Vivek Kaul
Various regulators in the United States working together managed to finalise the final version of the Volcker rule on December 10, 2013. The rule is named after the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker.
Volcker was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve between 1979 and 1987 and famously raised interest rates to close to 20% in order to kill double digit inflation.
Before understanding what the Volcker rule is, it is important to understand how banks used to operate till a few years back. Banks borrowed money through deposits at a certain rate of interest and lent it out as loans at a higher rate of interest. The difference between the two rates of interest was the money that a bank made. It was as simple as that.
But somewhere along the line, banks started to make one way speculative bets on financial assets using their own funds. These bets, referred to as proprietary trading, ballooned in the run up to the financial crisis. As Michael Bobelian writes on Forbes.com “Leading up to the financial crisis, proprietary trading, in which financial institutions invested their own funds, ballooned as it became more lucrative. Those riches also carried with them immense risks that nearly destroyed the financial sector in 2008.”
Paul Volcker suggested that banks whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC) in the United States be prohibited from proprietary trading. The idea was to reduce the risk that it built into the financial system, leading to the government and the Federal Reserve having to come to rescue of all and sundry in the end. As Timothy Noah writes on www.msnbc.com “The rule’s overarching goal is to reduce the type of speculation by banks that contributed to the 2008 crisis.”
But there are certain exemptions that are allowed. Banks are allowed to function as market makers and buy financial securities to meet the demand from their customers. And this is where things start to get interesting.
As John Cassidy writes on www.newyorker.com “There are also exemptions for market-making, in which the banks build up sizable positions in all sorts of securities, supposedly with the sole intention of having enough on hand to meet the demands of clients and for hedging risks taken elsewhere in the firm. But how can any outsider know whether a given trading desk is buying tech stocks, for example, to anticipate customer demand or to wager on the Nasdaq going up?”
What does the Volcker rule have to say with regard to this? It allows banks to buy financial securities to meet “the reasonably expected near-term demands of clients, customers, or counterparties.” The phrase reasonably expected is not defined.
There are also certain situations in which proprietary trading is allowed. “It doesn’t apply to government bonds, including those issued by the federal mortgage agencies and by municipalities. If Goldman or Morgan Stanley want to short Treasury securities, or the city of Chicago, they can go right ahead. Also excluded from the restrictions are physical commodities, such as oil and gold,” writes Cassidy.
Interestingly, a major reason why a lot banks(both investment banks and normal banks) got into trouble around the time the financial crisis first broke out was the fact that they held some of the junkiest subprime mortgage backed securities on their own books, in the hope of making higher returns. These were essentially speculative bets on the housing market in the United States. Cassidy points out that the Volcker rule does not nothing to stop banks from making these bets.
Also, banks are allowed to enter certain trades that may look like proprietary trades, as long as they hedge their bets. But the question is can a differentiation always be made? Neil Irwin of The Washington Post explains this point in great detail on his blog.
Irwin takes the example of bank which has bought options betting that the value of the Brazilian real may fall against the dollar. The regulator may catch on to this and ask the bank “What is this!” you say. “You are speculating that the real will fall against the dollar. You know you aren’t allowed to speculate on currencies under the Volcker Rule.”
The banker though may have a perfect explanation for it, writes Irwin. “What are you talking about? I’m not speculating on the Brazilian currency! I have this huge loan that I made to a Brazilian construction company. And they make all their money in reals. So all I’m doing is guarding myself against the risk that the real falls, and I won’t get my loan repaid. This is reducing the risk that the bank faces, not increasing it!”
Lets understand this in a little more detail. Currently one dollar is worth around 2.34 Brazilian reais (plural of real). Lets say the bank gives a loan of $10 million to a Brazilian construction company. The construction company converts the dollars and gets 23.4 million reais in return.
Now lets say, by the time the loan is to be repaid one dollar is worth 5 Brazilian reais. In order to repay the $10 million, the Brazilian construction company will now need 50 million reais ($10 million x 5). It may not have that kind of money and may choose to default totally or partially. This will amount to a huge loss for the American bank.
