Delhi airport is taking its refinancing business home. Its ₹3,500 crore rupee bond issue turns an October dollar maturity into a longer domestic funding relationship—and gives Indian lenders a live example of the business at stake.
Delhi International Airport has raised 15-year non-convertible debentures to refinance its $522.6 million, 6.125% dollar notes due this month, the Economic Times reported. The new securities initially pay 8.71%, with coupon resets after five and ten years. India Infrastructure Finance Company subscribed ₹1,426 crore; NIIF Infrastructure Finance, HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, IDFC First Bank and SBI Capital Markets also participated. The same report identifies a further $500 million dollar maturity in June 2029.
The currency arithmetic explains why the choice matters. The October 2016 registration was intended to replace rupee loans; at ₹66.75 per dollar, its principal translated to about ₹3,488 crore. At the 1 October rate of ₹95.99, the same $522.6 million translates to ₹5,017 crore, 44% more. That comparison precedes hedging and repayments. The new ₹3,500 crore issue alone is smaller than the full principal translated at spot, so it cannot establish the complete redemption funding plan.
For a treasury, the decision joins currency, interest rates and repayment timing. For a domestic bank, insurer or bond fund, it creates a potential lending opportunity. For a shareholder, it changes the claims on future operating cash. Comparing the old dollar coupon with the new rupee coupon alone misses the cost of currency cover, fees and the longer commitment of capital.
The wider borrowing map is concentrated enough for these decisions to matter well beyond one airport. Kiwaro’s register-based cohort comprises 7,690 registrations across 4,420 borrowers, with a face value of $285.5 billion in dollar equivalents. It is a map of borrowing relationships whose registration month plus reported tenor reaches November 2026 or later; its ₹-denominated instruments and foreign-currency loans share a common dollar reporting unit. Current balances and contractual repayment schedules determine the cash obligations. The largest ten borrowers represent 35.1% of this cohort, the largest 25 account for 50.3%, the largest 50 for 60.6%, and the largest 100 for 71.5%.
Reliance-linked entities account for 11.5% across four borrowing entities. REC represents 4.3%, Power Finance Corporation 3.9%, Indian Railway Finance Corporation 3.7%, NTPC-linked entities 2.6% and Shriram Finance 2.3%. Export-Import Bank of India adds another 3.2%. The concentration gives lenders and investors a practical set of relationships around which to organise the funding discussion.
For genuinely dollar-denominated liabilities, a weaker rupee raises the cash required to buy each dollar. A dollar translation benchmark places the cohort’s rupee equivalent 18.7% above its registration-period value. Using registration-period exchange-rate benchmarks, this is a currency scenario: actual debt-service costs depend on the loan currency, the amount outstanding, interest and hedges. Rupee-denominated debt does not acquire that dollar exposure merely because the register reports its equivalent in dollars.
The age of the borrowing changes the size of that currency gap. The 2019–20 cohort carries a 35% translation increase; the largest remaining vintage, 2024–25, carries 13%. Recent registrations face a much smaller translation gap, but their refinancing economics still depend on current credit spreads and the price of cover.
| Registration year | Face value in the cohort | Historical ₹ per dollar benchmark | Increase at ₹95.99 per dollar |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019–20 | $18.4 billion | 70.9 | 35% |
| 2020–21 | $16.2 billion | 74.2 | 29% |
| 2021–22 | $29.4 billion | 74.8 | 28% |
| 2022–23 | $20.5 billion | 81.0 | 19% |
| 2023–24 | $46.4 billion | 82.7 | 16% |
| 2024–25 | $60.3 billion | 84.8 | 13% |
| 2025–26 | $42.8 billion | 88.9 | 8% |
| April–July 2026 | $22.3 billion | 95.2 | 1% |
The cash-flow question is more demanding than identifying exporters. Among listed borrowers with an export-sales measure available, companies earning less than a tenth of sales abroad account for 75% of the associated $132.7 billion of registrations. Foreign revenue can provide currency receipts, but those receipts also fund foreign costs. Reliance’s export-share measures of 51% and IndiGo’s 26% therefore need to be read alongside the currency and timing of expenses, debt service and hedges.
