companies have increased overseas presence significantly, in parallel the operations of indian banks overseas has also increased. there are generally four forms of banking presence abroad, viz. i. representative office ii. branch [ including specialized branch like off - shore banking units ( obus ) ] iii. subsidiary and iv. joint ventures. the choice of any particular form of presence is guided mostly by the objective of the bank seeking presence in a particular country / location, the laws and regulations of the host country and the cost and return from the proposed venture, which in turn is a factor of regulatory prescriptions and business potential. as on december 31, 2006, nine public sector banks and three private sector banks have 113 overseas branches spread over 27 countries. out of these, three banks viz. bob ( 40 ), sbi ( 30 ), and boi ( 21 ) have got 80. 5 % of the overseas branches. as regards geographical spread, indian banks have branch presence of 22 in uk, 9 each in singapore, mauritius, fiji, 8 in hong kong, 7 in sri lanka and 6 in usa. in terms of total asset size, the operations of indian banks overseas have increased by a significant 113. 5 % over the last five years i. e. 2002 - 06. as on march 31, 2006, total assets of all indian bank branches overseas stood at usd 29. 34 billion. overview to conclude, there is great dynamism amongst indian corporates to globalize and in the years to come we are going to have more indian multinationals. these will include not only the large corporates but also medium size corporates. companies have to determine the most optimal method for funding these acquisitions as this has implications for the domestic balance sheets of the indian companies and external debt profile depending on the source of funding. in case of investments financed through debt in the books of domestic entity and / or against guarantees issued by the indian entity, it could involve a full or partial recourse to the indian entity. in case there is recourse to the company, it is a direct external liability of the company to that extent. indian companies appear to have so far balanced all these considerations and raised bulk of these funds through lbo for large acquisitions which reduces the risk on the domestic balance sheet. as regards external debt, the policy on ecbs allows ecbs for overseas acquisitions within the overall limit of usd 500 million per year under the automatic route. the overall remittances from india and non -

july 19, 2005 has since been placed on the website of the rbi. the report considers ( a ) policy options and strategies for deepening and widening of financial services ; ( b ) promotion, development and rating of microfinance institutions and other outreach entities ; and ( c ) regulatory issues and concerns. the report will form a basis for evolving a policy framework in consultation with the government, nabard and other stake - holders. it is, however, necessary to recognise that there are several issues which have to be clarified as one proceeds with a response, to what may be termed as, the new paradigm in micro - finance, described above. importantly, the new paradigm seems to imply a process of formalising what has essentially been an informal mechanism of credit - disbursal, occasionally coupled with other activities, and expanding its scope. it is worth recounting some of the major issues in this regard. first, how do we distinguish micro - finance institution from micro - credit institution and both these from other financial institutions? is it by the ceilings imposed on the size of deposits, lendings and / or by defining activities? what part or percentage of the activity could be non - financial while the institution continues to be an mfi? is there merit in differentiating between not - for - profit mfis and the profitseeking ones? second, how do we identify, for regulatory purposes micro - credit institutions as distinct from microfinance institutions since the latter may need more varied skills and in any case, warrant a policy view by more than one financial sector regulator? third, should the shgs, which have no formal organisational structure, be brought within the ambit of the proposed formal framework for the mfis? fourth, currently there are five organisational forms of the mfis, viz., trusts ; societies ; cooperative societies ; not - for - profit companies and non - banking finance companies. there are also instances of large corporates undertaking micro - credit activity as a part of their operations. what are the merits and demerits of recognising one or more or all the organisational forms under a formalised regulatory framework for the mfis? fifth, there is also a need to recognise the large regional differences in the spread of shgs and the mfis across the country. while the issue needs deeper analysis to identify the reasons for such variation and to promote balanced growth of the mfis, it, prima facie, appears