Monetary Policy Statement 6 August 2020

 

Some Healthy Deviation and Unfulfilled Expectations

The twin objectives of Monetary Policy – Containing Inflation and Promoting Growth – have largely been addressed in the latest Monetary Policy Statement of the Governor released on the 6^th August, 2020. Economy continues to face unprecedented stress in the backdrop of unabated pandemic. Inflation of 6.1% is +2% over the inflation target of RBI.

RBI says that inflation objective is further obscured by (a) the spike in food prices because of flood ravage in the north and north-east and ongoing lock down related disruptions; and (b) cost-push pressures in the form of high taxes on petroleum products, hikes in telecom charges, rising raw material costs. These factors led the Monetary Policy Committee to hold to the existing policy rates undisturbed.

Fitch and other rating institutions say that global growth tumbles in the face of pandemic growing uncertainty. ‘All manufacturing sectors remained in the negative territory excepting pharmaceutical sector. Manufacturing PMI remained in contraction at 34.2. Rural demand increase is the only silver line in the economy. Services sector indices show modest resumption of the economy. Yet tourism and aviation, passenger traffic in trains and buses do not show any signs of recovery. There is broad realization that monetary policy should drive credit in sectors that need most and the Banking sector requires more attention.

Liquidity pumped into the banking sector is of the order of Rs.9.57trillion or 4.7% of GDP with no show of risk appetite among banks. This has only assured the Depositors that the money is safe with banks and there is no need for hurried withdrawals for consumption needs.

CREDIT POLICY

The main driver of the consumption, credit activity of banks is mooted. Lot has been expected from the RBI on the credit policy front. Let me first deal with the best things first: Priority sector lending guidelines have been revised reducing regional disparities in the flow of credit and broadening the scope of priority sector to include credit to the Start-ups in the areas of renewable energy, including solar power and biogas compression plants; and, increasing the targets for lending to ‘small and marginal farmers and weaker sections.’ Incentives for lending to these sectors is related to credit flow to the lagging districts and assigning lower weight to incremental credit to priority sectors in districts where comparatively higher flow of credit had already taken place.

MSME Sector:

RBI Bulletin July 2020 indicates that during the current financial year so far, year-on-year growth is -7.6% for manufacturing MSEs and -5.4% for medium enterprises.

MSME Pulse Report indicates covid vulnerability high among 63 percent of the MSMs. Only 31 percent are strongly positioned to come back. It is these that will be pepped up by Banks and not the vulnerable even if they are standard assets. The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic will impact the profitability of MSMEs due to the declining market demand and rising operating costs in the new way of working.

Number of Studies, notably, ITC, Skoch Foundation, RGICS, CII, FICCI etc reveal that 59-74 percent of the MSMEs are highly risky and would be on the brink of closure if cash inflows do not support them upfront. GoI took the stand that they will be supported by Credit while those that are weak will be supported by sub-ordinated debt or Equity. This Equity product is yet to roll out from the government although Rs,20000cr guarantee backed fund is allocated in the package.

The Policy nowhere referred to the credit-driven Covid-19 Atma Nirbhar Abhiyan packages. Package one related to the standard assets at 20% additional working capital under Automatic Emergency Credit Relief Guarantee from National Credit Guarantee Trust. Against the Rs.3trn target under this window for standard asset ( Units that are performing or continuing their manufacturing activity) to be achieved by the end of September 2020, Banks have so far sanctioned around Rs.1.6trn of which 60% is disbursed. There are field reports that Banks are seeking to extend the existing collateral and/or guarantee to the additional working capital. The disadvantage for the borrowers is on two counts: one fresh documentation involving stamp duty of Rs.1000 and 2) their existing collateral will get extended for the additional working capital and this is quite contrary to the intentions of the scheme.

The second scheme, involving stressed assets under the category of Special Mention Accounts-2. The broad guidelines released are:

¡  Account shall be -

Ø  Standard as on 31.03.2018

Ø  In regular operations during 2018-19/2019-20

Ø  SMA2 later or NPA as on 30.04.2020 , and;

¡  Commercially viable enterprises post revival

¡  7-yr moratorium for principal amount of subordinated debt/equity

¡  Interest payable every month

¡  Subordinated Debt amount up to 15% of Debt O/s or Rs.75 lakh, whichever is lower will be given as personal loan to the promoter for a 10-year tenure. This amount should not be used for recovery of NPA. Entrepreneur can use this to meet his cash deficit, for meeting the payments to labour and making the unit covid-19 compliant.