But to take care of this loss the bank has hedged the loan by buying options. And the pay off from the options will make up for the loan losses. Given this, it will be difficult to differentiate between a speculative trade and a hedge in many cases.
One school of argument being currently put forward is that the Volcker rule is already having an impact, given that some of the biggest banks on the Wall Street have already closed down their proprietary trading divisions.
As Kevin Roose writes on www.nymag.com “Goldman Sachs had an entire unit, Goldman Sachs Principal Strategies, designed for prop trading – essentially, betting the firm’s own money on stuff. It was closed, and most of its people moved to a private-equity firm. Morgan Stanley had a prop-trading unit with 60 employees. It got closed, too. So did the prop-trading divisions at Bank of America and Citigroup.”
The conspiracy theory, as a Wall Street veteran told me is that banks are “setting up their traders as “independent” hedge funds.” If this turns out to be true, the overall riskiness of the financial system is unlikely to come down.
To conclude, time will tell how successful the Volcker rule will turn out to be. It might succeed in the short run, but I am doubtful whether it will succeed in the long term. It is worth remembering that the best brains work for the Wall Street, and they will find a way around it.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on December 12, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
Investing
The curious case of Mr Jain
Vivek Kaul
Sometime in late October I went to meet my investment advisor. During the course of our discussion he suggested that my portfolio was skewed towards HDFC Mutual Fund and it would be a good idea to move some money out of it, into other funds.
“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is an old investment adage. While, I try to follow it, I also like to believe that if the basket is good enough, it makes sense to put more eggs in that basket than other baskets.
HDFC Mutual Fund has been one of the few consistent performers in the Indian mutual fund space. And a major reason for the same has been Prashant Jain, the chief investment officer of the fund, who has been with it for nearly two decades.
Jain has been a star performer and due to his reputation the fund has seen a huge inflow of money into its various schemes. Some of these schemes HDFC Prudence, HDFC Equity and HDFC Top 200 became very big in that process.
These schemes haven’t done very well over the last three years. Their performance has been significantly worse in comparison to other schemes in their respective categories(Value Research has downgraded them to three star funds from being five star funds earlier). And this has surprised many people. “How can Prashant Jain not perform?” is a question close observers of the mutual fund industry in India have been asking.
One explanation that people seem to have come up with is the fact that the size of the schemes have become big, making it difficult for Jain to generate significant return. This is a theory that is globally accepted, where the size of a scheme is believed to be inversely proportional to the return it generates.
As Jason Zweig points out in the commentary to Benjamin Graham’s all time investment classic, The Intelligent Investor, “As a (mutual) fund grows, it fees become more lucrative – making its managers reluctant to rock the boat. The very risk that managers took to generate their initial high returns could now drive the investors away — and jeopardise all that fee income. So the biggest funds resemble a herd of identical and overfed sheep, all moving in sluggish lockstep, all saying “Baaaa” at the same time.”
While this may be a reason for the underperformance of the schemes managed by Jain, it is not easy to prove this conclusively. Jain feels there is no correlation between size and performance of a scheme, or so he told the Forbes India magazine in a recent interview. He pointed out that there are no large mutual fund schemes in India, and the largest scheme is less than 0.2% of the market capitalisation, which I guess is a fair point to make.
So how does one explain the fact that Prashant Jain is not doing as well as he used to in the past. John Allen Paulos possibly has an explanation for it in his book A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market. As he writes “A different argument points out to the near certainty of some stocks, funds, or analysts doing well over an extended period of time.”
Paulos offers an interesting thought experiment to make his point. As he writes “Of 1000 stocks (or funds or analysts), for example, roughly 500 might be expected to outperform the market next year simply by chance, say by the flipping of a coin. Of these 500, roughly 250 might be expected to do well for a second year. And of these 250, roughly 125 might be expected to continue the pattern, doing well three years in a row simply by chance. Iterating in this way, we might reasonably expect there to be a stock (or fund or analyst) among the thousand that does well for ten consecutive years by chance alone.”
