The Mudra scheme has raised the NPA specter for Indian PSU Banks once again, with the NPAs rising at an alarming rate. Mudra loan disbursements by state-owned banks rose to Rs 3.82 lakh crore in 2019-20, from Rs 3.05 lakh crore in 2018-19 and Rs 2.12 lakh crore in 2017-18. NPAs as a percentage of total loans rose to 4.92 per cent in 2019-20 from 3.42 per cent in 2017-18.
There is no mechanism to scrutinise such
schemes, and there is no system of accountability. Independent agencies need to
rate such schemes for its robustness. Currently, most such schemes are put on
display for public commenting and at the most subjected to political debate in
the parliament, which is clearly partisan and only serves to obfuscate, with no clarity on the real merits of the
case. Also, we need the case to be reviewed by independent experts and make the
commentary public.
It is essential to create systems that put
the banks out of politicians reach, and the case for a bail-out or compensation
should only be done in the rarest of rare cases. Also, when any scheme is announced,
it is crucial to anticipate NPAs using a transparent mechanism, and an acceptable
threshold of NPAs must be announced to measure the performance and functioning
of control mechanisms of the banks.
Any excesses must be investigated through
independent forensic audits and institutional penalties must be levied.
Additionally, individuals who have indulged in fraudulent, negligent and
unethical practices must be weeded out and subjected to appropriate legal
action.
There is a much greater need for scrutiny of
banking operations through independent mechanisms. The timing of exercising checks
is also crucial, instead of only doing post-mortems, random sampling for
scrutiny, while disbursements are being made, is an essential check that must be
widely used.
RBI has limited powers when it comes to PSU
banks as compared to private sector banks, and this creates issues in exercising
the right kind of power over them. But the RBI retains the right for issuing
audits and must exercise these when the NPAs exceed a specific limit, and there
are questionable results. The system of regulatory oversight must be strengthened
for PSU banks. Even if the RBI does not have the right to penalise board members
of PSU banks, they can investigate and issue reports and recommendations for
actions. They must exercise these in greater measure.
The independence of the RBI from the
government is meant actually to create this arm’s length relationship, but we
know that the RBI too is not entirely free from the government’s influence. Right
from the recruitment of RBI governors, who are appointed after the proposal made by the Financial Sector Regulatory Appointments Search Committee
(FSRASC), headed by the Cabinet Secretary, to their dismissals, to attempts to
get more government representation on the RBI board the government continually
tries to influence the RBI. While everyone accepts that the RBI’s autonomy is
an essential and accepted governance requirement and must be maintained at all
costs, in practice, there is a constant tussle and meddling.
While some suggest privatisation as the solution, the reality is that private banks are driven by the sole motive of
profit and have their own ways of exploiting the customer base and loopholes
through off-balance sheet liabilities and other fraud mechanisms. So frankly, there
is no substitute for robust regulatory and oversight frameworks that are free
from conflict of interest and impermeable to government interference. Unless we
really think and institute mechanisms with rigour the powerful will continue to
exploit the system for their gains and the system will continue to work through
nefarious means.
No comments:
Post a Comment