Skip to main content

Banks opposed to changes in MCLR calculation: Reserve Bank of India

Banks opposed to changes in MCLR calculation: Reserve Bank of India
The banks proposed, that more "ideal benchmark could be constructed based on deposit rates of the banking system as a whole" Banks are opposed to the move to link marginal cost-based lending rate (MCLR) to an external, market-linked benchmark, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has revealed in a rare dissemination of feedback on its website.
While it is standard practice for RBI-appointed committees to prepare their reports and seek feedback, those are not publicly disclosed, except in this case. The internal study group, looking at the issue of effective monetary transmission, proposed in October 2017 that banks must take into account either of the three external benchmarks — the treasury bill rate, the certificate of deposit (CD) rate and the RBI’s policy repo rate from April 1, 2018.
These proposals were met with resistance from Day One, with bankers commenting publicly that such linking was not possible when a bank’s deposit rates are not linked to the market rate. In an addendum on its website, the internal group said indeed such an asymmetry exists in the banking system, as depositors are not ready to invest in floating rate deposits. “The IBA (Indian Banks’ Association) and banks, in general, have expressed that the MCLR system is working well and it should continue.
All banks, barring some foreign ones, are of the view that none of the three external benchmarks recommended by the study group can be adopted in the near- to medium-run, since banks’ funding cost is not related directly to any of the proposed external benchmarks,” the addendum said. Banks argued that loans of most lenders are funded primarily by retail deposits and not from the wholesale market as was the practice abroad.
“Therefore, if interest rates on deposits remain sticky, banks cannot lend at rates linked to an external benchmark, which may change every day, unless they manage this interest rate risk well,” the addendum said. They argued in the absence of an effectiv interest rate swaps (IRS) market, banks cannot hedge the risk, for either their profitability will come under pressure or spreads will be higher than necessary as a compensation for interest rate risk.
“Banks have also highlighted that in the absence of a reliable term money market, use of any benchmark will leave the discretion on pricing the term premiums with the banks,” the paper said. Rather, the banks proposed, that more “ideal benchmark could be constructed based on deposit rates of the banking system as a whole”. Banks also said the reset period for computation of MCLR could not be fixed on a quarterly basis always.
The current practice was to match the tenor of the loan with a one-year reset period, thereby addressing the interest rate risk in the banking book. “Moreover, Indian Accounting Standards (IndAS) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) also suggest compatibility between tenor of the loan and reset period. Even if an external benchmark is adopted, the reset period should be linked to the tenor of the underlying external benchmark.”
While longer reset periods increase transmission lags, shorter resets increase interest rate risk for banks. Besides, customers would be averse to such frequent revision on their interest payment obligation, too. Banks added “in a deregulated interest rate environment, spread over the benchmark – be it internal or external – must be the exclusive domain of commercial banks.”
The spread could not be fixed forever for a variety of loans, as credit risk premium was time-varying and expected credit losses do change over time. “According to banks, with the switchover to an external benchmark, the spread decisions may get even more complex, because of the uncertainty about managing interest rate risk, which may partly influence spreads.”
Banks preferred market competition alone to lead to convergence of spreads, and regulatory prescriptions on whether the spread should change or remain fixed would not be in sync with the spirit behind deregulation. Banks, therefore, preferred to continue with the MCLR regime, seeking more time to enable a fuller assessment of its performance on transmission.
“One and a half years, according to banks, is too short a period to assess the effectiveness of a new regime, given the normal lags in transmission.” Rather, banks voluntarily sought a sunset date for base rate customers to be converged to MCLR, something that the RBI policy advocated in its sixth bi-monthly monetary policy review on February 7.
The Business Standard, New Delhi, 12th February 2018

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India Foreign banks are increasingly shrinking their presence in India and are also becoming more conservative than private and public sector counterparts. While many of them have sold some of their businesses in India as part of their global strategy, some are trying to keep their core expertise intact. Others are branching out to newer areas to continue business momentum.For example, HSBC and Barclays Bank in India have got out of the retail business, whereas corporate-focused Standard Chartered Bank is now trying to increase its focus on retail “Building a retail franchise is a huge exercise and takes a long time. You cannot afford to lose it,” said Shashank Joshi, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ’s India head.According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, foreign banks’ combined loan book shrunk nearly 10 per cent from Rs 3.78 trillion in fiscal 2015-16 to Rs 3.42 trillion last financial year. The banking industry, which includes foreign banks…

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector Dealers with turnover of Rs 2 crore and above covered; industry says threshold too low The central government has notified the money laundering rules for the gems and jewellery sector with immediate effect. Now, any entity deals in precious metals, precious stones, or other high-value goods and has a turnover of Rs 2 crore or more in a financial year will be covered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The limit of Rs 2 crore would be calculated on the basis of the previous year’s turnover, said the notification. The directorate general of goods and service tax intelligence has been appointed under the Act. Sources said the government’s move to apply the PMLA to the jewellery sector was a fallout of income-tax raids on jewellers soon after demonetisation last November, when it was found that they sold gold and jewellery at a huge premium and accepted old currency notes as payment. The notification, issued on Augus…

Confusion over branded food GST

Confusion over branded food GST The GST Council's statement over the weekend on applying tax on branded food items has left most of the trade confused.

Even though the Council has not changed the rates on food -0 per cent on unbranded stuff and 5 per cent on brands -many small traders who didn't levy GST earlier said they could come under the 5 per cent slab after the clarification.

While they predicted some increase in consumer prices, large players said they can absorb GST in many ways and keep prices steady.

"Trade is confused and hence on behalf of our chamber, we have asked our members to go ahead and charge 5 per cent GST," said Sushil Sureka, general secretary of the Ahilya Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Indore.

The statement clarifying the application of GST came after some businesses were found deregistering their brands and selling under corporate brand name without paying tax, after the Council exempted unbranded food from the new all-encompassing indirec…