But one day this winning streak comes to an end. And the same seems to have happened to Prashant Jain. In fact, William Miller who ran the Legg Mason Value Trust fund in the United States, beat the broader market every year from 1991 to 2005. In 2006, his luck finally ran out. Miller once explained his winning streak by saying “As for the so-called streak…We’ve been lucky. Well, maybe it’s not 100% luck—maybe 95% luck.”
If Miller was lucky so was Jain. Any significant deviation from the norm does not last forever. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes in Fooled by Randomness “In real life, the larger the deviation from the norm, the larger the probability of it coming from luck rather than skills…The “reversion” for the large outliers is what has been observed in history and explained as regression to the mean. Note the larger the deviation, the more important its effect.”
This is not to suggest that Jain’s performance has only been because of luck. Not at all. But it was luck that pushed him up to the top of the charts. Luck was the “icing” on the cake.
Michael Mauboussin discusses a very interesting concept called the paradox of skill in his book The Success Equation – Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, and Investing. “As skill improves, performance becomes more consistent, and therefore luck becomes more important,” is how Mauboussin defines the paradox of skill.
The Olympic marathon is a very good example of the same. Men run the race today about 26 minutes faster than they did 80 years back. Also, in 1932, the difference between the man who won the race and the man who came in twentieth was 40 minutes. Now its less than 10 minutes.
Now the question is how does this apply to investing? “As the market is filled with participants who are smart and have access to information and computing power, the variance of skill will decline. That means that stock price changes will be random and those investors who beat the market can chalk up their success to luck. And the evidence shows that the variance in mutual fund returns has shrunk over the past 60 years, just as the paradox of skill would suggest,” says Mauboussin. “I want to be clear that I believe that differential skill in investing remains, and that I don’t believe that all results are from randomness. But there’s little doubt that markets are highly competitive and that the basic sketch of the paradox of skill applies,” he adds.
And that is what best explains the curious case of Prashant Jain and the recent non performance of the mutual fund schemes that he manages.
The column originally appeared in the Wealth Insight magazine edition of December, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is the author of Easy Money. He tweets @kaul_vivek)
US govt reduced to live on borrowed time
Vivek Kaul
Governments spend more money than they earn and finance the difference through borrowing. The government of United States(US) is no different on this front. The trouble is that it cannot borrow beyond a certain limit. This limit, known as the debt ceiling, was set at $16.69 trillion.
This ceiling should have been breached in May 2013, a little earlier this year. Since then, Jack Lew, the American treasury secretary, has taken a number of extraordinary measures like delaying public employee pension fund payments, in order to ensure that the government expenditure remains under control. Lesser expenditure meant lesser borrowing and hence, the government managed to keep its total borrowing below $16.69 trillion.
Today i.e. October 17, 2013, the government would have run out of the extraordinary measures that it has been taking. Given this, the treasury department would have exhausted its borrowing authority.
Hours before this would have happened, the leaders of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the American Senate stuck a deal, suspending the debt ceiling. This will allow the US government to borrow beyond $16.69 trillion, till February 7, next year. The will also end the current government shut-down in the US and keep the government running along till January 15, 2014.
This is not the first time that the US government came close to its borrowing limit, given that the debt ceiling has been in place since 1939. Since 1960, the debt ceiling has been raised 78 times by the American Congress. But this time around the Democrats and the Republicans left it too late, each waiting for the other to blink first.
If the ceiling had not been extended the short-term repercussions would have been terrible. The treasury secretary Lew had said in early October that the US government “will be left…with only approximately $30bn” come October 17. This would not be enough to meet the expenditure of the government, which can be as high as $60 billion on some days, Lew had pointed out.
Interest payments of around $6 billion are due on US government bonds before the end of this month. Along with that, bonds worth between $90 to $93 billion need to be repaid between October 24 and October 31 (Source: www.thefinancialist.com) Governments issue bonds to borrow money.
The US government has reached a stage wherein it does not earn enough to repay the money it has already borrowed by issuing bonds. Hence, it has borrow more money by issuing fresh bonds to pay off the older bonds. If the debt ceiling had not been extended, it would have become very difficult for the US government to repay the money it had already borrowed.
