Securing autonomy — ball in RBI’s court

The crucial November19 board meeting of the RBI, which threatened at one point to be an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, passed without any fireworks and that in itself is good news. At an institution like the RBI, it is never comfortable when the board confronts the Governor and the executive leadership in so direct a manner.

The formal RBI communication following the board meeting was short but well drafted and to the point, covering the four points of the dispute — the Basel regulatory capital framework, liquidity for stressed MSMEs, Economic Capital Framework (ECF), and bank health under Prompt Corrective Action (PCA). The overall direction is welcome and is in the interest of the autonomy of the RBI even though this is what was under challenge in the run-up to the meeting.

It is now time for the RBI leadership to reflect on why the situation came to this pass and what it must do from here on to ensure that the institution preserves its autonomy while delivering its mandate of growth with financial stability.

Fundamental change needed

Questions being raised by independent directors who enjoy voting rights is a healthy development though the board’s perceived aggression has been criticised. Equally, it is the task of the RBI leadership to convince them and indeed to convince the nation of its approach and its path.

This demands a fundamental change. The RBI must become more open and must disclose more, engage more and, in general, talk more. In the past, the RBI has had governors who have spoken freely and those who did not. In the current era, this is not a choice.

Never before in the more than 80 years of RBI history has there been such a public debate on economic capital. There are two aspects of the RBI accounts under debate. One is surplus transfer to the government in the income-expenditure statement and the second is transfer to the following four funds or accounts: (i) Contingency Fund (CF), (ii) Asset Development Fund (ADF), (iii) Currency and Gold Revaluation Account (CGRA), and (iv) Foreign Exchange Revaluation Account (FCVA).

Over the years, these four have aggregated ₹9.498 lakh crore and form 26.25 per cent of the total assets. Critics say such capital buffer is unwarranted and a part of this should be transferred to government, which, after all, is the owner. Besides, the demand is that there should not be any provisioning made for the CF and ADF.

In 2017-18, as much as ₹14,180 crore was transferred from the RBI’s gross income to the CF. The RBI made this provisioning to the CF after a gap of consecutive four financial years (2016-17, 2015-16, 2014-15 and 2013-14), during which time there was nil transfer, indicating that the entire surplus went to the government in these years. Indications are that this was based on the recommendations of the Malegam Committee II, which surprisingly is not in the public domain.

Against this backdrop, it is important to briefly revisit the history of RBI accounts. The RBI annual report for 1994-95 recognised that “an adequate Contingency Reserve balance is necessary such as to meet any unforeseen liability…”

In subsequent years, provisioning was done to make the CF a percentage of total assets to reach the target of 12 per cent from an abysmally low rate of 0.5 per cent as on end-June 1993. Currently, the ratio is 7.05 per cent. Never has this ratio reached 12 per cent. It touched a high of 11.89 per cent as on June 30, 2009. Thereafter, there has been a steady decline.

Since the Malegam Committee II report is not public, there is no clarity on why provisioning to the CF stopped, or why it returned.

Second, if the discontinuation of transfers to the CF was done (apparently) through a committee report, the return of provisioning should also be guided by a committee.

By being inconsistent, the RBI has invited many doubts and questions. Now is the time for the RBI to come out with a well-documented policy, discussions and research on the subject.

Stressed assets of MSMEs

With regard to MSMEs, the board advised the RBI to consider a scheme for restructuring of stressed assets of MSME borrowers with aggregate credit facilities of up to ₹25 crore, subject to conditions that are necessary for financial stability. The board, quite correctly, has not imposed a diktat but made the credit facilities arrangements conditional to financial stability.

This has its positive fallouts as the RBI can now become an enabler of policies that can grow lending to the MSME even in the midst of an atmosphere that is not conducive to advancing such credit. However, this will have to be with appropriate caution and due diligence.

The board concurred that CRAR (Capital to Risk Asset Ratio) of banks will remain at 9 per cent, putting an end to the clamour for a reduction to 8 per cent.

The extension of the transition period of the Capital Conservation Buffer (CCB) by one year (up to March 31, 2020) could broadly be in line with the Basel regulatory framework guidelines.

The board has shown its maturity and wisdom with the decision to constitute a committee in respect of ECF and examination of PCA by the Board for Financial Supervision (BFS). The RBI has been performing financial supervision under the guidance of BFS since November 1994.

Let the BFS re-examine the PCA framework and suggest an appropriate remedy to prevent further erosion of capital of PCA banks.

The RBI with its rich experience and high quality research and technical expertise should convince the BFS of the merit of PCA. If the RBI cannot convince the BFS, how can the RBI convince the people of our country?

In sum, it is possible to look at the crisis as an opportunity that the RBI leadership can seize to secure the autonomy of the institution. The onus is therefore now on the RBI to ensure its autonomy.

Pattnaik is a former central banker and Rattanani is a journalist. Both are faculty members at SPJIMR. (Through The Billion Press.)

COMMENT NOW