I
had wanted to post the following article on Sunday the 24th June,
2012. But I stopped posting it because I thought that it was inappropriate for
me to unravel another issue of national concern, while the historic Wangdue
Phodrang Dzong was ablaze.
---------------------------
I routinely
follow the Opposition Leader’s Blog (http://www.tsheringtobgay.com).
Among the most recent posts are “Responsible Government?...” and “Trowa”. These
two posts continue to generate some seriously trashy and indecent comments from
the blog’s numerous followers but there are also some powerfully pertinent
issues being raised, particularly by the likes of Sonam, ProOL, Jamyang, Guardian and others. The discussions that pertain to the past failures of Bhutan’s central
bank, RMA to control the imprudent lending practices of the banks are
particularly revealing.
In
one of his comments, Jamyang writes; “As far as I am concerned, yes, the banks
themselves decided into going for a complete ban for all new loan proposals
from the day the RMA’s nonresident accounts closure notification came into
effect”.
I
was shocked by that comment. This is something totally contrary to what I had
believed. It was my belief that:
a.
The ban was only on select sectors such as
housing and vehicle; and
b.
The regulatory authority (RMA) ordered the
suspension of the loans.
I
had no idea that the total freeze on loans of all types is/was a decision of
the banks themselves. If this is really true, then I am afraid that the
problems may be even grimmer than I had thus far assumed.
We
have to understand that the most fundamental and principal business plan of a
bank is that it will accept deposits from people and institutions and lend out
a large portion of it to people and businesses. They make their profits from
the interest they earn from these loans they give out. Therefore, if a bank has to
suspend lending, they cannot generate profits and if they cannot do that, they
cannot pay interest on the deposits they have accepted from their depositors.
They cannot accept fresh deposits because those deposits will be costly. Even
worst, if a large number of their depositors decide to recall their deposits,
they may run into serious liquidity problem.
There
can only be one reason why the banks have stopped lending, of their own accord:
they may have overstretched themselves to the point that they are dangerously
outside the required reserve ratio set by the central bank. Or, they may have
run out of cash!
Being
overstretched is not so much a problem provided that all their loans are safe
and secured. That majority of their loans are serviced in time and that there
are no major defaults in loan repayments. But it can be a problem - if and when
extraordinary events occur - such as if unusually large withdrawals take place
at short notice. Then the balance is upset.
Such
an extraordinary event did take place recently - as a result of the central
bank’s order requiring the closure of all accounts held by nonresidents. Consequent
upon that order, few hundred, possibly even thousand million in deposits belonging
to nonresidents were withdrawn in a matter of days. That caused an enormous and
dangerous dip in the banks’ available reserve funds, in the process, rendering
all traditional calculations and assumptions meaningless. This meant that the
banks now did not meet the central bank’s minimum required reserve ratio rule.
Even more dangerous, it is possible that their overall lending now far
outstripped their available reserve/deposits.
Have
the banks endangered our hard-earned money as a result of their indiscipline
and greed? Have they tied up our small savings in bad loans? Do they have
enough reserves, as required by law, to pay us our money as and when we want to
withdraw them? How safe is our money in their hands?
The
sudden and complete freeze on lending by the banks is bad for the country’s
economic and developmental activities. This is not only bad for ongoing
activities but effectively halts new ones. The RMA cannot allow this. But the central bank
has a problem - a problem of their own making.
What
was the need for RMA to order the closure of the nonresidents’ accounts? It not
only did not help curtail Rupee outflow, it aggravated it further.
Additionally, it is the main culprit that triggered the flight of
extraordinarily large amount of deposits that the banks needed to offset their
lending.
To
be fair, I believe that the central bank ordered the closure of the
nonresidents accounts for a reason. And perhaps that reason is justified, given
our compulsions. But now that the end has been achieved, the onus is on the RMA
to restore normalcy.
There
is no denying that the banks have been very, very irresponsible. They need to
be disciplined. However, it is also true that the precariousness of their
current state is, to a limited extent, caused by the RMA’s order requiring the
closure of the nonresidents accounts. For that, the RMA has to assume part responsibility for the mess that the banks are in.
There
is no point talking about what could have been. The situation needs to be
corrected before it aggravates further. I think it is fair to assume that the
banks’ problems go far beyond the need to remain within the stipulated minimum
required reserve ratio rule.
I
think they are completely broke!
I
think the only answer is to restock the banks with cash immediately. RMA has to do it or,
they have to go to the source at whose behest they ordered the closure of the
nonresidents’ accounts and get them to bail the banks out.
Before
I close, I have to ask two more questions:
Is
it legal for nonresidents to open accounts in our banks? If not, how did it
happen that the banks accepted their deposits?
What
was the RMA’s rationale behind committing and delivering on the promise that all
amounts withdrawn from the closed accounts of the nonresidents will be paid in
Indian Rupees? These accounts were local currency accounts and, therefore, it is not obligatory on the part of the banks to pay off the nonresident depositors in foreign currency.
Something
fishy?