RBI’s Draft Guidelines on AIF Exposure by Regulated Entities – Key Highlights and Implications

Get in touch with us

    Your information is confidential and secure


    Get in touch with us

      Your information is confidential and secure


      The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has released draft directions to regulate investments made by Regulated Entities (REs)—such as banks, NBFCs, and other financial institutions—into Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs).

      A key proposal is the introduction of exposure caps aimed at limiting interconnected risks within the financial system:

      • A single regulated entity will be allowed to invest up to 10% of the corpus of an AIF scheme.
      • Aggregate exposure by all regulated entities to the same AIF scheme is proposed to be capped at 15%.

      These changes are aimed at curbing practices like evergreening of loans and circular financing arrangements, where lenders indirectly fund borrower companies via AIF routes.

      At the same time, this move could significantly reshape the domestic fundraising landscape—especially for AIFs that rely on Indian institutional capital as anchor investors. The proposal introduces a more cautious, risk-sensitive framework that fund managers will need to consider while structuring their capital sources.

      Key Exemptions from Provisioning Requirements:

      The draft outlines certain carve-outs where REs would not be subject to provisioning norms:

      • If the RE holds less than 5% of the AIF scheme’s corpus;
      • If the AIF’s investment in a borrower is only in equity instruments (such as equity shares, CCPS, or CCDs);
      • If the AIF is a strategic Fund of Funds (FoF) backed by the Government.

      As SEBI tightens its due diligence norms for AIFs and the RBI refines exposure limits for REs, alignment between fundraising and deployment strategies is becoming increasingly important. These regulatory shifts may also influence the perception of risk and confidence for global Limited Partners (LPs) looking at India-focused funds, especially where domestic institutions are key participants.

      Curious how these guidelines may affect your AIF strategy or structure?
      Let’s talk – write to us at dhairya.c@treelife.in

      About the Author
      Dhairya Chaniyara
      Dhairya Chaniyara social-linkedin
      Senior Associate | Tax & Regulatory | dhairya.c@treelife.in

      Focuses on direct tax and regulatory services with a specialization in GIFT IFSC. Brings experience from various industries, including manufacturing, FMCG, IT-ITES, and healthcare, to deliver impactful tax solutions.

      We Are Problem Solvers. And Take Accountability.

      Related Posts

      Second Advisor Engagement alongside First – The Founder’s Perspective
      Second Advisor Engagement alongside First – The Founder’s Perspective

      Founders searching for how to switch a startup compliance advisor are usually not trying to fire anyone. They have a...

      Learn MoreLearn More
      Hardware R&D Startup Fundraising – Choosing instrument for multi year
      Hardware R&D Startup Fundraising – Choosing instrument for multi year

      A hardware R&D startup does not raise capital the way a SaaS company does. A software founder can go from...

      Learn MoreLearn More
      Structuring Partner Payout Agreements for a Content Platform
      Structuring Partner Payout Agreements for a Content Platform

      A cultural audio streaming platform paying musicians, narrators, podcast producers, and cultural institutions is not running a standard affiliate program....

      Learn MoreLearn More

      For Customer Support

      Mumbai | Delhi |
      Bangalore

      Speak to Us!

      We respond within 60 minutes.

        Your information is confidential and secure


        Let's talk.

        We've seen most founder problems before. Tell us yours.

        Error: Contact form not found.

        Typically responds within 4 hours
        Or reach out directly