PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COOPERATIVE BANKS OF PUNJAB: AN APPLICATION OF CAMEL MODEL IN TERMS OF CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND ASSET QUALITY

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF COOPERATIVE BANKS OF PUNJAB: AN APPLICATION OF CAMEL MODEL IN TERMS OF CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND ASSET QUALITY Dr. Sukhmani Waraich 1, Anu Dhawan 2 1 Assistant Professor, K.C.L.I.M.T., Jalandhar (India) 2 Research Scholar, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (India) ABSTRACT Cooperative banks play a unique role in the development of an agrarian economy. The main objective of cooperative banks is to provide timely and low cost advances to the farmers. Due to their importance in the development of economy, there is a great need to a have close supervision of these banks. In the present study, an attempt has been made to analyze the performance of selected six District Central Cooperative Banks (DCCBs) of Punjab with the help of CAMEL Model. The performance of these six District Central Cooperative Banks has been examined in respect of Capital Adequacy and Asset Quality. For the purpose of study, secondary data for eight years (2006-2013) has been taken from annual reports of these banks and from Comparative Statistics of State and Central Cooperative Banks of Punjab published by Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Chandigarh. For analysis of data, mathematical and statistical tools i.e. ratio analysis, mean, compound annual growth rate and t test have been applied. It has been found that in terms of capital adequacy, Sangrur, Mansa and Gurdaspur DCCBs had not attained the prescribed capital adequacy ratio of seven percent. All the six DCCBs had managed well to keep its NPA at a low level and had very good assets portfolio. Keywords: Asset Quality, Capital Adequacy, Cooperative, Performance Evaluation And Risk Weighted Assets. I. INTRODUCTION Indian economy is basically agricultural dominated economy and more than 60% of population depends on agriculture for direct and indirect employment. The economic development of an agrarian country depends upon the development of its agriculture. Due to dependence on natural forces and unfavourable marketing system, agriculture is not a profitable activity. Hence farmers remain poor and always indebited. Therefore, availability of adequate, timely and low cost credit is a pre requisite for Indian agricultural development. Indian cooperative banks had played a unique role in the providing credit for agriculture and rural development. In new economic environment, also cooperatives will be the main source of finance for rural masses. Therefore maintaining vitality and viability of these cooperative banks is most important and there is also a need to have proper supervisory control over them. RBI had set up a working group headed by Shri. S. Padmanabhan which 30 P a g e

suggested supervision of banks should focus on defined parameters of financial, managerial and operational efficiency widely on the lines of international CAMEL Model. Under CAMEL rating system, bank is measured on the basis of performance in five areas namely, Capital adequacy (C), Assets Quality (A), Management Efficiency (M), Earnings Capacity (E) and Liquidity (L). In this research paper, an attempt has been made to evaluate the performance of selected cooperative banks of Punjab on the basis of two parameters of CAMEL Model i.e. capital adequacy and asset quality. II. LITERATURE REVIEW To evaluate the financial performance of the banking and financial sector, various studies have been conducted by researchers, academicians and policy makers in different time periods. Some of them are discussed below: Bodla, B. S. and Verma, R. (2006) studied the performance of ICICI and SBI bank with the help of CAMEL model. It was found that in terms of Capital Adequacy, SBI was better than ICICI. However, in terms of assets quality, earning capacity and management efficiency the vice versa was true. There was no significant difference in the liquidity position of both the