BAD BANK, GOOD IDEA? : The Global ANALYST
The Global ANALYST, April 2017
Bad Bank, Good Idea?
M G Warrier
Since independence GOI and RBI have revamped and
rejuvenated existing institutions at various levels in the financial sector and
established new ones wherever a need was felt. The makeover of Imperial Bank to
State Bank of India at national level to recent emergence of Payment Banks at
ground level and setting up of specialized institutions like IDBI, Exim Bank
and NABARD are the result of the joint effort of GOI and RBI. Institutions so
established have been playing their role fairly well. The present proposal to
have a separate institutional arrangement for handling stressed assets of the
banking system has built-in features which can be harmful for the financial
sector in the long run. Put bluntly, besides acting as a disincentive for
professionalizing appraisal and credit delivery and recovery departments of the
banks, the institutionalization of
‘stressed assets’ can further weaken the supervisory and regulatory bodies in
the financial system.
Economic Survey 2016-17 bases its argument
supporting establishment of a Public Asset Rehabilitation Agency ( PARA,
now loosely referred to as ‘Bad Bank’ in common parlor) on the following
grounds:
1. It’s not just about banks, it’s a
lot about companies. So far, public discussion of the bad loan problem has
focused on bank capital, as if the main obstacle to resolving TBS was finding
the funds needed by the public
sector banks. But securing funding is
actually the easiest part, as the cost is small relative to the resources the
government commands. Far more problematic is finding a way to resolve the bad
debts in the first place.
2. It is an economic problem, not a
morality play. Without doubt, there are cases where debt repayment problems
have been caused by diversion of funds. But the vast bulk of the problem has
been caused by unexpected changes in the economic environment: timetables,
exchange rates, and growth rate assumptions going wrong.
3. The stressed debt is heavily
concentrated in large companies. Concentration creates an opportunity, because
TBS could be overcome by solving a relatively small number of cases. But it
presents an even bigger
challenge, because large cases are
inherently difficult to resolve.
4. Many of these companies are
unviable at current levels of debt requiring debt write-downs in many cases. Cash
flows in the large stressed companies
have been deteriorating over the past
few years, to the point where debt reductions of more than 50 percent will
often be needed to restore viability.
The only alternative would be to
convert debt to equity, take over the companies, and then sell them at a loss.
5. Banks are finding it difficult to
resolve these cases, despite a proliferation of schemes to help them. Among
other issues, they face severe coordination
problems, since large debtors have
many creditors, with different interests.
If PSU banks grant large debt
reductions, this could attract the attention
of the investigative agencies. But
taking over large companies will be politically difficult, as well.
6. Delay is costly. Since banks can’t
resolve the big cases, they have simply
refinanced the debtors, effectively
“kicking the problems down the road”.
But this is costly for the
government, because it means the bad debts keep rising, increasing the ultimate
recapitalization bill for the government and the associated political difficulties.
Delay is also costly for the economy, because impaired banks are scaling back
their credit, while stressed companies are cutting their investments.
7. Progress may require a PARA. Private
Asset Reconstruction Companies
(ARCs) haven’t proved any more
successful than banks in resolving bad debts. But international experience
shows that a professionally run central
agency with government backing –
while not without its own difficulties -- can overcome the difficulties that have
impeded progress.
The
observations “Like all financial firms, central banks hold capital to provide a
buffer against the risks they take…. Measuring these risks and calculating how
much buffer should be provided against them is difficult. For that reason,
central bank capital holdings vary widely. RBI is an outlier (in shareholder
equity to assets ratio) with an equity share of about 32 per cent, second only
to Norway and well above that of the US Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank of England, whose ratios are less than 2 per
cent. If the RBI were to move even to the median of the sample (16 per cent),
this would free up a substantial amount of capital to be deployed for
recapitalizing the PSBs,” contained in the Economic Survey 2015-16 was contested
on grounds of accuracy of facts and the then RBI Governor Dr Raghuram Rajan had
offered to guide those who wrote Economic Survey to understand RBI Balance
Sheet (Dr Rajan kept his word and did
exactly what he promised, in a speech he delivered in Delhi the day before he
completed his three year tenure as RBI Governor and returned to academia. )
Suffice to say, those who are aware
of the interlink between RBI’s balance
sheet and GOI finances are not in favour of
using the RBI’s capital and reserves to fund the non-performing assets
(NPAs) of public sector banks.