¡  Unit should revive in 5 years –RBI Guidelines of March 17, 2016.

¡  Unit should be on growth path for 10 years

¡  Scheme Valid till 30^th September 2020.

Banks have not rolled out this package so far. RBI Master Circular of 2016 on Revival and Restructuring (RBI/16-17/338 dated March 17, 2016) stipulates: 1. Corrective Action Plan; 2. Revival and Restructuring of all viable manufacturing enterprises and 3. Recovery of the unviable through legal means. Banks have not implemented most of these instructions, save rare exceptions. Under the Subordinate Debt scheme, the enterprise should be first viable; it should be currently running whatever be the capacity utilization, and then, it should be restructured to see it as a standard asset in a year’s time and additional revival package and sovereign obligations if any to be recovered fully before the five year period concludes. Initial moratorium for the revival package would depend upon the viability arrived at. District Committees had to be formed and they should decide on the viability.

For all such units with outstanding liability of Rs.10lakhs and below, the Branch Manager is the deciding authority for reviving the unit while for the units over and above this limit, appropriate authority as decided by the Bank will take the call and place it before the District Committee. Though several Banks committed to the RBI that all such District Committees were set up even by December 2017, most of them are dysfunctional.

Under these circumstances, RBI announcing MSME revival and restructuring of enterprises falling under the category of GST-registered Standard Assets as on 1.3.2020 before 31^st March 2021 looks ambivalent.

The virtuous thing about the current instruction is that the asset classification as standard may be retained as such, whereas the accounts that may have slipped into NPA category between March2, 2020 and date of implementation may be upgraded as ‘Standard asset’ from such date of implementation. Banks are expected to maintain additional provisioning of 5% over and above the provision already held by them for such assets.

RBI should have allowed such forbearance for all the assets revived under the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan -2 (Equity-driven revival). While Banks are aware that such any additional loan consequent to revision will be treated as standard asset, their reluctance to revive the viable enterprises is absolute risk aversion.

The only saving grace is that sale of securities to the ARC will now attract higher provisioning. This should trigger the thought that by reviving the asset instead of sale to ARC they would gain in provisioning as the asset is likely to be standard asset at the end of one year of revival. 

Monetary Policy viewed from the MSME perspective, is like what GoI proposes, RBI disposes. Apathy towards MSMEs still continues.  It is suggested that the RBI and GoI be on the same page in so far as MSME revival is concerned and second, shorten the period of decision making to just two weeks as against 55 days’ process indicated in the Master Circular of 2016 referred above.

Government of Telangana seems to be taking the lead in the revival of MSMEs. Telangana Industrial Health Clinic Ltd., set up by it, has put on its website, the Learning Tool for Revival and a Revival Pre-pack online for the enterprises to log in and post the details for quickly deciding on the prospects of viability.

Retail Loans:

As regards personal loans, RBI recognising that these loans falling under Retail Loan portfolio will be the next NPA balloon that will blow off, has accommodated the Banks through a resolution plan. It has been the practice of several Banks both in the Public and Private sector as also a few NBFCs to grant the personal loans wherever the related corporate accounts are held by them. Because of slow growth and the pandemic, several have lost their jobs and personal loan segment has come under severe pressure. RBI left it to the wisdom of Banks concerned to invoke the resolution plan by December 31, 2020 and shall be implemented within 90 days thereafter. There will be no requirement of third party validation or Expert Committee, or by credit rating agencies. Board Approved Policy will be necessary, and the resolution plan shall not exceed two years. Banks will have big relief on this score.

This Monetary Policy recognized the economic environment as tough to recover in the immediate short term. At the same time, it failed to provide the real growth impulses in invigorating the MSMEs to the required degree and failed to generate the risk appetite among banks. It looks more worried about the capital of banks than credit to the required sectors at the required speed.

The views are personal. This is an invited article from Skoch Foundation.

 

 

 

Reclassifying MSMEs

Turnover definition causes more confusion

Definition of MSMEs - Contentious

The outdated definitions of MSMEs are set to change. Union Ministry of MSME introduced an Amendment to the MSME Development Act 2006 to redefine the sector basing on annual turnover as the single criterion.

