Little Cheer for Bank Nationalization

INDIA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING MORE…

CRISIS OR NO CRISIS

                                                                                   

The Day of Bank Nationalization in India passed off on Sunday. Smiles were kept years behind. None talk of village adoption scheme; no Chairman would go to a village these days to see how their rural branches are helping the farmers or the MSME is financed. No pride in ownership. No regret for bad governance.

But for a full page pull-out by the All India Bank Employees’ Association on the 20^th July, 2020, who remembers the Nationalization Day? Neither the employees, nor the disappointed customers that include even the Banks’ own pensioners, nor those seeking credit from them recall the Day. People are only alert on wearing masks and spiriting their palms before handling the currency received from outsiders. Everyone cries wolf on the ever-bulging non-performing assets. The only solid reform that we boast of is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Job creation is hurt badly in the organized sector with near-65% of MSMEs shutting their windows in pandemic. Their markets are yet to revive.

Banks in UK, Iceland, and even the US resorted to the most criticized and least preferred route of nationalization of banks, when they confronted a crisis. The then OBAMA initiative that received positive response of stock markets since the announcement of Toxic Loan basket takeover under a joint Government-Private Fund, was however inadequate to retrofit the lost confidence in the financial system. 

The revival of ‘protectionist’ actions would seem to be asserting more in finance than in trade.  While the regulators of G-20 would be meeting at the shortly, global regulatory regime has serious limitations and they should be realigned with domestic regulations that have compulsive cultural characteristics. 

Events so far have proved beyond doubt that a global regulatory regime would not be able to provide appropriate solutions to the type of recession that had set in due to pandemic. No prediction as to when it would end. Annual Balance Sheets for 2020 are waiting for finalization in several institutions. Basel III may have introduced a modicum of discipline and uniformity in risk discipline among Banks globally. Several regulators sought more flexibility. It is important for India to realize its distinction in the emerging economic scenario and how necessary it is to turn the head on the screws.

At the commencement of Covid attack, India did well and even till now, we do not find people scrambling for food because farmer and rural India stood by the nation.  The biggest blunder of the system is more announcements than actions and imperfect monitoring and undependable statistics. All the rating agencies, IMF and World Bank kept the ratings low and estimated growth of 42% in 2021. Opening the economy with lot of courage has not been taken too kindly by Corona that has been surging every day crossing the 10lakh persons. India took the 4th rank in the world in Corona affected nations.

Second, we have the key sectors like Steel, Zinc, other Metals and Coal as also the transportation system largely in the public sector. We entered the Commodity markets and derivative markets in our anxiety to mix with the globe. WTO is almost nearing collapse with most countries choosing to adopt policies that secure their own nations and people, not caring so much for the global discipline. 

Third, there was no demand recession of the magnitude that the other countries in the globe faced.  Still the rural areas where still 65 percent of our population lives, drive the demand growth.  Having said that some facts that can be hardly ignored: there is a steep decline in job growth; steep declines have also set in the private sector trumped up by the global recession; the urban and metro retail chains took a severe beating; the real estate and housing boom that irrationally stepped up land values across the country took the first heat-stroke and with them, the dependent MSME sector that is seen as the engine of growth.

Fourth, Banks that lent heavily for the retail sector and real estate sector started facing the continuous decline in their performing assets.  They lost confidence in the resurgence of the demand and the productive capacities of the manufacturing sector.  Most public sector banks even, refused to go with the RBI to pump credit. 

Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan, the stimuli announced to combat Covid-19, injecting more than Rs.20lakh liquidity, still face risk aversion from the Banks. This high liquidity released only moved to the investments in treasury instruments and to quote Subba Rao, former Governor, gave confidence to depositors in the Banking system that their monies are safe with the Banks, notwithstanding PMC Bank resolution still waiting at the doors of the RBI. It has two windows: one, investments and the other credit. The latest report on Investments not withstanding the $10mn investment announced by Google, all the investment projects are reported to be lagging behind and the cost over-run of the projects already swallowed the entire incentive package.

MSMEs are yet to come out of the two shocks of demonetization and GST. After the redefinition, and after a host of digital platforms placed within their reach, the access to credit by all counts is a poor show. Out of the National Credit Guarantee Trust linked credit incentive to the standard assets, Banks disbursed only 50% or less. This was supposed to be automatic release of 20% additional working capital. The second window to the stressed assets through Sub-ordinated debt is yet to open as the operating instructions were received only a few weeks back.

