256.717 4182.836 63.747 Coefficients Std. Error 57914.644 224.295 18.814 2287.996 1820.615 4698.983 4721.444

1.

H0 = When ROI increases, EBIT remains same. Ha = When ROI increases, EBIT also increases. Table 4(a): Hypothesis 1
Paired Differences t-Test Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower 7483.66 Upper 1350.06 3.069 15 0.0077 t df Sig. (2tailed)

Mean

ROI-EBIT

4416.861

5755.330

1438.832

Calculated t value 3.06 is more than the table value 2.58 at 1% level of significance, so the null hypothesis cannot be accepted, i.e., when ROI increases EBIT remains the same which means that with increase in ROI, EBIT also increases. 2. H0 = When interest income increases, ROI remains the same. Ha = When interest income increases, ROI also increases. Table 4b: Hypothesis 2
Paired Differences t Test Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower 1.680 Upper 2.662 9.425 15 1.082 t df Sig. (2tailed)

Mean

Interest Income-ROI

2.171

0.921

0.230

Calculated t value 9.42 is more than the table value 2.58 at 1% level of significance, so the null hypothesis cannot be accepted, i.e., when interest income increases, ROI remains the same which means that when interest income increases, ROI also increases.

60

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008

3.

H0 = When ROI increases, Net NPA to Net advances remains same. Ha = When ROI increases; Net NPA to Net advances also increases. Table 4(c): Hypothesis 3
Paired Differences t-Test Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

Mean

Net NPA to Net Advance -ROI 3.29 1.90 0.475 4.30 2.281 6.93 15 4.79

Calculated t value 6.93 is more than the table value 2.58 at 1% level of significance, so the null hypothesis cannot be accepted, i.e., when ROI increases net NPA to Net advances remains the same and we can say that when ROI increases, net NPA to net advances also increases. 4. H0 = When interest coverage ratio increases, Debt equity ratio remains same. Ha = Higher the interest coverage ratio, Higher the debt equity ratio. Table 4d: Hypothesis 4
Paired Differences t-Test Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper t df Sig. (2tailed)

Mean

Interest CoverageDebt Equity 4.66 118.280 29.57 67.69 58.36 0.157 15 0.876

Calculated t value 0.15 is less than the table value of 2.58 at 1% level of significance, so the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, i.e., when interest coverage ratio increases, debt equity ratio remains the same.

Conclusion
With the increasing levels of globalization of the Indian banking industry, and the evolution of universal banks, competition in the banking industry will intensify further. Though the potential and ability exist, Indian banks have to be faster now to sustain the growth. Strong capital positions and balance sheets place banks in a better position to deal with and absorb the economic shocks. From the study of the financial performance analysis of selected banks, it can be concluded that the financial positions of banks is reasonable. Debt equity ratio is maintained at an adequate level throughout and NPAs also witnessed a decline during the study period. The ROI remains at a very low position, which is a worrying factor.

Financial Performance of Banks in India

61

We can conclude that the banking sector, which is going through major reforms, is one of the emerging sectors and will grow at a sustained rate over a period of time. H

References
1. Address by Mr V Leeladhar, Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, at the Annual Washington Conference of the Institute of International Bankers, Washington DC, March 5, 2007. 2. Hamsalakshmi R and Manicham M (2005), Financial Performance Analysis of Selected Banks, Finance India, Vol. XIX, No. 3, September. 3. Khan M Y and Jain P K (2001), Financial Management, Text and Problems, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi. 4. Mayers and Berly (2005), Principles of Corporate Finance, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi. 5. Pandey I M (2001), Financial Management, Eighth Revised Edition, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 6. Ross (2005), Corporate Finance, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi.

Appendix
List of Banks Selected
S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Company Name Allahabad Bank Andhra Bank Bank of Baroda Bank of India Canara Bank Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. Federal Bank Ltd. HDFC Bank Ltd. ICICI Bank Ltd. Indian Overseas Bank Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Oriental Bank of Commerce Punjab National Bank State Bank of India UTI Bank Ltd. Union Bank of India

Reference # 10J-2008-02-04-01

62

The Icfai Journal of Bank Management, Vol. VII, No.1, 2008