More importantly, the US government bonds are deemed to be the safest financial security in the world. If the US government defaulted on paying interest on its bonds or repaying the principal, there would have been mayhem in financial markets, all over the world, including India. It has even been suggested that the crisis that could have unfolded would have been bigger than the crisis that followed the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Investors would have sold out of US government bonds driving up global interest rates.
The US government would also have had to prioritise its expenditure. Does it make pension payments? Does it pay its employees and contractors? Does it pay interest on its bonds? Does it repay maturing bonds? These are the questions it would have had to address. Also, there are no legal provisions guiding the government on who to pay first. Hence, any prioritisation of payments could have led to a slew of lawsuits against the US government.
Given the negative repercussions of the debt ceiling not being extended, the markets were positive that a deal reached would be reached. Stock and bond markets around the world have been stable. And gold, looked at as a safe haven, is quoting at levels of around $1280 per ounce (one troy ounce equals 31.1grams).
The trouble is that the US government will cross its debt ceiling level again in February, 2014. What happens then? How long can the American Congress keep increasing the debt ceiling? The basic problem is that the US government has borrowed too much money, and continues to do so, and if it doesn’t default today, it will default in the years to come.
The article originally appeared in the Daily News and Analysis dated October 17, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is the author of Easy Money. He can be reached at [email protected])
In theory, Rupee at 72 to dollar is the solution to CAD
Gary Dugan is the CIO – Asia and Middle East, RBS Wealth Division. In this freewheeling interview with Vivek Kaul he talks about the recent currency crash in Asia, where the rupee is headed to in the days to come and why you would be lucky, if you are able to find a three BHK apartment, anywhere in one of the major cities of the world, for less than $100,000.
What are your views on the current currency crash that is on in Asia?
People are trying to characterise it as something like what has happened in the past. I think it is very different. It is different in the sense that we know that emerging markets in general have improved. Their financial systems are more stronger. The government policy has been more prudent and their exposure to overseas investors in general has been well controlled. I don’t think we are going to see a 12 month or a two year problem here. However, countries such as India and Indonesia have been caught out and the money flows have brought their currencies under pressure. So, it’s a problem but not a crisis.
One school of thought coming out seems to suggest that we are going to see some version of the Asian financial crisis that happened in 1998, over the next 18 to 20 months…
I totally disagree with that. The rating agencies have looked at the Indonesian banks and they have said that these banks are well-abled to weather the problems. If you look at India, the banking system is well-abled to weather the problems. It is not as if that there is a whole set of banks about to announce significant write down of assets or lending. The only thing could go wrong is what is happening in Syria. If the oil price goes to $150 per barrel then the whole world has got a problem. The emerging market countries would have an inflation problem and that would only create an exaggeration of what we are seeing at the moment.
Where do you see the rupee going in the days to come?
There is still going to be downward pressure. I said right at the beginning of the year, and I was a little bit tongue in cheek when I said that in theory the rupee could fall to 72. At 72 to a dollar, in theory, clears the current account deficit. I never expected it to get anywhere near that, certainly in a short period of time. But some good comes out of the very substantial adjustments, because pressure on the current account starts to disappear. Already the data is reflecting that. Where the rupee should be in the longer term is a very difficult question to answer.
Lets say by the end of year…
(Laughs) I challenged our foreign exchange market experts on this and asked them what is the fair value for the rupee? I ran some numbers on the hotel prices in Mumbai, relative to other big cities, and not just New York and London, but places like Istanbul as well. India, is the cheapest place among these cities. Like the Economist’s McDonald Index, I did a hotel index, and on that you could argue that the rupee should be 20-30% higher. But, if you look at the price that you have got to pay to sort out your economic problems, it is probably that the currency is going to be closer to 70 than 60 for the balance of this year.
One argument that is often made, at least by the government officials is that because the rupee is falling our exports will start to go up. But that doesn’t seem to have happened…
It takes a while. I was actually talking to a client in Hong Kong last week and he said that warehouses in India have been emptied of flat screen TVs, and they have all been sent to Dubai because they are 20% cheaper now. It is a simple story of how the market reacts to a falling currency.
