The controversial FRDI bill is a much-needed financial system reform. It will only make Indian banks stronger and deposits safer.
Hours after the BJP scraped through to a hard-fought victory in the Gujarat assembly elections Monday, an emotional Prime Minister Narendra Modi told his party colleagues in Delhi that the results were a green signal for his reform agenda. “Support for the BJP shows the nation is ready for the reform agenda… every citizen wants India transformed,” he said.
It seems he ended up speaking a bit too soon. Earlier the same day, Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan had informed the house that the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) bill may not be introduced in Parliament even during the budget session, let alone the ongoing winter session as originally scheduled. The joint committee looking into the bill, Mahajan said, had been given an extension until the last day of the budget session next year.
The speaker couldn’t obviously be expected to say it, but for all practical purposes, the government had postponed dealing with its new financial reform headache that was fast threatening to turn into a serious migraine.
While the government cannot be faulted for turning overcautious in the light of its experience with demonetisation and GST, the growing controversy over the FRDI bill once again underlines the challenge of pursuing financial reform in the face of large-scale financial illiteracy that critics and political rivals are eager to exploit.
The FRDI bill is part of a series of steps being taken by the NDA government to strengthen India’s financial sector. It follows the insolvency and bankruptcy code, and the move to recapitalise public sector banks sinking under the burden of non-performing assets.
The crux of the controversy over the FRDI bill is the safety of the money deposited in banks. As it stands, depositors have an insurance cover of up to Rs 1 lakh against their deposits in banks under the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act of 1961.
The FRDI bill proposes to replace this corporation with the Resolution Corporation, which will decide on the insurance that can be paid to depositors in the event of a bank failing. The limit of Rs 1 lakh was set in 1993 and an increase is long overdue.
The Resolution Corporation will also keep a close watch on the functioning of banks and other financial institutions – non-banking financial companies, insurance companies, mutual funds, stock exchanges, among others – and warn customers about the risk of dealing with them by grading or rating them based on their performance and other financial health parameters.
If a financial institution (FI) starts slipping and its risk profile crosses a threshold, the Resolution Corporation activates norms to stop the FI from failing. If this fails to prevent the FI from sinking, frameworks will be in place to facilitate the merger or takeover of the failing/failed FI. When none of this works, liquidation becomes the only option for the bank or FI.
Policymakers and financial experts have commended this clear framework that monitors, regulates and puts in place a system to ensure a healthy financial services system as opposed to the current arbitrary method dependent on the Reserve Bank of India and the central government.
FRDI has, however, sparked outrage with its so-called ‘bail-in’ clause. This clause allows a failing bank to ‘bail-in’ into its assets and holdings to prevent itself from going bankrupt, as opposed to a bail-out, when external entities step in to save the bank. This has been interpreted as banks being allowed to dip into the funds of their depositors to shield themselves – a possibility that has been portrayed as the imminent doom of all bank deposits.
What started a few months back as WhatsApp forwards that warned people about the proposal moved to social media, before grabbing the attention of bank employees’ unions. Now we have none other than the feisty West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee warning the central government against the move.
Such scare-mongering is not new to India though. The country has been witness to this during the introduction of computers at work, signing of the WTO treaty, or even the adoption of genetically modified seeds, among others.
Call it the upside of a maximum government hovering above banks, particularly public sector banks, and the RBI also watching from the sidelines, India has not seen a bank slipping to the extent it needed liquidation. In 2004, for instance, when the private Global Trust Bank was in deep distress, the RBI stepped in and got the public sector Oriental Bank of Commerce to acquire it.
India is also a signatory to the Basel norms, a global regulatory pact that has put in place reforms designed to improve the regulation, supervision and risk management of the banking sector.
To be sure, successive governments have taken advantage of public sector banks, be it for loan melas, loan waivers, or lending to businesses friendly with the party in power – practices that have contributed to the NPA mess. But it is also the government that has jumped in with a PSU bank recapitalisation plan worth Rs 2.11 lakh crore – fiscally imprudent but politically critical, as it breathes oxygen into PSU banks.
