Financial Drivers of Asset Structure in Indian Project Finance Institutions: A Conceptual Review

Abstract

The asset structure of a financial institution, meaning the composition, tangibility, and maturity profile of what it holds, has been treated in most of the capital structure literature as an exogenous determinant of leverage rather than as an outcome in its own right. This paper reverses that emphasis. Working entirely from the existing literature, it asks what financial forces shape the asset structure of the specialised institutions that finance infrastructure in India, a category that includes development finance institutions such as the National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development (NaBFID), the India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, and sectoral lenders in power and renewable energy. The review synthesises three bodies of work that rarely speak to each other: the determinants tradition in corporate finance (Frank & Goyal, 2009; Rajan & Zingales, 1995; Titman & Wessels, 1988), the project finance literature on risk allocation and leverage (Byoun et al., 2013; Esty, 2004b), and the multi-level accounts that place firm decisions inside industry and country contexts (Kayo & Kimura, 2011). Seven theoretical lenses are compared and their conflicting predictions about asset composition are made explicit. From this synthesis the paper develops a five-tier framework that organises the drivers of asset structure into firm-specific, project-specific, financing, institutional, and macroeconomic layers, and it treats asset structure as an endogenous product of their interaction. The framework identifies where Indian evidence is thin, where the theories disagree, and which relationships are ready for empirical testing. Implications are drawn for institutional managers weighing tenor and sectoral concentration, and for policymakers designing the credit enhancement and bond market reforms on which the model depends.

Introduction

The paper develops a conceptual framework to explain the financial drivers of asset structure in Indian project finance institutions, particularly development finance institutions (DFIs) such as National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development. Unlike traditional corporate finance research, which treats asset structure as an independent variable influencing capital structure, this study argues that asset structure itself is an outcome shaped by funding conditions, project characteristics, regulation, and macroeconomic factors.

The paper begins by highlighting India's enormous infrastructure financing requirements, emphasizing that infrastructure projects are capital-intensive, long-term, and unsuitable for financing through conventional commercial banking alone. Since DFIs primarily finance long-tenor infrastructure projects, their balance sheets are dominated by long-term, project-linked assets. Understanding what determines this asset composition is therefore essential for improving infrastructure financing.

Conceptual Foundations

The study explains that project finance differs from ordinary corporate lending because projects are financed through legally independent special purpose vehicles using non-recourse or limited-recourse debt. Debt repayment depends on project cash flows rather than sponsor balance sheets, while contracts allocate project risks. Existing research shows that leverage, contractual arrangements, governance, and political risks jointly determine project financing decisions, but these studies largely overlook the lending institution's own portfolio structure.

The paper defines asset structure as the composition of assets according to tangibility, maturity, sectoral concentration, and liquidity. While conventional finance literature links tangible assets with higher leverage because they serve as collateral, evidence from India shows that this relationship varies depending on institutional quality, creditor protection, and financial development. This suggests that asset structure cannot be viewed independently of the financing and regulatory environment.

The study also reviews the evolution of Indian development finance institutions, beginning with institutions established after independence, followed by their decline due to asset-liability mismatches, and finally the establishment of NaBFID in 2021 to provide dedicated long-term infrastructure finance. Unlike commercial banks, NaBFID raises long-term market funds rather than relying on short-term deposits, making it an ideal case for studying endogenous asset structure.

Theoretical Foundations

The paper integrates several complementary theories:

• Trade-off Theory explains that tangible, secured assets support greater leverage because they reduce financial distress costs.
• Pecking Order Theory argues that asset growth depends on internally generated funds and access to external finance.
• Agency Theory emphasizes governance mechanisms, where highly leveraged project finance structures discipline managerial behavior.
• Resource-Based View suggests that institutional capabilities and sector-specific expertise influence portfolio composition.
• Institutional Theory highlights the role of regulation, creditor rights, and legal systems in shaping asset allocation.
• Stakeholder Theory explains how state-owned DFIs allocate assets to support public policy objectives rather than purely financial returns.
• Signaling Theory argues that an institution's ability to raise low-cost long-term funding signals creditworthiness and enables investment in longer-tenor assets.