But it’s not as simple as that…
Of course. A part of the problem that India has is that the economic model has more been based on the service sector rather than manufacturing. The amount of manufactured products that become cheaper immediately and everyone says that I need more Indian products rather than Chinese products or Vietnamese products, is probably insufficient in number to give a sharp rebound immediately. Where you may see a change, even though some of the call centre managers are a little sceptical about it, is that call centres which had lost their competitive edge because of very substantial wage growth in India, will immediately get a good kicker again. It would certainly be helpful, but I would say that it normally takes three to six months to see the maximum benefit of the currency adjustment.
What are the views on the stock market?
I am just a bit sceptical that you are going to see much performance before the elections. I always say it is a relative game rather than absolute one. If all markets are doing well, then India with its adjustment will do fine. Within the BRIC countries, India falls at the bottom of the pack, in terms of relative attractiveness, just because there is a more dynamic story for some of the other countries at the moment.
One of the major negatives for the stock market in India is the fact that the private companies in India have a huge amount of dollar debt…
It is definitely a reason to worry. It’s not something I have looked at in detail. But as you were asking the question, I was just thinking that people are dragging all sorts of bad stories out. When there were bad stories before, people were just finding their way through it. And India has a wonderful way of working its way through its problems and has been doing that for many many years. Remember that these problems come to the head only if the banks call them to account. I think there will be a re-negotiation. It is not as if a very substantial part of Indian history is about to go under because someone is going to pull the plug on them.
Most of the countries that have gone from being developing countries to becoming developed countries have gone through a manufacturing revolution, which is something that is something that has been missing in India…
It is. You look at the stories from the past five years, and the waning strength of the service sector in India, in th international markets, comes out. A good example is that of call centres that have gone back to the middle of the United States from India. A part of that came through currency adjustment. You can say that maybe the rupee was overvalued at the time when this crisis hit. But it is true, in a sense, that India has got to back-fill a stronger manufacturing industry and it has got to reinforce its competitive edge in the service sector.
What is holding back the Indian service sector?
A number of structural things. I talked to some service sector companies at the beginning of the year. And one of things I was told was that I have got all my workers sitting here in this call centre, but now they cannot afford to live within two hours of commuting distance. Why did that happen? That is not about service sector. It is about the broad infrastructure and putting people at home, close to where they work. There are lot of problems to be solved.
There has been talk about the Federal Reserve going slow on money printing(or tapering as it is called) in the days to come. How do you see that going?
Everyone has got to understand that the principle of quantitative easing is to generate growth. So, if there is enough growth around they will keep tapering, even if they get it wrong by starting to taper too early. They will stop tapering if growth is slow. Secondly, number of Federal Reserve governors are worried about imprudent actions of consumers and industrialists, in terms of taking cheap money and spending it on things that they typically do not need to spend on. A good example is speculation in the housing market, something which created the problem in the first place. So they want to choke such bad behaviours. They will probably start tapering in September in a small way. The only thing that may stop it from happening is if the middle Eastern situation blows up. The US didn’t think it was going to get involved a few weeks ago. Now it is.
Isn’t this kind of ironical, that the solution to the problem of propping up the property market again, is something that caused the problem in the first place…
That’s been very typical of the United States for the last 100 years. Evertime there is a problem you ask people to use their credit cards. Or use some form of credit. And when there is an economic slowdown because of the problems of non performing loans, then you get the credit card out again. So, yeah unfortunately that is the way it is.
Why is there this tendency to go back to the same thing that causes the problem, over and over again?
It is the quickest fix. And you hope that you are going to bring about structural changes during the course of a better economic cycle. So people don’t bring the heavyweight policies in place until they have got the economy going again and sadly the only way you can get the economy going again is to just to make credit cheap and encourage people to borrow.
Inflation targeting by central banks has come in for criticism lately. The point is that because a central bank works with a certain inflation target in mind, it ends up encouraging bubbles by keeping interest rates too low for too long. What is your view on that?