banks. Sangmi, M. and Nazir, T. (2010) evaluated the financial performance of banks through CAMEL approach. Punjab National Bank and Jammu and Kashmir bank had been taken for the purpose of study. The study concluded that both banks were financially viable and had adopted prudent policies of financial management. Dang, U. (2011) conducted the research as a case study of American International Assurance, Vietnam (AIA) to determine the role of CAMEL framework in banking supervision. The findings concluded that CAMEL rating system was a useful supervisory tool in the U.S. CAMEL analysis approach was main model in assessing banks performance in AIA. Chowdhury, S. (2011) examined financial soundness of commercial banks in India through CAMEL rating. For this purpose twelve commercial banks were selected which were traded in National Stock Exchange and were part of CNX bank Index. The study period was from 2000-2009. On the basis of CAMEL analysis, ICICI ranked first followed by HDFC. KMB occupied the third position. The fourth and fifth position was obtained by Axis and Canara respectively. Oriental and PNB shared the same position. Union bank occupied the last position amongst all the selected banks. Reddy, K.S (2012) studied the performance of the commercial banks through CAMEL model. It was revealed that public sector banks had significantly improved indicating positive impact of the reforms in liberalizing interest rates, rationalizing directed credit and investments and increasing competition Prasad, K.V.N. and Ravinder, G. (2012) evaluated the performance of nationalized banks through CAMEL model. The results of the study revealed that on an average Andhra bank was at the top most position followed by Bank of Baroda and Punjab & Sindh Bank. It was also found that Central Bank of India was at the bottom position. Devanadhen, K. (2013) analysed the performance of 14 public sector and 3 private sector banks under the CAMEL model. The Andhra Bank obtained the first place followed by Corporation Bank and HDFC Bank. Axis Bank and ICICI Bank were ranked 6th and 14th respectively. Central Bank of India stood last in the overall performance; and SBI (largest public sector bank) exhibited better performance than ICICI Bank (largest private sector bank). 31 P a g e

It is interesting to note that though a large number of high quality studies have been conducted on commercial banking system of India, yet despite of its importance, cooperative credit system remained ignored. Therefore we have conducted this study. III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The main objectives of the study are as follows: Comparative examination of capital adequacy of selected six District Central Cooperative Banks of Punjab. Comparative analysis of asset quality of selected six District Central Cooperative Banks of Punjab. IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In Punjab, there are twenty District Central Cooperative Banks (DCCBs). For the present study, twenty cooperative banks were divided into three divisions i.e. Jalandhar Division, Ferozepur Division and Patiala Division. Out of each division, two cooperative banks, one with minimum capital adequacy ratio and one with maximum capital adequacy ratio have been selected. On the basis of the above cited criterion, the following DCCBs were selected: I. Patiala Division- Ropar DCCB and Sangrur DCCB II. Ferozepur Division-Muktsar DCCB and Mansa DCCB III. Jalandhar Division -Nawanshahar DCCB and Gurdaspur DCCB The present study is an effort to evaluate the financial performance of these six selected district central cooperative banks of Punjab. The study is mainly based on the secondary data drawn from the annual reports of the respective DCCBs. The data is related to 8 years from 2006 to 2013. For the analysis of data, important mathematical and statistical tools i.e., ratio analysis, mean, compound annual growth rate and t test has been used to arrive at conclusion in a scientific way. