Pointers To A Future-Ready Payments Policy

Regulation, almost always, lags technology development. But an opportunity to create a future-ready policy framework now seems close at hand

Events over the past few weeks have thrown up numerous pointers to what should be included in a future payments-system policy framework.

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) 2017-18 annual report provided the first clue, proving a well-known policy paradigm: competition and freedom of choice are essential tools to avoid distorting markets and the broad economy. An overnight ban on Rs500 and Rs1,000 bank notes—accounting for about 85% of outstanding currency—dealt a body-blow to the economy in terms of jobs, incomes, livelihoods, investment appetite and overall economic growth. The ruinous effects manifested themselves last week: gross domestic product for April-June quarter grew by only 5.7%, the lowest in many quarters.

Demonetisation amounted to suppression of free choice—or freedom to decide how much cash to use, for which transactions—though different reasons were adduced to justify the decision. One of the reasons cited, which has persisted into the post-demonetisation period, is a desire to foster digital payments and to migrate the economy to a less-cash system.

This is a desirable economic objective. However, the policy vectors put in place reveal multiple gaps: lack of a robust competition and innovation policy; uncertainty over the payment regulator’s quasi-legislative powers; an unclear road map for achieving financial inclusion; and, an asymmetric preference hierarchy between different payment systems imposed on the consumer. The last one violates democratic principles by coercing the public to move away from a relatively low-cost payment system (such as cash) to a higher cost platform (such as, mobile wallets which involve connectivity costs).

The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) recent ruling on right to privacy as a fundamental right is likely to complicate the regulatory debate further and might necessitate a systems rethink. The judgement reads: “The balance between data regulation and individual privacy raises complex issues requiring delicate balances to be drawn between the legitimate concerns of the State on one hand and individual interest in the protection of privacy on the other.” The nine-judge bench, while acknowledging that the Centre has already appointed a committee under former SC judge B.N. Srikrishna to study the state of India’s data privacy and to submit a draft bill, hopes that the Union government will take “all necessary and proper steps”.

Still, the right to privacy ruling in itself does set out a future regulatory perimeter for digital financial services. The bench found some pointers in a 2012 report from an expert group on privacy, appointed by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Specifically, the report mentions a five-pillar conceptual scaffolding for drafting legislation to protect privacy: technological neutrality and inter-operability with international standards, which is still lacking; multi-dimensional privacy; horizontal applicability to state and non-state entities to ensure a level-playing field; conformity with privacy principles in line with global best practices; and a co-regulatory enforcement regime which envisages co-existence of independent regulators and self-regulating organizations. Ironically, some of these issues are still being debated in the policy space.

There are multiple views on what to make of SC’s judgement; for example, Chennai’s IFMR Trust, soon after the SC ruling, published a blog advocating stakeholder consultation to determine what kinds of data can and should be collected, the desirable regulatory regime for data mining and algorithmic techniques and a legislative terrain to “ensure that use of personal data is tied to legitimate proportional objectives and interests”.

There is another critical, and slightly obvious, ingredient necessary in the future regulatory mix: trust. This was evident when digital payments spiked during November-December 2016 and then tapered off subsequently; people abhor repression and any attempts to increase the value and volume of digital payments must be achieved through trust, not duress. Regulation must have a consumer bias and should not be designed to favour some service providers.

Lack of trust in paper money issued by sovereigns, and controlled by central banks, is growing as is wider acceptance of crypto-currencies. Already six large global banks—Barclays, Credit Suisse, HSBC, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, State Street and the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group—have jointly launched a project to use block-chain for clearing and settling financial transactions, reducing time taken for conventional money transfers.

While bitcoins and other crypto-assets are still in an embryonic state in India, the pace of acceptance is slowly picking up. Many community-based initiatives have been advocating block-chain as an alternative to organized finance, viewed as exploitative. The finance ministry appointed a nine-member inter-disciplinary committee to suggest the way forward with crypto-currencies; the committee has submitted its report, which has not been made public yet. Eventually, though, RBI will have to decide whether it will allow money to also exist as crypto-currency, in addition to its role as a commodity (with or without intrinsic value), a financial claim and/or as an accounting entry.

