Showing posts with label Financial Sector Reforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial Sector Reforms. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Is government implementing reforms to cement economic recovery?



The medium term policy cum fiscal policy strategy statement, that forms the part of the budget documents states that the "Government has initiated structural reforms both on the supply and the demand side." It is argued that these structural reforms "have fiscal implications and are important tools to boost economic performance" and the "impact of these measures initiated is anticipated to have spill-over effect in the next financial year."
By implication, the government is claiming that the short term growth has been sacrificed to cement the high growth trajectory in the medium term. The statement claims that "the measures initiated by the Government to cement the economic recovery are anticipated to have effects in the next FY as well."
This leads me to revisit the debate whether the administrative changes to improve efficiency & eliminate redundancies; and incremental changes in the current practices, policies and programs could be terms as "structural reform". Besides, it is also critical to examine, whether the incremental changes made in FY20, are adequate to launch a sustained economic recovery in FY21.
As per the Macro-Economic Framework Statement for FY21, the government implemented the following measures that are claimed as "structural reforms" in the medium term policy cum fiscal policy strategy statement.
  • Hike in minimum support price of agricultural crops for 2019-20;
  • Reduction in corporate tax rate;
  • Policy initiatives for development of textiles & handicrafts and electric vehicles;
  • Outreach programme for growth, expansion and facilitation of micro, small and medium enterprises;
  • Incentives for start-ups in India;
  • Scheme to provide a one-time partial credit guarantee to public sector banks(PSBs) for purchase of pooled assets of financially sound non-banking financial companies (NBFCs);
  • Recapitalization of public sector banks;
  • Relaxation of external commercial borrowing guidelines for affordable housing;
  • Realty fund worth Rs250bn for stalled housing projects;
  • Additional tax deduction of interest for affordable housing;
  • Merger of 10 public sector banks into four entities;
  • Revised Priority Sector Lending (PSL) norms for exports;
  • Streamlining of many labor laws at the central government level;
  • Steps to boost manufacturing; employment generation; financial inclusion; digital payments; improving ease of doing business via schemes such as Make in India, Skill India and Direct Benefit Transfer; and
  • Announcement of the National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP) of projects worth Rs1.02trn, which will commence in phases from 2020-21 to 2024-25.
    In my view, most of these measures do not even pass the muster for being called reforms. Treating them "structural reform" would be a grave mistake.....to continue

