Table of Contents
Securitization in Asia-Pacific didn’t develop as one uniform “ABS market” the way it did in the U.S. or parts of Europe. In APAC, securitization has often been shaped by bank-centered financial systems, regulatory pragmatism, and (in several markets) the need to address non-performing loans (NPLs) and liquidity constraints. The result is a set of markets that share the same core concept—turning receivables or loans into tradable securities—but differ dramatically in legal form, tax treatment, investor base, and scale.
This post walks through how securitization emerged and evolved in India, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, and Vietnam, highlighting key milestones and what each market’s trajectory suggests for the next phase of growth.
India: From Early “PTC” Deals to a Regulated, High-Volume Market
1) The early years: market practice before formal regulation (1990s–mid-2000s)
India’s securitization market began taking shape through market-led transactions in the early 1990s, before a dedicated framework for performing-asset securitization existed. Over time, common structures developed around special purpose vehicles (SPVs) issuing pass-through certificates (PTCs) to investors, while banks and NBFCs used securitization to manage balance sheets and fund growth.
2) SARFAESI: securitization meets NPL recovery (2002)
A major milestone in India’s broader “securitization” story is the SARFAESI Act (2002)—less about ABS capital markets and more about legal tools for enforcement and reconstruction of financial assets, including the creation and regulation of Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs). It became central to India’s NPL resolution toolbox and helped shape the ecosystem that sits adjacent to (and sometimes overlaps with) securitization markets.
3) RBI securitization guidelines: bringing order to standard-asset securitization (2006 → 2012 → 2021)
The true inflection point for “mainstream” securitization of performing assets was the Reserve Bank of India’s 2006 guidelines, later revised in 2012 and again in 2021. These rules formalized definitions, risk retention expectations, and transaction standards—effectively moving securitization from “market practice” into a clearer regulatory perimeter.
What India’s history implies
India’s market has generally been driven by bank/NBFC funding needs, regulatory calibration, and cycles of tightening/relaxation depending on underwriting quality and systemic risk concerns. The arc bends toward deeper institutionalization—especially as investor participation expands and structures become more standardized.
Philippines: From NPL “SPV Law” Roots to a New Securitization Statute
1) The SPV Act era: securitization as a cleanup mechanism (early 2000s)
The Philippines’ early securitization narrative is strongly tied to NPL resolution. The Special Purpose Vehicle Act of 2002 (RA 9182) created a framework for banks to transfer distressed assets to SPVs—supporting balance-sheet cleanup and post-crisis rehabilitation.
This model leaned heavily toward “workout securitization,” where the primary goal was removing bad loans from the banking system, rather than building a broad, repeating ABS issuance pipeline across multiple asset classes.
2) A renewed push: the Securitization Act of 2024
A major modern milestone is the Securitization Act of 2024, which aims to provide a more comprehensive framework to support ABS market development—particularly by addressing frictions (often tax-related) that historically made deals harder to execute efficiently.
What the Philippines’ history implies
The Philippines appears to be shifting from securitization-as-cleanup to securitization-as-capital-markets development, with 2024 reforms signaling intent to build a more durable issuance ecosystem (and not just a one-time distressed-asset tool).
Singapore: A Structured, Institutional Market Built on Regulatory Clarity
Singapore’s securitization market is best understood as an institutional and cross-border financial hub market—less about mass domestic credit offload, more about well-governed structures, strong documentation norms, and investor confidence.
Key theme: regulation-first discipline
Singapore’s framework is strongly shaped by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Notably, MAS has issued detailed guidance and consultation materials around securitization structures and the supervisory expectations for banks participating in these transactions.
In practice, Singapore’s securitization footprint often intersects with:
- sophisticated funding structures
- high documentation standards
- regional deal origination and distribution (including offshore SPVs and multi-jurisdictional collateral pools)
What Singapore’s history implies
Singapore’s story is less “pilot → boom” and more steady institutional development, anchored in regulatory clarity and an international financial center approach—making it a natural structuring and issuance venue for regional transactions.
Indonesia: From KIK-EBA Structures to an Expanding Legal Concept of Securitization
Indonesia’s securitization market has long had a distinctive feature: collective investment contract (KIK) structures rather than the classic SPV issuer model.
1) The KIK-EBA era: a defined local structure
Indonesia historically relied on asset-backed securities (EBA) issued through collective investment contracts (KIK-EBA)—a structure involving an investment manager and custodian bank rather than a standalone SPV issuing notes in the familiar Western sense. Regulatory treatment and market infrastructure has been supported by the capital markets framework and related regulations.
2) Expansion of the securitization concept (P2SK Law and beyond)
More recently, Indonesia has moved toward broadening the securitization toolkit. Commentary around the P2SK Law highlights how new concepts are intended to expand securitization possibilities beyond the historically narrow set of local structures.
What Indonesia’s history implies
Indonesia’s market shows a classic pattern: a single workable structure drives early market formation, followed by legal reform that tries to widen issuance options and deepen investor participation.
Vietnam: A Nascent Securitization Market in a Broader Capital-Markets Reform Story
Vietnam is the most “emerging” of the five markets in terms of securitization as a repeatable capital-markets product. Rather than a long ABS issuance history, Vietnam’s securitization narrative sits inside two broader tracks:
1) Capital markets development and investor protection reforms
Vietnam’s authorities have been working to deepen capital markets, improve transparency, and strengthen legal infrastructure—particularly after periods of market stress and volatility.
There have also been updates to securities law effective January 1, 2025, reflecting ongoing efforts to balance growth with risk management and market integrity.
2) NPL/collateral enforcement improvements (indirectly supportive)
A functioning securitization market typically requires confidence in true sale, cashflow control, and enforcement of creditor rights. Vietnam’s work to improve secured transactions and collateral enforcement—especially in the context of bad debts—supports the preconditions for securitization even if ABS issuance itself remains limited.
What Vietnam’s history implies
Vietnam’s securitization story is still in the “foundation-building” stage: legal reforms, market infrastructure development, and credibility-building with investors. As these elements mature, securitization-like structures (starting with simpler receivable-backed instruments) become more feasible.
Cross-Market Takeaways: What These Histories Have in Common
Across these five markets, securitization tends to grow fastest when a country has:
- Clear true-sale / asset transfer mechanics
- Tax neutrality (or at least predictable tax outcomes)
- Investor base depth (banks, insurers, asset managers)
- Servicing discipline and data quality
- Creditor-rights enforceability (especially for secured assets)
India and Singapore show what happens when regulatory frameworks and market practice mature into repeat issuance. The Philippines illustrates a pivot from NPL cleanup into broader market-building. Indonesia demonstrates how one local structure can seed a market, then reforms broaden the toolbox. Vietnam highlights that securitization often follows—rather than precedes—capital market credibility and legal enforceability.