Regulation, almost always, lags technology development. But an opportunity to create a future-ready policy framework now seems close at hand.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on September 6, 2017, and can also be read here

The Republic of Statistical Scramble

Straightening out data inconsistencies should be a government priority

Many a caustic word has been exchanged in the acrimonious debate over the Indian economy’s employment data. One set of numbers claims the current phase of economic growth as jobless. Alternative data sets have accompanied vigorous assertions of rising employment. And then there are many in the middle, trying to make sense of the scant (and outdated) data and wondering how anybody reached any conclusion at all.

Welcome to the republic of statistical scramble in the age of Big Data. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) 2014 election victory was predicated partly on the promise of enhanced economic well-being; straightening out data inconsistencies should be a priority on the path to fulfilling that promise.

Take a look at labour data. Currently, employment data is collated from different surveys, each one measuring different things using varied methodologies. NITI Aayog’s task force on improving employment data recently released the first draft of its report, which lists how several arms of the government get involved in collecting and mashing up data. The report is unequivocal about the current state of data collection: “The available estimates are either out-dated or based on surveys with design flaws that render them unsuitable for inferring nationwide employment level.”

On the demand side, the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), in the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (Mospi), conducts a comprehensive household survey once every five years, with the last one occurring in 2011-12. The labour bureau in the ministry of labour and employment also conducts two household surveys—a quarterly quick employment survey and another on an annual basis. These are in addition to the decadal population census surveys, which measure two variables: a headcount of all types of workers at 10-year intervals and all non-agricultural enterprises, regardless of size.

On the jobs supply side, Mospi conducts a statutory annual industries survey for units registered under the Factories Act, 1948. NSSO also conducts an unorganized units survey; this is in addition to the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) census conducted by the MSME ministry. Finally, various government administrative bodies, such as the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) or Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), provide some indication of organized sector employment trends (though this is being increasingly undermined by growing preference for contract labour). In addition, there are some private sector surveys also—for example, by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy.

All these measures suffer from some infirmity, whether it’s methodological, unviable sample size, inability to distinguish between different types of employment, long gaps or irregular frequencies. But one thing is common: the findings only provide a partial picture and are therefore useless as a tool for policy design. Part two of the Economic Survey says: “The lack of reliable estimates on employment in recent years has impeded its measurement and thereby the Government faces challenges in adopting appropriate policy interventions.”

The NSSO has, in the meantime, begun a fresh, ambitious annual exercise to map all nature of employment data; a quarterly survey will generate similar estimates for urban areas. In its report, NITI Aayog has recommended, among other things, vast improvements to existing surveys, institutional and legislative changes, overhauling physical and digital infrastructure and more aggressive use of technology to crunch the time-gap. 

But the study might need to extend beyond employment data because statistical distortions also exist in other areas. NITI Aayog provides an example about the state of statistical confusion: each enterprise, while filing returns or statutory information, is assigned a different identification number under Good and Services Tax Network, EPFO, ESIC, Factories Act and Shops and Establishment Act.

This problem is not restricted to enterprise data and exists in other government departments as well. Take the example of estimating the cotton crop. Two separate ministries release two separate estimates every year.

The agriculture ministry’s cotton crop estimate for 2015-16 was 30.15 million bales of 170kg each, while the textile ministry’s estimate for the same year was 33.8 million bales—that’s a difference of 620 million kg! In the previous year, 2014-15, the estimates put out by the two ministries were 34.8 million bales and 38 million bales, respectively. This divergence seems bewildering, especially when acreage estimates from both the ministries broadly tally.

Forget discrepancies between ministries: this paper had reported (goo.gl/vsYGzc) how cotton yield figures differ widely within the agriculture ministry. There have also been reports (goo.gl/fd9adW) about vastly varying data on the number of taxpayers added since demonetization emerging from different parts of the government. Mismatch between data sets from within the government also breeds scepticism regarding the statistical robustness of national accounting, especially when anecdotal evidence seems contra to buoyant gross domestic product data.

India’s magnificent statistical heritage distinguishes the nation from its neighbours, whose growth record is often viewed with scepticism globally. This infrastructure needs an urgent overhaul to maintain credibility, perceive economic trends and deliver appropriate policy prescriptions.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on August 23, 2017, and can also be read here

RBI’s Studied Silence Over External Vulnerabilities

Critics are questioning the wisdom of the RBI after a 25 basis point reduction in benchmark interest rates fell short of capital market expectations

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) 25 basis point reduction in benchmark interest rates fell short of capital market expectations. They were expecting a deeper cut but the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) played safe, given uncertainty surrounding the future inflationary path. Critics are questioning the wisdom of the central bank and its MPC.