While change in the definition from the sole criterion of investment in plant and machinery that has facilitated Inspection Raj is long overdue, again moving to single criterion of turnover is fraught with greater risks than before for the MSMEs.

Globally,they are the backbone of the economy with some definitions showing their contribution accounting for 95% of the world’s GDP.

The term "SME" encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions. The definition varies from country to country. Generally these guidelines are based upon either headcount or sales or assets or a combination of any two or all of them. Some are backed by law while others are by practice and policy.

Indian MSMEs that significantly contribute to economic growth are already suffering several disabilities and while resolving one, leading to many more would be disastrous. The objective of change in definition of the sector should be providing jobs, wealth and innovation.

When the economy is set to be the third largest in the world with increase in WB rankings of Ease of Doing Business, it is important to ensure that each segment of the economy, more so the sector that has the largest potential for employment creation and enterprise promotion, moves in tune with the developed economies. Definitions vary across the multilateral institutions like the World Bank, UNIDO, OECD etc.

World Bank defined SMEs based on Employment and Assets. Out of 18 countries in Asia, Caribbean, East Africa, West Africa, South Africa, Latin America, North America, Eastern Europe six countries defined in terms of Assets, Employment and Turnover. 9 countries defined in terms of two of the three criteria – either assets and employment or employment and turnover. Only four countries including India defined in terms of a single criterion – assets or employment. Philippines, Thailand Bolivia, Mozambique and Rwanda defined in terms of employment as single criterion, employment.

or example the Inter-American Development Bank defines SMEs as having a maximum of 100 employees and less than $3 million in revenue. In Europe, they are defined as having manpower fewer than 250 employees and United States define them with employees less than 500. As general guidelines, the World Bank defines SMEs as those enterprises with a maximum of 300 employees, $15 million in annual revenue, and $15 million in assets. In Kenya, there are different definitions of SMEs which are yet to be consolidated. For example, a national baseline survey of MSEs carried out in 1999 defines a small enterprise as one which employs 6-10 people while a medium one is expected to have 11-100 employees.

Employment as a criterion to define the sector has widely been prevailing. Number of employees by itself is no indicator for efficiency of the enterprise. It is also no guarantee for growth. In fact, there would be a positive effect of economic growth on jobs. This criterion applied singly has again the consequence of services sector like the IT getting undue advantage as even 10 employees can contribute to a turnover of Rs.500cr annually.

Turnover as a single criterion has the deleterious consequences of over-flexibility. It also has the immediate consequence of picking up NPA status with the turnover threshold of Rs.75cr annually for the small and Rs.500cr for the medium. Presently the gross NPAs of the MSME sector stand at around 7-8 percent.  

Depending on trade cycles, the turnover may increase or decrease the redefined thresholds. Whenever such change occurs, it would be well-nigh impossible to reclassify and extend or withdraw the entitlements of incentives, wherever available for this sector. It will be preposterous to presume that GST would resolve the moving turnover thresholds for qualifying the enterprise in a particular category. Obtaining credit would become more difficult.

Any two criteria defining the sector would be more rational and lead to better growth of the sector. Doing away with investment in plant and machinery is welcome but replace them with employment and turnover. It will also be possible to attract more global investments into the sector. This would help MSMEs engaging labour on more competitive terms than now and also measuring their contribution to the turnover.

Modified version of the article has been published in the Hindu Business Line Today. 

The Demon of Demonetisation

http://www.moneylife.in/article/the-demon-of-demonetisation/49255.html

In recent RBI history, some highlights: smooth transition to Basel regulations and efficient monetary policy under Bimal Jalan and Rangarajan, global aplomb post-recession under YV Reddy, preventing hyperinflation by Subbarao and taming of the NPAs by Raghuram Rajan. These achievements have put the RBI in prime position among central banks of the world. But the utter lack of planning and monumental mismanagement post-demonetisation by the same institution have tarnished its image.  

Banking operations other than currency operations in the country have almost come to a halt, barring exceptions. Credit is on a downturn. All the rating agencies, including Nomura, have down-rated the economic growth. The road to recovery sans GST is going to be difficult.