Friday, September 6, 2019

Debating the slowdown - 3

Continuing from yesterday (see here)
To understand whether the current economic slowdown is structural or cyclical; and whether the problem stems from the demand side of the supply side, I must understand the meaning of this jargon. Not being an economist, I would like to define this jargon from my own prism to suit my layman understanding.
Structural economic slowdown, in my view, means that current economic activity is the best that can be achieved within the current social, legislative, political and economic context. To achieve higher growth that the present level, material improvements (know as structural reforms in common parlance) would be needed in all these spheres at policy, administration and execution levels.
Cyclical economic slowdown on the hand means a temporary disequilibrium between the forces of demand and supply resulting in demand destruction.
A disproportionate change in demand usually occurs due to excess liquidity, change in rates, changes in fiscal incentives, fear of unusual supply changes in near future, etc. Such change in demand that is not matched by proportionate change in supply invariably leads to changes in prices and eliminates the demand from the marginal buyers or marginal producers.
Similarly, a disproportionate change in the supply may occur due to excessive capacity building in anticipation of future demand; disruptions in supply caused by natural events, legislative changes, geo-political conditions or civil unrest etc.
The cyclical slowdown is reversed as the forces of demand and supply return to the state of equilibrium through policy intervention and/or rebalancing of market forces. Usually no material policy changes are needed to manage the cyclical slowdown.
In my view, the slowdown witnessed in Indian economy is structural and would need material improvements in social, political, legislative and economic context of the country.
Damage to economic structure
In my view, the seeds of this slowdown were sown during the NDA regime led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998-2004). The tenure started with the big blast (May 1998 nuclear test) and was punctuated by major initiatives like NELP (hydrocarbon exploration), SEZ (key reforms in land, labor and tax laws in select zones), NHDP (highways), PMGSY (rural roads), AAY (food security for poor), SGRY (employment for rural poor), SSA (primary education for all), airports privatization, port privatization, Electricity Act 2003, spread of mobile telephoney, 100% FDI in core sectors, etc.
These initiatives excited the global investors at a time when Indian IT professionals were making big impression on global technology canvass. A supportive regime, Y2K problem, easy credit post LTCM and Asian crisis (rates lowest since 1970s) and depressed commodity prices (inflation lowest in decades) helped big investment initiatives.
The problem was that many of these programs were initiated hurriedly without putting an adequate institutional mechanism in place, thus leaving the scope for misuse (of discretionary powers by minister and bureaucrats), litigation (ownership of natural resources), misappropriation (of natural resources by scrupulous allottees), non-compliance (environment and sustainability norms) and wide viability gaps (absence of immediate demand) and thus planting the seeds of financial stress, economic slowdown, mistrust and corruption. Subsequent UPA government watered and nourished these seeds well.
The advanced demand for infrastructure (as distinguished from "need" for infrastructure) impacted sustainability of many large businesses and eventually resulted in near collapse of PSBs and widespread collateral damage to the entire supply chain.
In particular, the road and power sectors are still reeling under the stress.
Damage to the social structure
It is clear that our society has defied the classic Maslow's evolutionary pyramid. It is moving directly from sustenance to aspirational consumption. The demand thus created is neither desirable nor sustainable.
I see that in rural and semi-urban areas, motor cycle has replaced bicycle as a mandatory dowry item. These days, it is almost impossible to marry your daughter if you cannot afford a motorcycle and smart phone in dowry. Many old aged villagers argue that it is a collateral damage of better road and telecommunication connectivity. The road and information highways have taken the markets to people in remotest of the areas, but little efforts have been invested in enhancing the skill and awareness level of the people. Employability and earning potential has not improved commensurate with the aspirations. The social structure is thus damaged.
Secondly, the youngest demography in the world is like a vast reservoir of unexploited energy. If not channelized properly, it can destroy the very core of our social fabric. The rising number of poorly educated, inadequately skilled underemployed, unemployed and employed in disguise youth is no strength for the economy. It is indeed a serious weakness.
On one hand, India is failing in her duties towards the international community (see here); on the other hand we seems to be fast running out of ideas for managing this vast and invaluable resource for our economic good. Rise in petty crimes, instances of civil unrest, deterioration in general compliance standards are just few prominent consequences.
People are spending on motor bikes, smart phones, SUVs, tractors, wedding & birthday celebrations, compromising on food, health, education & training, and shelter needs.
This is raising three damaging trends in the socio-economic milieu of the country:
(a)   Even the people who are better off in absolute monetary terms frustrated and cynical than ever.
(b)   There is an increasing tendency to depend on the State for meeting basic needs.
(c)    The consequent financial stress is gnawing into traditional Indian ethos, where defaulting on debt is considered one of the greatest sin. These days it is not uncommon to see people not only willfully defaulting on loans but also encouraging others to do so.
Distortions created by political structure
The pseudo socialist and quasi feudal nature of our democracy often leads to wasteful expenditure. The policies and plans focused on winning an elections rather than achieving sustainable economic growth and development result in serious misallocation of capital and sub-optimal of resources.
We have seen politicians creating undue and totally unsustainable demand for color televisions, smart phones, laptop computers etc. by manipulating the process of democracy.
We need a political organization that fully assimilates the aspirations of the people, addresses specific local problems, promotes mutual trust & harmony, bars incompetence and knavery from public office, and insures that the best is selected and prepared to rule for the common good.
The legislative problem
Since 1976, our governments have been constitutionally mandated to be "Socialist". Any legislation or policy of the government must pass the test of socialism before being implemented. This constitutional commitment often conflicts with the ideas of free markets, global competition, liberalization, etc. To avoid this conflict the governments mostly try to include a multitude of safeguards any policy framework that is intended to promote free markets and competitive enterprise.
Consequently, we find most of our economic legislations complex and ambivalent, adding the element of unpredictability to the economic decisions. Frequent revisions, roll back and totally avoidable litigations is the outcome of this conflict.
We would need to address all these problems before our economy can move to a higher orbit of growth.
I would like to share my thoughts on material improvements (reforms) that may be considered to make structural corrections to the economy next week.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Learn from history, don't repeat it

 
"The man who has done his level best... is a success, even though the world may write him down a failure."
—B. C. Forbes (Scottish Journalist, 1880-1954)
Word for the day
Consent (v)
To permit, approve, or agree.
 