MPC members surely deserve to be cut some slack. But, in the general din over low food inflation, insufficient interest rate cuts and RBI’s unchanged neutral policy stance, the central bank’s policy statement omitted mention of a small crimp: a tsunami of portfolio flows, another possible source of inflationary pressures. The central bank’s studied silence about external vulnerabilities raises many questions.

This rush of foreign currency has forced RBI to take steps which have disappointed overseas debt markets and investors: for instance, rules have been tightened for issuing masala bonds through introduction of maturity floors and interest rate caps. This comes when masala bonds were gaining popularity with both issuers and investors. In another (though seemingly unrelated) circular, the RBI has sought to elongate the maturity profile of investments by foreign portfolio investors (FPI) in government bonds. Capital markets regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), followed through with another circular, ordering a temporary stop to future masala bond issuances.

The RBI has probably sensed higher risk—in terms of both rates and exposures—in the opening of masala bond floodgates, especially after offshore arms of certain Indian companies raised foreign currency loans in overseas markets and then on-lent the proceeds to domestic entities as rupee bonds. This structure defeats the entire purpose of shielding Indian borrowers from exchange rate volatility since it provides original lenders with an indirect claim on domestic assets.

Sebi’s rationale is that FPI investments in corporate bonds have reached close to the limit of Rs244,323 crore. This ceiling includes all rupee-denominated bonds, offshore or on-shore. The regulator’s circular also states that masala bond investments can resume only after limit utilization falls below 92%.

RBI’s rear-guard action also probably stems from the combined effect of two other reports—its own report on India’s external debt and the annual External Sector Report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Both sound circumspect about India’s rising short-term foreign debt levels. The IMF reports states: “Given that portfolio debt flows have been volatile and the exchange rate has been sensitive to these flows and changes in global risk aversion, attracting more stable sources of financing is needed to reduce vulnerabilities… Further initiatives on creating a more conducive business environment, particularly the implementation of long-standing labour market and power sector reforms, are necessary to attract greater FDI flows.”

FPI investments in equity and debt markets saw combined net inflows of Rs171,581 crore till July end. This is six times more than the Rs27,055 crore invested by FPIs during the same period of 2016. This surge had rupee appreciating by almost 5.8% between 2 January and 31 July.

Such large inflows put RBI’s absorption skills to the test. First, it has to intervene in the foreign exchange market to absorb foreign currency inflows so that portfolio investments do not push up the rupee-dollar rate beyond its sustainable and economic value. The resultant overhang of rupee liquidity then requires a second defensive action: the RBI has to mop up liquidity through a variety of instruments. For example, in the 11 working days between 17 July and 29 July, RBI absorbed Rs405,228 crore. Sterilization has its costs, especially when central banks sell high-yield domestic instruments while buying relatively low-yielding foreign currency assets. There are also fiscal implications.

The central bank’s woes do not end here: it needs to calibrate another two-step dance. The RBI’s remonetization exercise is still far from complete but it is unable to accomplish that at full tilt, given the wash of domestic liquidity. At the same time, it has to ensure that there is enough liquidity to make up for lost productivity during demonetization. Both will require precision and fine-tuning. Plus, it needs to ensure there’s just enough liquidity to keep yields soft.

There’s another dilemma. The FPI investment limit in corporate bonds was fixed when the exchange rate was below Rs50 to a dollar and common sense dictates a re-calculation of the limit. But the central bank is not doing that just yet, given that its hands are full trying to staunch current inflows.

Times like these are ripe for conspiracy theories. There are misgivings that RBI’s efforts could be an indirect attempt to ensure borrowers do not export the domestic bank credit market to offshore centres. While bank credit growth remains anaemic, Bloomberg data shows Indian companies raised $8.9 billion through overseas bond sales till July, 63% higher than the previous year. It is believed many companies took advantage of tightening spreads and used foreign currency bond sales to refinance domestic bank exposures, thereby intensifying balance of payments risks.