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The results and discussions under the study are categorized into the following heads: Capital Adequacy Asset Quality 5.1 Capital Adequacy Capital adequacy is the reflection of the inner strength of a bank. Capital serve as a cushion to absorb unexpected performance shocks and inspires depositors confidence while devoting stability and efficiency of financial system (Chowdhury, 2011). Moreover being trustees of public funds banks are expected to use these funds very prudently. They should advance the loan with utmost care with a guarantee of their on-time recovery. And if there is any loss due to a sticky loan, it should not affect depositors and bank should meet it from its own funds. Capital Adequacy ratio is calculated in relation to gross risk weighted assets which shows that whether the bank has enough capital to absorb unexpected losses. As per the latest guidelines of RBI, cooperative banks should attain the Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) of 7% of gross risk weighted assets upto March 2015 and later on capital adequacy ratio should be increased to 9% till 32 P a g e

March 2017. These norms are fixed on the basis of recommendations of Basel Committee. For computing capital adequacy ratio, capital is classified into two categories i.e., Tier I and Tier II capital. Tier I capital is core capital which includes equity capital, statutory capital and disclosed reserves and Tier II capital is secondary bank capital that includes items such as undisclosed reserves, general provision and loss reserves and subordinate term debt. Assets of a bank are assigned weights according to the risk involved in their realization and assets multiplied by assigned weights are known as risk weighted assets (RWA). Tier one capital is capital which is permanently and freely available to absorb losses without the bank being obliged to cease trading. Tier one capital is important because it safeguards both the survival of the bank and the stability of the financial system. Tier one capital to total risk weighted credit exposures to be not less than 4 percent of risk weighted assets. Whereas higher is the capital adequacy ratio (CAR), the stronger is the financial position of a bank but a very high CAR indicates that the bank has not been utilizing its resources in full and has adopted more conservative lending policy and has not utilized its resources in full. In order to measure the capital adequacy of banks under study, the following ratios have been used. Tier I to Risk weighed assets and Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) The capital adequacy ratios of the banks under study are given in table 1 and table 2. Table 1 shows that in Patiala division, the Ropar DCCB had mean tier I to risk weighted assets ratio of 11.58 percent and recorded a significant decline in the ratio at the compound annual rate of 2.86 percent. In 2005-06, this ratio was 13.15 percent and came down to 10.85 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13. Sangrur DCCB, on an average had tier I to RWA ratio of 3.3 percent. In the year 2005-06, the tier I to risk weighted assets ratio was 4.47 percent and it had come down to 2.88 percent in 2012-13. The DCCB had a significant decline in tier I to risk weighted assets at the rate of 4.18 percent compounded annually. In Ferozepur Division, Muktsar DCCB had indicated a significant declining trend in tier I to risk weighted assets at the annual compound rate of 7.54 percent. It had mean tier I to RWA ratio of 7 percent for the period of study. In the initial year of study, the tier I to risk weighted ratio was 9.75 percent and it declined to 5.39 percent in 2012-13. Table 1 shows that Mansa DCCB had tier I to risk weighted assets ratio of 3.67 percent in the year 2005-06 and it came down to -0.08 percent in 2010-11 and then increased to 0.67 in last year of study i.e. 2012-13. A significant declining trend of 21.57 percent compounded annually in the ratio was observed with 1.77 percent mean value. Table 1 : Tier I to Risk Weighted Assets of DCCBs of Punjab (in percentage) Patiala Division Ferozepur Division Jalandhar Division Year Muktsar Nawanshahar Gurdaspur Ropar DCCB Sangrur DCCB DCCB Mansa DCCB DCCB DCCB 2006 13.15 4.47 9.75 3.67 26.34 3.71 2007 12.59 3.38 8.52 3.24 23.50 3.25 2008 11.39 3.22 7.78 3.02 19.98 2.85 2009 11.89 3.13 7.22 3.04 20.57 2.62 2010 11.48 2.95 6.73 0.47 23.32 2.80 2011 10.81 3.40 6.60-0.08 16.87 2.77 33 P a g e