In fact, the political imperative of ensuring a stable financial services sector is the biggest insurance of bank deposits. More so for the NDA government, which has made financial inclusion and formalisation of the economy one of its key goals. Besides, the NDA government has also burnt its fingers on demonetisation and the implementation of GST, and the hasty retreat on the FRDI bill is a clear indication that the government has no stomach for more damage to its financial management image.
The government has reassured depositors that insurance will take care of their deposits even under the new system, and that a consent clause will ensure banks cannot act unilaterally and bail-in or dip into deposits during a crisis. Finance minister Arun Jaitley has also assured the government will fully protect deposits and indicated a willingness to amend the bill.
All of this points to a strong possibility that the government will tinker with the bail-in provision. It has shown it is adept at tinkering when it did so with GST slabs and rules after the new tax system was implemented. So, just like GST, there is no need to throw the entire FRDI bill out with the bail-in clause.
With inputs from Subrata Panda.
When some one seaгcһes for his essential thing, thus he/she needs to be
available that in detail, tһus that thing is maintained over here.
First of all the real story in this article starts in the 13th paragraph. This journalist needs to get to the point a little faster. And instead of questioning financial literacy of depositors, this piece displays the financial snobbery of the writer. Her main contention is that no banks have ever faced liquidation in India. No govt had foolishly brought about demonetisation to the extent that happened, either. So should we wait for the first bail out and then cry foul? Again, the tinkering happened because the mainstream press jumped on this and alerted people. You of financial literacy fame would rather have people get duped before you write inane editorials. And it doesn’t need a PhD in finance to know that public banks should first recover the NP loans before they are trusted to go forward with any of these harebrained ideas. The trust in this government and its financial harakiri is less now, please forgive us if we don’t sound financially literate. Get real. These are hard earned savings.
How the failure of credit monitoring shall be a guiletn for for common deositor. Since the nationalisation Banks net profit TR to center.Why it has built any common fund to mitigate losses of Banks. N P A concet it self is lmaginery not realistic.why we won’t think one Bank for one nation apart from foreign banks.
We, people save deposit for future needs of the family as well as other purchase or investment either in property or Jewells. Till this moment every depositor or account holders thinking that their money is safe in the hands of bank. The recent incident of Indian Bank and ICICI bank created a flutter that the banking system also liable for risky investment, however Government took concrete steps in clearing the doubts of public and investors and managed the situations. Again by introduction of FRDI bill and enact the same, Government must stand as a guarantor for public money because government priority schemes and welfare projects bankers compelled to undergo. The bankers has to manage and accountable for both public as well as Government. Rating of banks should include such banks carried out Government /social schemes. At all level it is hard earned money of depositors by public having utmost confidence in government only not entirely on bank, hence hundred percent guarantee from government only required not by the insurance company which is also prone to insolvency.It is not a matter of urgency and well thought solution is required to meet the public confidence.
Bail-in as as bad an economic idea as bail-out. Thankfully till date no Indian Government has been trifled with citizens’ savings. However a bill like FRDI – with many fine lines which the government of the day will NOT care to explain with all honesty – when passed, can lead to government’s scruples being discarded to dustbin.
Investors and depositors should be protected fully to the extent 100 %.
Hold responsible the bank officials who has given non performing loans and sale and auction the assessts of the debtors speedily. Put them in prison also for long time with no amenities , no air line travel allowed etc so they will think before taking loans and not paying afterwards. Not allowed to go abroad etc.
Strict meadures are required against them.
Let good sense prevail on everybody.
Not all take loan with the intention of cheating/use fraudulent practices.Some genuine parties may not be able to return loan with/without interest due to losses in their business.Reasons may be different.So such people have to be supported.Only people with wrong intentions need to be punished as enumerated.
Ashok there is no way deposits can be protected to extent of 100% as not 100% of loans can be recovered so there is always risk with bank deposits