When the refinancing discussion becomes urgent
The registration-and-tenor screen places $21.2 billion in the November 2026–March 2027 window, followed by $42.1 billion in 2027–28 and $46.6 billion in 2028–29. Together, the three windows contain $109.9 billion, or 38.5% of the cohort: approximately ₹10.55 lakh crore when translated at ₹95.99. These are indicative review windows; loan agreements and current repayment schedules establish the cash actually due.
Finance companies warrant the earliest attention. They represent 43% of the cohort assigned to the period through March 2029, against 33.3% of the full cohort. A funding change at a lender can affect both its own margin and the terms on which it supplies credit. The institutional question extends from the borrower’s refinancing capacity to the maturity and repricing of the assets that its borrowing finances.
| Indicative review window | Registered face value | Borrowers | Top ten share |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 2026–March 2027 | $21.2 billion | 437 | 45% |
| 2027–28 | $42.1 billion | 852 | 36% |
| 2028–29 | $46.6 billion | 793 | 51% |
| 2029–30 | $45.7 billion | 936 | 40% |
| 2030–31 | $37.0 billion | 889 | 44% |
| 2031–32 | $22.4 billion | 615 | 50% |
REC, Reliance Industries, IndiGo, Shriram Finance, Indian Oil and Reliance Jio are the largest names in the first window. Jio, Reliance Industries, Export-Import Bank of India, Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum and REC lead the 2027–28 window; Reliance Industries, REC, Shriram, Jio, IRFC and PFC lead 2028–29. By March 2030, the cumulative review cohort reaches $155.6 billion, or 54.5% of the total.
The commercial significance lies in the alternatives. A facility repaid from cash competes with other uses of liquidity. An offshore rollover preserves the foreign funding relationship but resets its economics. Domestic refinancing brings business to rupee lenders and investors, subject to their credit limits, required yields and capacity to hold the tenor. The ₹10.55 lakh crore translation is a measure of scale, not a forecast of domestic issuance.
Who can supply the next loan
Access depends on the kind of creditor already financing the business. Foreign banks and financial institutions account for 26.7% of the cohort, overseas bond investors 18.8%, Indian banks’ foreign branches 16.1%, and foreign parents and partners 14.5%. Development and export-credit lenders supply another 5.3%, GIFT City institutions 5.0%, and suppliers and lessors 2.5%; other lenders account for 5.7% and an unstated category for 5.6%.
Those relationships differ sharply by industry. Lessors and suppliers account for 95% of airline registrations; Indian banks’ foreign branches for 57% in refining; foreign parents for 43% in metals; foreign banks for 70% in telecom; and bond investors for 64% in airports and ports. A bond refinancing, a parent-company facility and an aircraft lease each require a different credit discussion. Of the 4,420 borrowers, 4,131 use only one recorded lender category, representing 34% of the cohort. Several creditors can sit inside that single category.
Sector size adds a second dimension. Finance accounts for 33.3%, power 14.2% and refining 8.9%. Metals contributes 5.6%, telecom 3.9%, machinery and electronics 3.8%, oil and gas production 3.5%, airports, ports and transport services 3.4%, chemicals 2.8%, and airlines 2.5%. A further 3.9% is classified as other industries and 5.6% is unstated; smaller categories make up the remainder. Funding concentration and operating exposure can therefore appear in several parts of the same institutional book.
GIFT City is already prominent in recent registrations. Between March and July 2026, institutions there supplied $14.2 billion of $27.7 billion registered, or 51%. March marks the register’s introduction of the separate lender description, rather than the beginning of lending through the centre. HUDCO’s five July registrations totalled $1.55 billion, illustrating the scale of an individual month’s financing activity without establishing how much was drawn.