2012 10.51 2.99 5.86 0.12 17.43 3.53 2013 10.85 2.88 5.39 0.67 16.23 3.38 Mean 11.58 3.30 7.23 1.77 20.53 3.11 CAGR -2.86-4.18-7.54-21.57-6.07-0.28 t value -5.40-2.61-11.73-4.58-4.23-0.16 Source: Computed from annual reports of DCCBs In Jalandhar division, Nawanshahar DCCB had mean value of 20.53 percent in tier I to risk weighted assets. It had registered a negative and significant trend of 6.07 percent compounded annually indicating decline in the ratio. In 2005-06, in the initial year of study, tier I to RWA ratio was 26.34 percent and which came down to 16.23 percent in the last year of study. It is clear from table 1 that tier I to RWA ratio in Gurdaspur DCCB had came down to 2.77 percent in 2010-11 from 3.71 percent in 2005-06 but it increased to 3.38 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13. Growth in tier I to risk weighted assets in Gurdaspur DCCB was significant and negative at the rate of 0.28 percent compounded annually. It had mean value of 3.11 percent during the period of study. On perusal of table 2, it is evident that in Patiala division, Ropar DCCB had registered significant and declining trend in capital adequacy ratio at the compound annual rate of -2.59 percent with mean ratio of 12.83 percent. The capital adequacy ratio came to 12.10 percent in the last year of study from 14.40 percent in the initial year of study. With 4.16 percent mean capital adequacy ratio, Sangrur DCCB had a significant decline of 0.85 percent compounded annually as depicted by table 2. The ratio had shown wide fluctuations through out the period of study. In the last year of study i.e. 2012-13, the capital adequacy ratio was 4.13 percent where as in the first year of study i.e. 2005-06 the ratio was 4.69 percent. In Ferozepur division, Muktsar DCCB had registered 8.48 percent mean value of capital adequacy ratio. It had significant and negative growth of 6.45 percent compounded annually during the period of study which indicated declining trend in the capital adequacy ratio. The DCCB in initial year, i.e. 2005-06, of study had a ratio of 10.99 percent and was 6.64 percent in last year of the study i.e. 2012-13. Table 2: Capital Adequacy Ratio of DCCBs of Punjab (in percentage) Patiala Division Ferozepur Division Jalandhar Division Ropar Sangrur Muktsar Nawanshahar Gurdaspur Year DCCB DCCB DCCB Mansa DCCB DCCB DCCB 2006 14.40 4.69 11.00 4.41 27.59 4.16 2007 13.84 3.95 9.77 4.18 24.75 4.50 2008 12.64 4.13 9.03 4.22 21.23 3.25 2009 13.14 4.22 8.47 4.17 21.82 2.98 2010 12.73 3.71 7.98 1.72 24.57 3.24 2011 12.06 4.50 7.85 1.17 18.12 3.17 2012 11.76 3.98 7.11 1.37 18.68 5.84 2013 12.10 4.13 6.64 2.13 17.48 5.72 Mean 12.83 4.16 8.48 2.92 21.78 4.11 34 P a g e

CAGR -2.59-0.85-6.45-16.76-5.73 4.32 t value -5.40-0.76-11.73-3.80-4.23 1.22 Source: Computed from annual reports of DCCBs Table 2 shows that the capital adequacy ratio of Mansa DCCB had decreased from 4.41 percent in 2005-06 to 1.17 percent in 2010-11 and then increased to 2.13 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13. It had mean capital adequacy ratio of 2.92 percent. The growth rate of 16.76 percent compounded annually was found to be negative and significant. It is evident from table 2 that in Jalandhar division, Nawanshahar DCCB had mean value of capital adequacy ratio equal to 21.78 percent during the period of study. In the year 2005-06, the capital adequacy ratio was 27.59 percent which gradually decreased to 17.48 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13 and registered significant negative growth at 5.72 percent compounded annually. Gurdaspur DCCB recorded 4.11 percent as mean capital adequacy ratio during the period of study. The DCCB experienced a significant annual compounded growth rate of 4.32 percent. The DCCB had capital adequacy ratio of 4.16 percent in the year 2005-06 which had declined to 2.98 percent in 2008-09 and then again rose for the remaining period of study and touched 5.72 percent in the year 2012-13. Above analysis shows that Sangrur, Mansa and Gurdaspur DCCB have less capital adequacy ratio than the statutory required capital adequacy ratio and have to take meaningful steps to increase their capital base as required according to RBI s specification. 