The MPC statement omits mention of external sector developments. Hopefully, the RBI will separately provide a more comprehensive communication that details the risks and the mitigation measures.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on August 9, 2017, and can also be read here

No Quick-Fix Solutions for Accumulated NPAs

The amendment to the Banking Regulation Act has failed to provide relief from the government’s latest scheme for cleaning up accumulated NPAs

Those expecting immediate relief from the government’s latest scheme for cleaning up accumulated non-performing assets (NPAs) might have to wait some more. Going by some statements and interviews to media, it may have seemed that a quick-fix was at hand. Nothing could be further from the truth: what has accrued over so many years is unlikely to vanish with the mere snapping of fingers.

The government’s latest weapon against NPAs is an amendment to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which is expected to invest banks with some freedom in resolving bad loans without inviting the prosecutorial gaze of central investigative agencies.

NPAs have become a stumbling block in all attempts to re-ignite the economy. Bank credit growth has slowed, affecting capacity creation and expansion—bank credit grew only 5.1% during year to March 2017, against 10.3% in the previous year. The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) latest Financial Stability Report shows stressed assets (sum of gross NPAs and restructured assets) at 12.3% of assets by September-end 2016. After factoring in demonetisation’s adverse impact and the prolonged economic stasis, this ratio would have further deteriorated by March 2017. This has forced banks to turn risk-averse.

The amendment to the Banking Regulation Act is therefore expected to provide some relief. Unfortunately, the measure has failed to generate unstinted optimism as expected. The reason is that some bugs exist that could slow down progress in the short run.

At one level, the entire exercise is designed as a signalling system, indicating the government’s and the central bank’s resolve to straighten out what seemed like an intractable problem. It also signals that both parties are prepared to support banks’ attempts to resolve this crisis.

But the government itself nullified this confidence-building exercise with another adverse signal—two senior bankers heading two large public sector banks (PSBs) were transferred to smaller entities, signalling a demotion. This was done overnight, without informing either the individual bank boards or the autonomous Banks Board Bureau. Trust plays a large role in any signalling exercise and the latest order just chipped away at the first step to building trust with bankers.

The second crimp is PSBs’ lack of balance-sheet muscle to tackle the volume of NPAs. The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 2017 Article IV report on India shows that while aggressive NPA recognition by PSBs turned their return on assets negative in 2015-16, aggregate provisioning coverage ratio still remained low, indicating weak capital bases. The IMF report also shows that PSBs are content writing off loans rather than recovering them—a commentary on the numerous, though deficient, stressed asset resolution mechanisms. The short point is this: banks are unlikely to get aggressive with NPA resolution unless there is capital within sight.

The government, on its part, has drawn up a three-pronged plan to meet its capital infusion responsibility: limited capital infusion depending on performance criteria, merging some of the larger banks, and asking banks to source balance capital from capital markets. All these measures are time-consuming and the pace of capital flow is likely to determine the speed of resolution.

The third problem lies in the wording of the amendment. The government has inserted Section 35AA in the Act, which states: “The Central Government may by order authorise the Reserve Bank to issue directions to any banking company or companies to initiate insolvency resolution in respect of a default, under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.” This is followed by a paragraph stating, “Without prejudice to the provisions of section 35A, the Reserve Bank may, from time to time, issue directions to the banking companies for resolution of stressed assets.” The RBI will also create committees of experts to advise banks.

Two issues spring to mind immediately.

First, the amendment does not explicitly insulate bankers from future persecution, nor is there any implicit signal. The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which includes provisions for such a shield, is stuck in Rajya Sabha. Therefore, till there is clarity on where the buck stops—the Centre, the RBI, the committee of experts appointed by RBI or the bankers—progress is likely to be slow.

Second, the amendment is unclear about how the Centre proposes to take the resolution forward: will the government monitor each individual asset resolution or provide an umbrella order enabling the RBI to calibrate its action depending on the merits of each case?

Both possibilities have consequences. In the first instance, there are risks of government being accused of cronyism. In the second, the central bank (or its appointed committee) will be exposed to scrutiny from investigative agencies, which may be detrimental for any central bank.

Finally, if all the above do fall into place, there is still one snag: capacity constraint at the National Company Law Tribunals. Of the 700 cases filed with the tribunals, only 70 have been admitted. Moreover, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has ruled (as reported by this newspaper) that the 14-day deadline for admitting or rejecting a proposal is not binding, though once admitted, the case has to be resolved in the mandatory 270-day period.

Make no mistake: there is definite movement towards resolution. But, as mentioned earlier, do not expect miracles.

This article was originally published in Mint newspaper on May 17, 2017, and can be read here