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


Popular posts from this blog

At 18%, GST Rate to be Less Taxing for Most Goods

About 70% of all goods and some consumer durables likely to cost less

A number of goods such as cosmetics, shaving creams, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, plastics, paints and some consumer durables could become cheaper under the proposed goods and services tax (GST) regime as most items are likely to be subject to the rate of 18% rather than the higher one of 28%.

India is likely to rely on the effective tax rate currently applicable on a commodity to get a fix on the GST slab, said a government official, allowing most goods to make it to the lower bracket.

For instance, if an item comes within the 12% excise slab but the effective tax is 8% due to abatement, then the latter will be considered for GST fitment.

Going by this formulation, about 70% of all goods could fall in the 18% bracket.

The GST Council has finalised a four-tier tax structure of 5%, 12%, 18% and 28% but has left room for the highest slab to be pegged at 40%. A committee of officials will work out the fitment and the council…

Coffee-Toffee, the GST Debate Continues

Hundreds of crores of rupees in the form of taxes ride on the exact categorisation of products Is Parachute hair oil or edible oil? Is KitKat a chocolate or a biscuit? Is a Vicks tablet medicament or confectionery? For the taxpayer and the tax collector, this is much more than an exercise in semantics -hundreds of crores of rupees ride on the exact categorisation.
As the government moves closer to rolling out the goods and services tax (GST) on July 1, many such distinctions are being debated so that no ambiguity remains. Not just that, the government is revisiting old tax cases that were lost over product categorisation, according to people with knowledge of the matter, presumably with a view to making sure that revenue collections can be maximised. “In the past, several tax officers had challenged some of the product categorisations, including those in the retail segment, but lost out in court or at appellate level,“ said one of the persons. “Now we have a chance to go ahead with speci…

Deposit gush:-CA Institute Bats for Special Audit