5.2 Asset Quality Analysis Loans and advances constitute the largest component of asset portfolio of the banks. Banks earn major income from their lending operations. Loans are always accompanied by the credit risk arising out of the borrower s default in repaying the money. The success of banks depends upon the timely recovery of loans. The central cooperative banks have developed an in-built system for movement of funds. The flow of credit is such that if this cycle is broken anywhere in between, the whole system gets disturbed. Financing, particularly, crop loaning has a unique revolving nature i.e. major amount of credit for the next crop period is disbursed out of the recovery of loans and advances of the previous crop season. Despite of best efforts of bank, there is always some percentage of loans that become bad debts. It has negative effect on the profitability and operation of the bank. Thus, timely recovery of loans is a basic factor for the success of cooperative banks loaning programme and it affects on the quality of assets of a bank. If interest and installment due of loan is not recovered in 90 days then whole loan account is classified as Non Performing Advance (NPA) and a provision has to be created for it (as per RBI guidelines). Every bank should make efforts to keep its NPAs at a minimum. For the purpose of this study, the following ratios have been used. Gross NPA to Gross Advances Earning Assets to Total Assets Gross Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) to Gross advances ratio shows the efficiency of bank to manage the risk of its lending operations. Whereas earning assets to total assets ratio conveyed the fraction of earning assets in the total assets of banks. The asset quality of district central cooperative banks in Punjab has been presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 elucidates Ropar DCCB had on average gross NPA to gross advances ratio of 7.25 percent. It reflected significant and negative compound annual growth rate of 5.11 percent which indicated decline in the gross NPA 35 P a g e

to gross advances ratio. In 2005-06, the gross NPA to gross advances ratio was 6.94 percent which increased to 9.85 percent in 2008-09 and then the ratio observed declining trend and declined to 4.99 percent in 2012-13. Table 3: Gross NPA to Gross Advances Ratios of DCCBs of Punjab (In percentage) Patiala Division Ferozepur Division Jalandhar Division Ropar Sangrur Muktsar Nawanshahar Gurdaspur DCCB DCCB DCCB Mansa DCCB DCCB DCCB 2006 6.94 4.98 7.57 10.67 5.09 21.36 2007 8.10 5.25 6.20 8.57 3.85 16.90 2008 7.19 5.22 6.69 7.95 2.88 13.91 2009 9.85 5.46 7.78 8.45 3.00 14.90 2010 8.34 5.15 6.75 13.95 3.58 19.50 2011 6.96 4.41 5.97 11.91 2.99 15.11 2012 5.60 3.75 6.93 7.79 2.57 13.18 2013 4.99 3.68 5.33 9.02 2.41 11.68 Mean 7.25 4.74 6.65 9.79 3.29 15.82 CAGR -5.11-5.06-2.80 0.07-7.95-5.72 t value -1.55-3.33-1.60 0.06-3.44-2.39 Source: Computed from annual reports of DCCBs As shown in table 3, it is clear that Sangrur DCCB recorded mean value of gross NPA to gross advances of 4.74 percent. A significant decline in the ratio was found at the rate of 5.06 percent compounded annually with wide fluctuations. In the initial year of study, the gross NPA to gross advances ratio was 4.98 percent and increased to 5.46 percent in 2008-09 and came down to 3.68 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13. In Ferozepur Division, Muktsar DCCB had significant and negative growth in gross NPA to gross advances ratio at the rate of 2.80 percent compounded annually with mean ratio of 6.65 percent during the period of study. The gross NPA to gross advances ratio had declined to 6.69 percent in 2007-08 from 7.57 percent in 2005-06. Thereafter, the ratio again increased to 7.78 percent in the next year and observed wide