SIZE – AN IRRATIONAL CONCERN

Merger of PSBs taken up while the economy was slowing down is yet to show up the results. The market value of the SBI post-merger is way behind its peer, HDFC in the private sector. Sanctioning Rs.1200cr to a known defaulter in its books and erstwhile chronic NPA resolving through IBC, does not hold SBI in any high esteem either among global peers or its own clients. Government of India, by merging PSBs to 10 from 28 did not gain either in image or confidence of the people. Several clients say that corruption has become endemic in PSBs and not even acknowledging a complaint, or a letter of customer is so habitual that the latter are in the lurch.

While the Government’s efforts to digitize the delivery system have borne fruits reasonably going by the way the MNREG wages and other direct benefits reached the intended groups during the last two years, financial inclusion is way behind. The reach of banks to the poor has declined.

Regulator’s job is to make sure that the vertical and horizontal growth of institutions should not be allowed to go with a feeling that because of their size they are insulated from collapse and that the Government and regulator had to do something to keep them afloat even in the worst event like bankruptcy.  This is where the RBI should reformulate its views and ensure that the organizational structures irrespective of their affiliations do not overboard the governance and do not oversize.

The silos-based regulatory system currently in vogue, with the RBI regulating Banks and NBFCs, Stock Markets by the SEBI, Pensions by the Pension Fund Regulatory Development Authority, Insurance by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, and Commodity Futures by the Futures Market Commission should be effectively brought under Financial Services Regulatory Authority. Department of Financial Services, Union Ministry of Finance may have persons of eminence but when it comes to examining micro issues for macro management, it left lot to deliver. Collective wisdom needs to emerge to improve financial regulation and governance that affects 130bn people does not brook delay.  

India, for example does not have credit risk insurance of the order prevailing in either Italy, or Germany or South Africa.  The Credit Guarantee Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises is but a poor cousin of the trade and credit risk. Credit Risk could not be introduced in India as the IRDA was apprehensive of the consequences of credit default.  It is perhaps of the opinion that the moral turpitude would reach new dimensions if credit risk is introduced. 

Percy Mistry Committee called for a unified regulatory architecture for resolving issues dealing with segmentation of financial markets into banking, capital markets, insurance, pensions, derivatives etc. Sweden, Singapore, UAE, UK, Republic of Korea to cite a few have already moved into the unified regulatory system.

OPERATIONAL ISSSUES:

Warren Buffet, the most reputed investor, is quoted at number of places: “Derivatives were financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.” Over-the-counter derivatives that are off-balance sheet instruments come to surface suddenly when their collaterals fall and when their values become riskier to hold, killing in one stroke rest of the healthy assets of the Banks. The delivery and recipient systems have not reached a level of maturity to play with them, even a decade after their active entry.  Indian financial system cannot afford the consequences of systemic risks arising from their instrumentality.

Let me go to the most familiar area – Credit Risk that is mostly understood as risk of default.  Here the risks arising from asymmetric information have not been dealt with. The Credit Information Bureau India Ltd.,(CIBIL) is the only institution that currently unfolds client’s historic information at  price.  Entry of multiple players with the enactment of Credit Information Services Act of 2005 is put on hold.  Trade and Credit information services should enter the competitive domain for the information system to get into a semblance of order.

Credit rating agencies in India that are approved by the RBI are none other than the Fitch, Standard and Poor, Moodys etc., whose ratings busted on the threshold of sub-prime crisis and beyond.  There is no proof that they are doing their job differently.  Until the rating agencies’ services are paid for by the financing institutions that make use of the ratings and hold them accountable for the ratings, there is no guarantee that the ratings per se would add to the quality of the credit portfolio the banks carry in respect of the rated assets. 

While the Government and the RBI, Insurance and Capital Market regulatory authorities have proved one-upmanship over the other regulatory authorities in reasonably insulating the Indian Financial System from the impacts of the current global crisis, a large gap remains in what is needed to be done. The time to put things in the right shape is now and right away.

It is high time to appoint a High-level Committee that should also include outside experts to clean up the banking system with an open mind.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*The Author is an Economist with three decades of banking experience and a Risk Management Specialist He can be reached at yerramr@gmail.com The views are author’s own.

https://www.moneylife.in/article/ramping-up-the-banks-india-needs-to-do-something-more-crisis-or-no-crisis/60966.html

Time for third wave of banking reforms

1969 followed by 1980 were considered as years of radical reform when 20 banks were nationalized. 80 percent of the banking sector was brought under the control of GoI with the declared objective of ‘controlling the commanding heights of the economy’.