Budget 2017-18
Finance Minister Arun
Jaitley in his Budget speech made the following observations:
“The focus on resolution of stressed legacy accounts
of Banks continues. The legal framework
has been strengthened to facilitate resolution, through the enactment of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the amendments to the SARFAESI and Debt
Recovery Tribunal Acts. In line with the
‘Indradhanush’ roadmap, I have
provided ` 10,000 crores for recapitalisation of Banks in 2017-18. Additional allocation will be provided, as
may be required.
Listing and trading of
Security Receipts issued by a securitization company or a reconstruction
company under the SARFAESI Act will be permitted in SEBI registered stock
exchanges. This will enhance capital flows into the securitization industry and
will particularly be helpful to deal with bank NPAs.”
FM doesn’t look keen on taking
forward the Economic Survey ideas about managing stressed assets so soon. In a
post-budget interview, he said a bad bank is a potential solution but it cannot
be supported by the government alone. He also said that he won’t be able to
comment on what solution will eventually emerge. Possibly Jaitley has in view
the impact of bad bank funding on macroeconomic stability. The finance minister
has committed to a fiscally balanced budget with a fiscal deficit target of
3.2% for 2017-18, government-debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) target of 60%
by 2023 and net market borrowing target of Rs3.5 trillion in 2017-18. These
commitments do not account for bad bank funding.
The creation of a bad bank will put
pressure on government finances at least initially. Even if the government
funds only 20% of stressed assets in the banking system, it would have a heavy
impact on the net market borrowing target in 2017-18. This will adversely
affect achieving committed targets for fiscal deficit and
government-debt-to-GDP ratio.
On March 15, 2017,
addressing the first meeting of the Consultative Committee constituted by the Reserve Bank of India, attached
to the Ministry of Finance, FM Jaitley said that dealing with NPAs was a
challenging task. According to him the he core problem of NPAs was with very
large corporates, though few in numbers, predominantly in the steel, power,
infrastructure and textile sectors. On the issue of setting up a ‘bad bank’,
Jaitley said that several possible alternatives exist and the issue is being
debated on public platforms. The
government was also considering setting up more Oversight Committees that would
look into cases referred to it by different banks.
Reserve Bank’s perception
Speech delivered by RBI Deputy
Governor Viral Acharya at the Indian Banks’ Association Banking Technology
Conference held in Mumbai, on February 21, 2017 would guide us on the present
thinking within RBI about handling stressed assets of banking system. Viral
Acharya said there is a “sense of urgency” to decisively resolve Indian banks’
stressed assets. One of his proposed solutions is the creation of a Private
Asset Management Company (PAMC) for sectors in which assets are economically
unviable in the short-to-medium term, like the power sector. Acharya feels, this
plan
would be suitable for
sectors where the stress is such that assets are likely to have economic value
in the short run, with moderate levels of debt forgiveness.
Let us not institutionalize a bad idea
The bad bank idea, which was mooted last year
didn’t find favour with the then RBI governor Raguram Rajan. The change of guard
at Mint Road together with the compulsions arising from the severity of the bad
loan problem plaguing the system, which has not so far been responding much to
normal ‘treatment’, helped media and analysts to make a second attempt.
Theoretically, a bad bank or an asset management
company could be set up with government money to buy non-performing assets from
banks. By transferring dead loans to the
bad bank, banks become free of providing
for these loans and making efforts to recover whatever is left recoverable.
This would also free up precious capital which could then be used to boost
credit flow to industry. But, banks with huge amount of stressed assets are
also big enough to do whatever a newly constituted institution can do to make
them perform or close the accounts after recovery of whatever part is
recoverable. With appropriate legislative and legal support from GOI in the
same manner banks form consortiums to lend to large projects banks can make
joint efforts to pool resources and make joint recovery efforts. Such joint
efforts will reduce the chances of borrowers shifting from one bank to another
for softer treatment in regard to financial discipline.
Any proposal to institutionalize stressed assets raise questions like, who will pay for the potential
losses? If banks are willing to sell loans at a haircut, wouldn’t it make more
sense to allow asset reconstruction firms, which have the required expertise in
this area, to be major players?
Like the disinclination to repay unleashed by
agricultural loan waivers, the very concept of a GOI-owned “bad bank” does
create the problem of moral hazard as it creates incentives for banks to be
reckless. The responsibility to recover or ‘provide for’ loans disbursed going
bad should remain with the lender. Shifting this responsibility to another
institution and funding the losses from taxpayers’ money raises the more serious question of public
perception and potential damage to the government’s reputation.
*****************************************
Comments