fluctuations for the remaining period of study and reached 5.33 percent in the last year of study. It is evident from study of table 3 that the growth in gross NPAs to gross advances ratio in Mansa DCCB was significant at the compound annual rate of 0.07 percent. It had mean gross NPA to gross advances ratio of 9.79 percent. The ratio was 10.67 percent in 2005-06 and declined to 7.95 percent in 2007-08. After this the ratio increased swiftly and touched 13.95 percent in the next year and then declined to 9.02 percent in the last year of study i.e. 2012-13. The study of table 3 shows that in Jalandhar Division, Nawanshahar DCCB with mean gross NPA to gross advances ratio of 3.29 percent publicized significant declining trend in the ratio with compound annual decline at the rate of 7.95 percent. In the year 2005-06, the ratio was 5.09 percent which declined to 2.41 percent in the year 2012-13. Table 3 elucidates that Gurdaspur DCCB had mean gross NPA to gross advances ratio of 15.82 percent. A decline in the ratio was registered at the compound annual rate of 5.72 percent and found to be significant also. The ratio was 11.68 percent in 2012-13 as compared to 21.36 percent in 2005-06, the initial year of study. 36 P a g e

Table 4 portrays that in Patiala division, Ropar DCCB, on an average, had mean earning assets to total assets 92.49 percent. It had witnessed a significant and negative trend in earning assets to total assets ratio at the rate of 0.16 percent compounded annually. In the year 2005-06, the ratio of earning assets to total assets was 92.12 percent and increased to 93.30 percent in 2008-09 and then declined to 92.37 percent in 2012-13. Table 4: Earning Assets to Total Assets Ratio of DCCBs of Punjab (In percentage) Patiala Division Ferozepur Division Jalandhar Division Ropar Sangrur Mansa Nawanshahar Gurdaspur DCCB DCCB Muktsar DCCB DCCB DCCB DCCB 2006 92.12 91.69 88.53 88.82 94.17 87.44 2007 94.08 93.71 90.46 90.16 94.84 90.39 2008 93.06 93.40 93.16 89.78 93.44 92.59 2009 93.30 85.30 93.42 88.24 91.52 92.05 2010 90.84 93.04 90.46 87.44 91.72 92.11 2011 91.20 93.85 90.58 85.17 92.85 90.23 2012 92.91 89.73 89.77 86.86 91.23 87.96 2013 92.37 89.17 88.72 81.24 92.71 88.82 Mean 92.49 91.23 90.64 87.21 92.81 90.20 CAGR -0.16-0.37-0.17-1.16-0.38-0.12 t value -0.85-0.70-0.52-3.89-2.23-0.35 Source: Computed from annual reports of DCCBs Table 4 illustrates that Sangrur DCCB had, on an average, earning assets to total assets ratio of 91.23 percent. It monitored a significant decline in the ratio at the rate of 0.37 percent compounded annually. The earning assets to total assets ratio was 89.17 percent in the year 2012-13 from 91.69 percent in the year 2005-06. On examination of table 4, it is apparent that in Ferozepur division, Muktsar DCCB had average earning assets to total assets ratio of 90.64 percent. The ratio observed marginal declining trend at the rate of 0.17 percent compounded annually. The ratio was 88.53 percent in the year 2005-06 88.72 and increased to 92.11 percent in 2009-10. After that it showed downward trend and reached at 88.82 percent in the year 2012-13. Mansa DCCB with mean earning assets to total assets ratio of 87.21 percent witnessed a significant decline in the ratio at the rate of 1.16 percent compounded annually. The ratio decreased to 81.24 percent in the year 2012-13 as compared to 88.82 percent in the year 2005-06. It is evident from study of table 4 that in Jalandhar division, the growth in earning assets to total assets ratio was negative and significant at the compound annual rate of 0.38 percent. It had mean earning assets to total assets ratio of 92.81 percent. The ratio of 94.17 percent in the year 2005-06 was declined to 92.71 percent in the year 2012-13. As revealed in table 4, Gurdaspur DCCB had 90.20 percent mean earning assets to total assets ratio. Marginal negative growth of 0.12 percent compounded annually was significant. The ratio was found to be 87.44 percent in the year 2005-06 and increased to 88.82 percent in the last year of the study, i.e. 2012-13. 37 P a g e