These concepts were brought in when central banks thought they could control inflation. If you look at one country that dominates the world at the moment in terms of product prices and in terms of the inflation rate, it is China. Your monetary policy isn’t going to change the behaviours of China. And some of the flairs up in inflation have been as a consequence of China and therefore monetary policies have no impact. Secondly, the idea of controlling inflation, the concept worked for the 20 years of the bull market. Then we got inflation which was too low. So we have changed it all around to actually try to create inflation rather than to dampen inflation. I don’t think they know what tools they should be using. The central banks are using the same tools they used to dampen inflation, in a reverse way, in order to create it.
And that’s where the problem lies…
For nearly two to three hundred years, the world had no inflation, yet the world was kind of an alright place. We had an industrial revolution and we still had negative price increases, but that did not stop people from getting wealthy.
Many people have been shouting from the rooftops that because of all the money that has been printed and is being printed, the world is going to see a huge amount of inflation, so please go and buy gold. But that scenario hasn’t played out…
Chapter one of the economic text book is that if you create a lot of money, you have got a problem. Chapter two is that there is actually another dimension to this and that is the velocity of money. If you have lots of money and if it happens to go around the world very very slowly it doesn’t have any impact. And that has been the point. The amount of money has gone up considerably but the velocity of money has come down. To date, again in the western world, there is little sign of the velocity improving. We are seeing this in the lending numbers. Even if banks have the appetite for lending money, nobody wants to borrow. Someone’s aged 55, and the job prospects are no wage growth, and the pension is tiny, I am not sure that even if you have gave him ten credit cards, he’ll go and use any of one of them. And that is the kind of thing that is happening in Europe and to some extent in the United States.
Yes that’s true…
The only money going into housing at the moment is the money coming from the institutional market, as they speculate. If you look at students coming out of college in the United States, they have come out way down with debt. There is again no way that they are going to go and take more loans from the bank because they have already done that in order to fund their education. So I do not seeturnover of money in the Western world.
There may be no inflation in everyday life but if you look at asset inflation, it has been huge.. That’s right. People just find stores of value. Gold went up as much as it did, in its last wave. If you look at Sotheby’s and Christie’s, in the art market, they are doing extremely well. The same is true about the property market. Places which are in the middle of a jungle in Africa, there prices have gone up to $100,000 an acre. Why? There is no communication. No power lines. It is just because people have money and are seeking out assets to save that money. Also, there has been cash.If you go to Dubai, 80% of the house purchases there, are in cash. So you don’t need the banks.
Can you tell us a little more on the Africa point you just made?
I did laugh when Rwanda came to Singapore to raise money for its first ever bond issue and people were just discovering these new bond markets to invest purely because they did not know what to do with their money. So someone said that I am building, you know in a Rwanda or a Nigeria, and people just ran with their cash, buying properties and buying up land wherever the policies of the government allowed. Sri Lanka again just closed the door on foreign investors because you start to get social problems as the local community cannot afford properties to live in. It was amazing how commercial many of these property markets became, even though in the past they were totally undiscovered. And as we have seen with many of them, you take considerable risk with the legal system. The world has got repriced. I always say that if you can find a three bedroom house below a $100,000-$150,000 in a major city, you are doing well anywhere in the world today.
In Mumbai you won’t find it even for that price..
Yes, though five years ago it was true. It is impossible now.
(The interview appeared in the Forbes India magazine edition dated Oct 4, 2013)
Phata Poster Nikla Zero – Why Rajan hasn't joined the party
Vivek Kaul
Raghuram Govind Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has refused to join the party.
The financial markets were expecting the Rajan led RBI to cut the repo rate in its Mid Quarter Monetary Policy Review. But that has not happened. Instead the repo rate has been raised by 25 basis points(one basis point is equal to one hundredth of a percentage) to 7.5%. Repo rate is the interest rate at which RBI lends to banks. Hence, the BSE Sensex has fallen by more than 500 points after the policy review was announced. As I write this it is down by around 350 points. The rupee is now quoting at 62 to a dollar, having touched 62.6 to a dollar earlier.
So now Rajan is suddenly looking like a villain after having been turned into a hero by the media over the last few weeks. As a Facebook friend quipped Phatta Poster Nikla Zero.