Access to banking for the poor was the main aim and rural development was the focus. This era saw loan melas, the first Agricultural Loan write-off in 1990 and the birth of new institutions at the apex level – one for agriculture and rural development, viz., NABARD and the other for small industries, SIDBI. Both these institutions cannot claim that they are close to achieving their intended objectives. They act more as banks for the governments doing more treasury business than banking for the target groups.

Come mid-1990s, Narasimham Committee recommendations were accepted and the big bang reforms as economists and bankers termed it, allowing for privatization of banks in the name of ushering in competition. Banks competed alright but not for serving the unserved population but for profits. Technology was introduced. Costs of technology being huge had to be recovered from the customers. Charges for services started rising. Internet facilities were introduced. Convenience banking and convenience charges became the order of the day.

Technology became the master and banks became servants. Huge numbers of complaints started and Banking Ombudsman had to be appointed by the regulator. Banks were supposed to be financial intermediaries – intermediation between those who save and those who require money for acquiring productive assets and even consumption requirements. This intermediation was taken to the extreme, introducing universal banking providing for sale of third party products .

Yet, the reach to the unbanked and under-banked had to be thought of through financial literacy and board approved financial inclusion agenda despite the emergence of new institutions: MFIs, Banking Correspondents, Small Finance Banks and India Postal Bank etc. 2014 saw the ‘Jandhan’ as new avatar of ‘no-frill’ savings bank accounts. Credit to the needy sectors and persons had signs of improvement, al bait for short period.

Overall economic health depends on the vitality of the financial sector. This vitality was lost during the last ten years with irresponsible lending to corporates, several at the behest of government and vested interests resulting in unsustainable non-performing loans currently standing at Rs.10trn. Mechanical application of accountability to credit decisions has left bank managers shy of taking normal business risks. This has led to committee decisions on credit to large conglomerates making no one accountable for their failure.  Efforts to ‘tame the shrew’ through legal support  systems led to SARFAESI ACT 2002 and IBC code 2016.

The worst scenario prevails now: where the CBI is digging the graves of past sins of several bank top brasses fixing accountability for the current unrecoverable debts. If these Bank top executives followed unethical practices and extended patronage, more unethical is the investigating agencies announcing the names of the ‘offenders’ even before the charge sheets are filed and guilt is fully  established.

There is again a call for third generation reforms. The central issue of banking today is reducing government ownership in banks. With 82 percent of total banking in public space, government is active owner. It appoints the Chairpersons, Managing Directors, independent directors It reviews performance and directs the banks in appointments, transfers and closure or expansion of branches. These banks lost their autonomy and the freedom to run as banks either with a social purpose or commercial outlook.

Chidambaram who presided over the Finance Ministry after leaving the portfolio, delivering the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Lecture on 21^st August 1998 said: “the bureaucracy and the political system have developed a vested interest in maintaining the status quo – over 60% of the work of the Banking Division in the Ministry of Finance relates to Parliament work, a largely unproductive use of time.” It is a different matter that he did nothing after he again became the FM post 2009. Narasimham Committee suggested the winding up of Department of Banking for such reasons and is time to accede to this recommendation as the first agenda on reforms.

Cash credit system of lending should give place to working capital demand loan when the monthly or quarterly demands on the repayment become possible for review and timely action. Single dwelling house of any small enterprise should be prevented from SARFAESI proceedings in regard to micro enterprises, particularly when the Bank did not cover the loan under the CGTMSE.  

The second should be: let the ownership take responsibility for all the lapses and regulator admitting to laxity. This would mean refurbishing the capital of banks to the extent of shortfall in NCLT decisions by the government purely as a one-time measure.

Bank inspections and audits have become a matter of ridicule in the wake of serious frauds and malfeasance that came to light during this decade. ICAI should work on realistic accounting policies and accounting standards and disclosure norms. Audit begins where accountability ends, as the saying goes. RBI should restart the bank inspections of 1980s when a few large advances and branches were also being inspected. It should perform its regulatory function without fear of consequences.  Prompt action should follow on lapses noticed. 

Governance improvement in banks should be the third agenda on reforms. RBI should stop sending its persons to the Boards of Banks. Board should review its performance once in six months against the Director’s own commitment each year as to his contribution to the functioning of the Bank.

It’s time to restore the trust deficit in banks by GoI and RBI through vigorous media campaigns and supporting measures assuring service to every type of customer on time and at transparent cost. Safety, security, easy access at affordable cost of both deposit and credit services shall reign supreme on the reform agenda. RBI may appoint a high level committee of a few of the past governors and reputed economists sans MoF bureaucrat, with a mandate to provide the reform agenda within the next three months.