Borrowers continue to seek offshore funding despite the weaker rupee. April–July registrations reached $22.3 billion, up 79% from $12.5 billion a year earlier. That compares with $14.7 billion in the corresponding 2024 period and $23.5 billion in 2023: a sharp rebound from last year, still below the earlier comparison. July contributed $7.7 billion, the largest monthly registration total in the preceding twelve months. The purposes show how directly the activity competes with domestic lending.
| Registered purpose, April–July | 2026 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| Replacing rupee loans | $2.8 billion | $0.13 billion |
| Working capital and general use | $3.6 billion | $1.1 billion |
| Refinancing earlier foreign loans | $2.8 billion | $2.5 billion |
| On-lending | $5.9 billion | $4.0 billion |
The longer history reinforces the distinction between new business and a refinancing relationship. Annual registrations were $52.9 billion in 2019–20, $35.3 billion in 2020–21, $39.9 billion in 2021–22, $26.6 billion in 2022–23, $49.2 billion in 2023–24, $61.2 billion in 2024–25 and $43.0 billion in 2025–26. From April 2022 to July 2026, spanning five financial years, 3,375 borrowers registered $202.3 billion. Just 217 returned in at least three of those years and accounted for 51% of the value. Maintaining those relationships is a material part of the financing business.
Who owns the borrowers
Ownership brings the funding story into equity and credit portfolios. Thirty-one state-controlled borrowers account for $75.8 billion, or 26.5% of the cohort. Ten of the largest 25 borrowers are state-controlled. State control here means at least half the ownership, directly or through controlled companies; it does not establish a sovereign guarantee. Separately, 237 borrowers linked to listed companies—as the company itself, a subsidiary, joint venture or associate—account for $170.4 billion, or 59.7%.
The group connections matter when institutions assess overlapping positions. Four listed Adani companies link to 38 borrowing entities and 5.5% of the cohort. JSW-linked borrowers account for 2.5%; ONGC, HPCL and MRPL together for 3.6%; and PFC with REC for 8.1%. The group aggregates and individual-company rows have different boundaries and should not be added together.
The table combines borrowing relationships with the named listed company’s latest available ownership filing and its export-sales measure. Export measures come from different reporting periods and are indicators of business mix. Its currency column is the same dollar translation scenario used above, before hedges or repayments; the equity percentages describe ownership, not a shareholder’s legal liability for the borrowing. A reported zero export share does not establish the absence of every foreign-currency receipt.
| Listed company and linked borrowing entities | Share of cohort | Dollar translation increase | Largest lender category and share | Promoters / foreign institutions / domestic institutions | Reported export share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance, 4 entities | 11.5% | 25% | Foreign banks, 36% | 50% / 17% / 21% | 51% |
| REC, 1 entity | 4.3% | 17% | Foreign banks, 54% | 53% / 16% / 17% | 0% |
| PFC, 1 entity | 3.9% | 20% | Overseas bonds, 38% | 56% / 21% / 15% | 0% |
| IRFC, 1 entity | 3.7% | 26% | Indian banks’ foreign branches, 34% | 83% / 1% / 4% | 0% |
| NTPC, 2 entities | 2.6% | 25% | Indian banks’ foreign branches, 36% | 51% / 16% / 29% | 0% |
| ONGC, 3 entities | 2.3% | 16% | Other lenders, 53% | 59% / 8% / 19% | 0% |
| Shriram Finance, 1 entity | 2.3% | 11% | Overseas bonds, 36% | 20% / 55% / 20% | 0% |
| Adani Green, 21 entities | 1.9% | 16% | Foreign banks, 60% | 62% / 11% / 5% | 0% |
| JSW Steel, 6 entities | 1.9% | 19% | Foreign banks, 74% | 44% / 26% / 11% | 7% |
| IndiGo, 1 entity | 1.8% | 19% | Suppliers and lessors, 80% | 42% / 20% / 32% | 26% |
| Indian Oil, 3 entities | 1.7% | 17% | Indian banks’ foreign branches, 90% | 52% / 9% / 10% | 4% |
| Adani Ports, 4 entities | 1.5% | 33% | Overseas bonds, 84% | 66% / 16% / 14% | 0% |
| HUDCO, 1 entity | 1.1% | 5% | Foreign banks, 52% | 75% / 2% / 10% | 0% |
| Muthoot Finance, 1 entity | 1.1% | 11% | Overseas bonds, 97% | 73% / 12% / 11% | 0% |
| Adani Energy Solutions, 9 entities | 1.1% | 27% | Overseas bonds, 52% | 73% / 10% / 13% | 0% |
| Adani Enterprises, 4 entities | 1.1% | 17% | Overseas bonds, 68% | 72% / 11% / 11% | 18% |
Direct listed borrowers number 122 and represent $133.7 billion, or 46.8% of the cohort. Weighting their shareholding percentages by registered borrowing gives promoters 54.3%, foreign institutions 16.8% and domestic institutions 16.3%; mutual funds account for 9.3% and insurers 5.4%. These ownership weights show where the financing story intersects institutional portfolios, without turning corporate debt into debt owed by shareholders.