VI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS From the analysis of the above tables, it was clear that in terms of capital adequacy, Sangrur, Mansa and Gurdaspur DCCB had capital adequacy ratio less than 7 percent (as prescribed by RBI). It was a matter of serious concern. In the year 2011, Mansa DCCB had their Tier I capital in negative. The Punjab government had contributed Rs 15 crores as share capital so that Mansa DCCB could be prevented from closure. In the later years of study, tier I capital observed an increase but it was at a very less rate than the increase in risk weighted assets of DCCB. These DCCBs need to increase their CAR to the recommended rate of RBI. On the other hand, Ropar and Nawanshahar DCCB had very high rate of CAR than the recommended rate of 7 percent which signifies that these DCCBs were very conservative in lending the money. In terms of asset quality, these selected DCCBs had shown declining trend in their Non Performing Assets which indicated efficiency of banks in managing their NPAs. Mansa and Gurdaspur DCCB had improved in decreasing its NPA percentage but even then they were still having very high percentage of NPAs. So these DCCBs should make more efforts to reduce their NPAs. All selected DCCBs had registered a very good percentage of total assets as earning assets but Nawanshahar DCCB had more amount of funds invested in investments rather than in loans and advances. The main cause of this high investment was lack of agriculture activities in this area. VII. SUGGESTIONS Instead of implementing supervisory parameters as are applicable to commercial banks, RBI should develop prudential norms for cooperative banks suitable to their peculiar working conditions. These banks should be given sufficient time period to match the RBI conditions. State government should contribute to capital of these banks as these banks are under its control. Public sector undertakings should be allowed to subscribe the share capital of these banks. Recovery mechanism should be strengthened and political interference should be controlled. Bank should avail legal remedy for recovering loans frequently. REFERENCES [1]. Adhikary, G. P. (1988), Capital Adequacy of Banks in the SEACEN countries : An overview of The South East Asian Central Banks, Research and Training Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. [2]. Bodla, B. S. and Verma, R. (2006), Evaluating Performance of Banks through Camel Model: A Case Study of SBI and ICICI, The ICFAI Journal of Bank Management, 5(3), pp. 49-63, Hyderabad. [3]. Chowdhury, S., (2011), An Inquiry Into The Financial Soundness of Commercial Banks In India Using CAMEL Approach, Journal on Banking, Financial and Insurance Research,1( 7), pp. 88-121, Yamunanagar. [4]. Dang, U., (2011), The Camel Rating System In Banking Supervision A Case Study, Degree Programme, Arcada. [5]. Darling, M. L. (1925): The Punjab Peasant in Prosperity and Debt, Oxford University Press, London. [6]. Davis, E. P. and Obasi, U., (2009), The Effectiveness of Banking Supervision, Working Paper, London 38 P a g e

[7]. Devanadhen, K., (2013), Performance Evaluation of Larged Sized Commercial Banks in India, Indian Journal of Finance,7(1), pp. 5-16. [8]. Katrodia, A., (2012), Corporate Governance Practices in the Banking Sector, Abhinav, 1(4), pp. 37-45, Mumbai. [9]. Prasad, K.V.N. and Ravinder, G., (2012), A Camel Model Analysis of Nationalized Banks in India, International Journal of Trade and Commerce, 1(1), pp. 23-33, United States. [10]. Raul, P. K. and Ahmed J. U., (2005), Public Sector Banks in India, Impact of financial Sector Reforms, Kalpaz Publication, New Delhi, pp. 151 and 180. [11]. Report of High Level Steering Committee of RBI (2012), Review of Supervisiory Processes for Commercial Banks. Mumbai. [12]. Reddy, K. S.,(2012), Relative Performance of Commercial Banks In India Using CAMEL Approach, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2 (3), pp. 38-58 [13]. Sangmi, M. and Nazir, T., (2010), Analyzing Financial Performance of Commercial Banks in India: Application of CAMEL Model, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, (41), pp. 40-55, Pakistan. 39 P a g e