First thought this morning
The salvaging of erstwhile Satyam Computer is a classical case study in successful government intervention in corporate affairs. The intervention was swift, bold and effective. The troubled company was not only salvaged, its future growth was also ensured. Jobs of all 50 thousands employees were saved.
US government has also been doing similar interventions. More particularly, in the wake of global financial crisis, US administration acted swiftly and salvaged some large corporations like Merril Lynch, General Electric, General Motors, AIG, CITI, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac savings a large number of jobs and resources. In hindsight, most of the companies bailed out under US TARP program turned out to be profitable. As per data available till February 2019, against the total TARP (Troubled Asset Relief program) bailout disbursement of US$632bn to 980 entities, a total of US$739bn have already been returned through repayments, dividend and interest resulting in a net profit of US$107bn or a return of 1.54% CAGR for the government, which is not too bad considering the near zero rate environment in US for most part of last one decade. Still an amount of US$242bn is outstanding to be recovered from 322 entities. Implying two third of the TARP recipients have successfully exited TARP. (See details)
On fails to understand, why the past successful experience have not been used in salvaging big businesses like IL&FS and Jet Airways, especially when a large number of jobs are at stake and the underlying business still makes sense.
If market rumors are to be believed, we may see some more large sized business going the Jet way, especially in financial services space.
For those who are jittery about the prospects of a third front government, it may be a pertinent to note that at the time of Satyam salvation, the decision maker was a minister in UPA government from Lalu Prasad Yadav's RJD party. TARP was implemented by a businessman from Texas (POTUS George Bush Jr), not particularly known for sophistication, suaveness or oratory skills.
Chart of the day

Learn from history, don't repeat it
I mentioned in my notes earlier this month (see here and here), that India may be standing at the threshold of an industrial revolution of its own. If the present trend continues, we may soon see the share of manufacturing in the national income rising materially.
The fear is that the current trend may reverse abruptly, just like it did in mid 1990s, and we may revert to lower 5-6% growth orbit. At this point in time I strongly disagree with this rather pessimistic and deeply prejudiced opinion. Nonetheless, I find it relevant to study more about the history of industrial development in India to find the fault lines that may still exit to derail the growth of manufacturing sector in India.
One interesting this that I noted was the role of three main development financial institutions (ICICI, IDBI and IFCI) in creating a foundation for Indian manufacturing sector as well as the financial services infrastructure. Institutions like NSE, NSDL, SHCIL, CARE, EXIM Bank, SIDBI, SCICI, CRISIL, HDFC, TDICI, TFCI etc., were promoted by these institutions.
All the three institutions suffered huge NPAs in the 1990s due to a variety of reasons, especially capacity creation in commodities like steel, fertilizer, textile becoming unviable.
Narasimham Committee on Financial Sector Reforms noted that in a market driven economy, the sustenance of DFIs may not be viable, since these institutions may be raising funds at current market rates and lending to businesses with long gestation and often high risk of failure, therefore incurring high credit cost. These institutions cannot function as pure commercial entities unless adequately supported by the government. Accordingly, the Committee recommended DFIs should be converted either to a bank or a NBFC and should be subject to full rigour of RBI regulations as applicable to respective categories. Further, no DFI should be established in future without the Central Government support. Accordingly, both ICICI and IDBI were converted into commercial banks, and IFCI was converted into an NBFC.
Another reason for doing away with these DFIs was the feeling that since the banking system has acquired the skills in managing risks in extending finance to different sectors of the economy including the long-term finance and capital market, providing larger significant resources to the corporate sector, the need for the DFIs as an exclusive provider of the development finance has diminished.
In past 15yrs, since end of IDBI, a new category of infrastructure finance companies (specialized NFBCs) and government supported DFI like India Infrastructure Finance Company (IIFCL) have emerged. But the current NPA cycle has impacted almost all banks and most NBFCs. The impact on banks and some NBFCs is as bad as it was in case of DFIs, if not more.
I feel that we need to study the evolution of financial sector in India in depth. Drawing lessons from the present and previous NPS cycles and assimilating the emerging financing needs, a new paradigm needs to be evolved in the financial sector. At present there is no specialized institution for manufacturing sector financing and funding of digital economy.
My understanding so far suggests that we do need highly specialized development financial institution for manufacturing, infrastructure and digital sectors. These institutions must be supported adequately by the government, but managed professionally. Leaving this space entirely to commercial banks and NBFCs may not be appropriate. That is if we really care about history and believe that historical mistakes are for learning and not for repeating.
To begin with large commercial banks like ICICI, HDFC, AXIS and SBI may partner with the government to promote a Manufacturing Finance and Credit Institution (MFCI) to meet long term funding needs of manufacturing units competing with global peers.