Life Insurance Corporation of India is a named shareholder in 27 of those 122 companies, the broadest reach in this comparison. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global appears in 16 and the Government of Singapore in ten. Shriram Finance illustrates a particularly close connection between international equity ownership and market funding: foreign institutions own 55%, while overseas bond investors are its largest lender category. The equity holder and creditor have different claims, but both need to understand the economics of the next funding round.
What each institution has to decide
For a lending team, the useful comparison is the borrower’s next funding package: currency, all-in cost after hedging, amortisation, security and available cash. A replacement rupee loan may reduce a currency mismatch while changing interest-rate exposure or extending the lender’s commitment. An offshore renewal may remain attractive where foreign receipts, hedging or an established creditor relationship support it. Neither choice is settled by a single spot exchange rate.
For bond funds and insurers, Delhi airport demonstrates the possible movement of a long-duration financing relationship into the domestic market. The wider opportunity depends on which borrowers actually seek rupee funding and at what terms. For equity teams, the transmission runs through interest expense, liquidity retained in the business and capacity to finance assets or investment. For institutions holding both equity and credit, the same refinancing can change the two positions in different ways.
The macro backdrop makes those comparisons timely. India’s reserves fell about $38 billion in the three weeks to 25 September, the largest such decline in the retained series since at least 2012, while the Federal Reserve raised its policy rate on 16 September. The RBI’s 7 October decision is the next domestic policy marker. Market rates, credit spreads and hedge prices determine how those policy developments reach an individual financing offer.
The creditor mix also argues against treating every borrower alike. Foreign parents and partners provide 14.5% of the cohort and development and export-credit lenders another 5.3%; together they represent nearly a fifth, but their presence does not promise an extension. India’s $747.6 billion of reserves on 25 September is about 2.6 times the cohort’s registered face value. Those reserves serve the wider economy and are not a pool earmarked for corporate repayment.
The institutional advantage comes from connecting the next cash obligation with the creditor that can fund it, the operating cash that can service it and the owners whose returns absorb its cost. Delhi airport supplies a current transaction. The concentrated borrowing relationships identify the companies, creditors and portfolio positions that make the next transaction worth following.
What to watch
| Date or development | Why it matters for the financing decision |
|---|---|
| 7 October | RBI policy decision: the domestic rate backdrop for comparing funding offers. |
| 9 October, scheduled weekly release | Reserves for the week to 2 October: the next observation after September’s decline. |
| October 2026 | Delhi airport’s 2016 notes mature: watch completion of redemption and the funding mix. |
| 21 October | September-quarter shareholding deadline for applicable listed companies: refresh the institutional ownership picture. |
| Next monthly borrowing release | August registrations: whether July’s pace, stated uses and GIFT City share persist. |
| Through 31 March 2027 | Review the $21.2 billion cohort window against current contractual schedules and refinancing announcements. |
| Borrower results and annual reports | Updated balances, hedge disclosures and debt-service schedules determine the exposure behind each registration. |