Rather than relying on any single theory, the paper combines these perspectives to explain the complex determinants of asset structure.

Financial Drivers of Asset Structure

The paper proposes five interrelated categories of drivers:

1. Firm-specific drivers
   • Institutional size
   • Profitability
   • Capital adequacy
   • Ownership structure
   • Internal capital generation
2. Project-specific drivers
   • Project risk
   • Contractual protections
   • Revenue certainty
   • Project tenor
   • Sectoral composition
3. Financing drivers
   • Cost of funds
   • Funding maturity
   • Bond market development
   • Credit enhancement
   • Asset-liability matching
4. Institutional drivers
   • Prudential regulation
   • Creditor rights
   • Legal enforcement
   • Regulatory requirements
5. Macroeconomic drivers
   • Interest rates
   • Inflation
   • Economic growth
   • Fiscal conditions
   • National infrastructure investment needs

The framework argues that these drivers interact across multiple levels rather than operating independently.

Critical Literature Synthesis

The review identifies three major research gaps:

• Most project finance research focuses on the leverage of project companies rather than the portfolio composition of lending institutions.
• Traditional capital structure literature treats asset structure as an explanatory variable instead of examining what determines asset structure itself.
• Very little research specifically examines Indian infrastructure-focused DFIs despite their growing importance.

Proposed Conceptual Framework

The study proposes a multi-level conceptual framework in which asset structure is treated as the dependent outcome produced by the interaction of the five categories of drivers.

The framework has three distinguishing features:

• It is nested, meaning macroeconomic and institutional factors influence the effects of firm- and project-level variables.
• It treats asset structure as endogenous, recognizing that portfolio composition evolves in response to funding, regulation, and project characteristics.
• It adopts a multi-theoretical approach, integrating financial, institutional, organizational, and policy perspectives rather than relying on one theory alone.

Managerial and Policy Implications

The study concludes that managers of infrastructure finance institutions should manage assets and liabilities jointly to avoid maturity mismatches that contributed to the failure of earlier Indian DFIs. Long-term funding sources, diversified project portfolios, sound risk management, and supportive regulatory frameworks are essential for sustainable infrastructure financing. Policymakers should strengthen domestic bond markets, improve creditor rights, and encourage long-term institutional investment to support India's expanding infrastructure sector.

Conclusion

The asset structure of a project finance institution is not a given from which financing follows. It is an outcome, shaped by the institution\'s own capabilities and objectives, by the projects it chooses to appraise, by the funds it can raise and on what terms, by the regulatory and legal rules it operates under, and by the macroeconomic cycle. Reading it that way requires stitching together three literatures that have mostly worked apart: the determinants tradition that catalogued the firm-level drivers, the project finance research that showed leverage and contracts to be coupled risk-management tools, and the multi-level accounts that placed firm decisions inside industry and country contexts. This review has argued that the join is worth making, has made the theoretical disagreements explicit rather than smoothing them over, and has proposed a five-tier framework that treats asset structure as the endogenous product of firm-specific, project-specific, financing, institutional, and macroeconomic drivers. India\'s recently rebuilt infrastructure financing architecture, with a statutory development bank at its centre and a long history of asset-liability failure behind it, is an unusually clear setting in which to test the framework. The empirical work remains to be done, and the honest conclusion of a conceptual paper is to have specified precisely what that work should ask.