Published in Telangana Today, 19.7.18

India Enters 50th Year of Bank Nationalization

Just a year to go for the golden jubilee of bank nationalization on July 19 leaves nothing to banks for jubilation. Current generation of bankers working more on systems than on knowledge hardly visualize the journey of Indian Banking that is on rough roads today.

First decade of nationalization of banks was a decade of committees and committees; second decade was one of consolidation of the gains of nationalization; third decade was one of computerization, introduction of income recognition and asset classification norms, newer balance sheets and banking reforms; fourth decade saw introduction of Basel norms of risk management in full measure; fifth, a decaying decade for banking sector, ending from a year now witnessed the setting up of a Monetary Policy Committee, deterioration in assets through reckless lending resulting in huge non-performing loans, particularly, to infrastructure and big corporates at the behest of the government, demonetization, frauds and malfeasance, bad governance. Government’s proposals to set up Bad Bank drew flak. When LIC is there, why have a bad bank?

During the first decade, to bring about a change in the mindset and meet up with the goals of bank nationalization, GoI and RBI set up nearly 50 study groups and working committees. During the first five years, six groups went into the study of general functioning of banks, six more studied the priority sector lending and nine teams devoted their attention to giving a direction to industry and trade.

In the next five years, 10 working groups concentrated on general functions while 12 studied lending to agriculture and allied activities and seven groups studied aspects related to industry and trade. Persons who worked on those Committees, to name a few, are of high integrity and discipline: R.G. Saraya, D.R. Gadgil, R.K. Talwar, V.T. Dehejia, P.L. Tandon, R.K. Hazari, S.S. Shiralkar, B. Sivaraman, M. Narasimham. NABARD had been set up as a statutory body. Schemes like IRDP, SEEUY, DRI and modifications to certain institutional mechanisms like the Lead Bank Scheme and Service Area Planning, setting up of Regional Rural Banks, had their birth during this period. Bank chairpersons were visiting villages and several farm enterprises.

Second decade saw a spurt in social lending, project finance for agriculture with many a small and marginal farmer benefiting and lending to small scale industries. Directed lending came for attack with several borrowers turning as defaulters. Rajiv Gandhi in a public meeting mentioned that only 16paise of a rupee lent was going to the beneficiaries of government sponsored schemes.

Third decade has changed the texture of banking in India. Narasimham Committee set up by Government in the wake of liberalization, privatization and globalization recommended for providing space to private banks to usher in a spirit of competitiveness among PSBs among many others. IRAC norms were introduced. Balance sheets built on accrued income basis were given a go-by.

Profitability and viability of banking came to the policy front. Banks started looking at rural lending portfolio and rural branches as unviable. also witnessed the resurgence of private banking with ICICI reverse merger, HDFC Bank, UTI Bank etc. The traditional private banks with Federal Bank Ltd in the lead also started making inroads in to unserved areas. Retail banking and housing finance made inroads into the lending portfolio. Micro finance institutions also entered the finance space with aggressive approaches.

Fourth decade saw the surge of arm-chair lending and template-based lending. Systems have replaced men in intelligent appraisal of loans. Asset reconstruction companies were born following the enactment of SARFAESI Act 2002. India demonstrated its resilience to the 2008 World recession in the financial sector. Net banking made banks close in the time gaps in serving the customers, al bait, urban and computer literate customers. ATMs proved a good service delivery instrument.

Fifth decade saw the progressive downfall of banking system. CDR, S$A, and RBI’s Asset Quality Review, behest lending to the corporate entities, poor surveillance, unconcerned Boards, and poor governance ended up in over >Rs.10trn NPAs. It also saw the likes of Vijaya Mallya, Nirav Modi, Chokshi etc., who challenged banks’ lending patterns. They also challenged the regulatory institutions.

Adding to this, Demonetization has exposed the infrastructural inadequacies in banking to tackle a disruption of that dimension in the economy. Banks in their anxiety to retain profit started fleecing the customers with high service charges – some transparent and more non-transparent.

Distance between customers and banks has been increasing reducing the trust between them. Supply based banking ushered in. Banks do more non-banking business with hefty commissions that dwarf their salaries.

At a time when institutional memory is waning, this article should unfold to the policy makers a few  lessons: 1. Deal with problems comprehensively and address them through collective and well-informed wisdom; 2. Trust in innovation and assess the innovation of its capacity to offer solutions material to the sector; 3.  Improve governance: let there be a pool of independent directors from whom choice can be made by the regulator; 4. No Bank shall be left without a Managing Director even for a week; 5. Make sure that banks do banking and not selling insurance policies, mutual funds and other third party products that could also include laddus and medallions at pilgrim centers.  

The Hindu Business Line, 19.07.2018