References

[1] Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 [2] Brealey, R. A., Cooper, I. A., & Habib, M. A. (1996). Using project finance to fund infrastructure investments. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9(3), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.1996.tb00296.x [3] Byoun, S., Kim, J., & Yoo, S. S. (2013). Risk management with leverage: Evidence from project finance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(2), 549–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109013000148 [4] Byoun, S., & Xu, Z. (2014). Contracts, governance, and country risk in project finance: Theory and evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance, 26, 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.03.003 [5] Chakraborty, I. (2010). Capital structure in an emerging stock market: The case of India. Research in International Business and Finance, 24(3), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2010.02.001 [6] Chauhan, G. S. (2017). Corporate financing and deleveraging of firms in India. IIMB Management Review, 29(3), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2017.06.002 [7] Corielli, F., Gatti, S., & Steffanoni, A. (2010). Risk shifting through nonfinancial contracts: Effects on loan spreads and capital structure of project finance deals. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 42(7), 1295–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4616.2010.00343.x [8] De Jong, A., Kabir, R., & Nguyen, T. T. (2008). Capital structure around the world: The roles of firm- and country-specific determinants. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1954–1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2007.12.034 [9] DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [10] Donaldson, G. (1961). Corporate debt capacity: A study of corporate debt policy and the determination of corporate debt capacity. Division of Research, Harvard Business School. [11] Esty, B. C. (2004a). Modern project finance: A casebook. John Wiley & Sons. [12] Esty, B. C. (2004b). Why study large projects? An introduction to research on project finance. European Financial Management, 10(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2004.00247.x [13] Frank, M. Z., & Goyal, V. K. (2009). Capital structure decisions: Which factors are reliably important? Financial Management, 38(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-053X.2009.01026.x [14] Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. [15] Gatti, S. (2018). Project finance in theory and practice: Designing, structuring, and financing private and public projects (3rd ed.). Academic Press. [16] Global Infrastructure Hub, & Oxford Economics. (2017). Global infrastructure outlook: Infrastructure investment needs, 50 countries, 7 sectors to 2040. Global Infrastructure Hub. [17] Government of India. (2021). The National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development Act, 2021. Ministry of Law and Justice. [18] Handoo, A., & Sharma, K. (2014). A study on determinants of capital structure in India. IIMB Management Review, 26(3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2014.07.009 [19] Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329. [20] Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X [21] Kayo, E. K., & Kimura, H. (2011). Hierarchical determinants of capital structure. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(2), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.08.015 [22] Kleimeier, S., & Megginson, W. L. (2000). Are project finance loans different from other syndicated credits? Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 13(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2000.tb00043.x [23] Korajczyk, R. A., & Levy, A. (2003). Capital structure choice: Macroeconomic conditions and financial constraints. Journal of Financial Economics, 68(1), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(02)00249-0 [24] Kraus, A., & Litzenberger, R. H. (1973). A state-preference model of optimal financial leverage. The Journal of Finance, 28(4), 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01415.x [25] Mazumder, S., & Rao, R. (2025). Asset tangibility and capital structure: Does institutional heterogeneity matter? Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22801 [26] Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 [27] Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297. [28] Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1963). Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: A correction. The American Economic Review, 53(3), 433–443. [29] Müllner, J. (2017). International project finance: Review and implications for international finance and international business. Management Review Quarterly, 67(2), 97–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-017-0125-3 [30] Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. The Journal of Finance, 39(3), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1984.tb03646.x [31] Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0 [32] National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development. (2024). Annual report 2023–24. NaBFID. [33] North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678 [34] OECD. (2015). Infrastructure financing instruments and incentives. OECD Publishing. [35] Öztekin, Ö. (2015). Capital structure decisions around the world: Which factors are reliably important? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109014000660 [36] Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. The Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421–1460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb05184.x [37] Rakhe, P. B. (2012). Asset-liability mismatches (ALMi) in the Indian banking sector: The extent, persistence, and reasons (RBI Working Paper Series No. 17/2012). Reserve Bank of India. [38] Reserve Bank of India. (2022). NaBFID to be regulated and supervised as an All India Financial Institution [Press release]. Reserve Bank of India. [39] Ross, S. A. (1977). The determination of financial structure: The incentive-signalling approach. The Bell Journal of Economics, 8(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003485 [40] Saxena, S. (2022). Industry dynamics and capital structure choice: Evidence from Indian manufacturing firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(7), 3005–3019. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3421 [41] Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 [42] Titman, S., & Wessels, R. (1988). The determinants of capital structure choice. The Journal of Finance, 43(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb02585.x [43] Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207 [44] World Bank. (2025). Bridging India\'s infrastructure financing gap. World Bank.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Sreedevi L, Dr. Nidhi Paridar. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.