What Rajan has done needs to be analysed in line with the economic philosophy he believes in. A major reason for increasing the interest rate is high inflation. As the Monetary Policy Review points out “What is equally worrisome is that inflation at the retail level, measured by the CPI (consumer price inflation), has been high for a number of years, entrenching inflation expectations at elevated levels and eroding consumer and business confidence. Although better prospects of a robust kharifharvest will lead to some moderation in CPI inflation, there is no room for complacency.”
This statement is totally in line with Rajan’s thinking on the issue. In fact, Rajan has clearly pointed out in his earlier writings that RBI should simply concentrate on managing inflation instead of trying to do mulitple things at once.
As Rajan wrote in a 2008 article (along with Eswar Prasad) “The RBI already has a medium-term inflation objective of 5 per cent…But the central bank is also held responsible, in political and public circles, for a stable exchange rate. The RBI has gamely taken on this additional objective but with essentially one instrument, the interest rate, at its disposal, it performs a high-wire balancing act.”
And given this the RBI ends up being neither here nor there. As Rajan put it “What is wrong with this? Simple that by trying to do too many things at once, the RBI risks doing none of them well.”
Hence, Rajan felt that the RBI should ‘just’focus on controlling inflation. As he wrote in the 2008 Report of the Committee on Financial Sector Reforms “The RBI can best serve the cause of growth by focusing on controlling inflation and intervening in currency markets only to limit excessive volatility…an exchange rate that reflects fundamentals tends not to move sharply, and serves the cause of stability.”
Currently, the RBI is trying to control inflation, accelerate economic growth and stabilise the value of the rupee, all at the same time. Something which is not possible. Rajan understands this well enough. “The RBI’s objective could be restated as low inflation, and growth consistent with the economy’s potential. They amount to essentially the same thing! But it would let the RBI off the hook for targeting the exchange rate. And that is the key point,” Rajan wrote in the 2008 article cited earlier. Given this focus on inflation, it isn’t surprising that Rajan has chosen to go against market expectations and raise the repo rate. His belief is that if inflation is brought under control, other things will sort themselves out.
Rajan is also trying to address the high current account deficit by raising the repo rate. Lets try and understand how. As the monetary policy review of the RBI points out “However, inflation is high and household financial saving is lower than desirable.” Lower savings have an impact on the current account deficit. As Atish Ghosh and Uma Ramakrishnan point out in an article on the IMF website “The current account can also be expressed as the difference between national (both public and private) savings and investment. A current account deficit may therefore reflect a low level of national savings relative to investment.”
If India does not save enough, it means it will have to borrow capital from abroad. And when these foreign borrowings need to be repaid, dollars will need to be bought. This will put pressure on the rupee and lead to its depreciation against the dollar.
This is something that Rajan said in an interview to the India Brand Equity Foundation. As he said “Current account deficit (CAD) essentially reflects the fact that you are spending more than you are saving. That’s technically the definition of the CAD, which means that you need to borrow from abroad to finance your investment. Ideally, the way you would reduce your current account deficit is by saving more, which means consuming less, buying fewer goods from abroad and importing less. Or, the other way is by investing less, because that would allow you to bridge the CAD. Now we don’t want to invest less. We have enormous investment needs. So ideally, what we want to do is save more.”
And to achieve this “the first way is for the government to cut its under-saving or its deficit.” “The second way is when the public decides to save more rather than spend. We need to encourage financial saving,” Rajan said in the interview.
The fact of the matter is that India has not been saving enough over the last few years. As the recent RBI financial stability report released in June 2013 points out “Financial savings of households…have declined from 11.6 per cent of GDP to 8 per cent of GDP over the corresponding period (i.e. between 2007-08 to 2011-12.”
Financial savings are essentially in the form of bank deposits, life insurance, pension and provision funds, shares and debentures etc. In fact between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the household financial savings fell by a massive Rs 90,000 crore. This has largely been on account of high inflation. Savings have been diverted into real estate and gold in the hope of earnings returns higher than the prevailing inflation.
Also people have been saving lesser as their expenditure has gone up due to high inflation. And the financial savings will only go up, if inflation comes down, pushing up the real returns on various kinds of deposits.
“Households also need stronger incentives to increase financial savings. New fixed-income instruments, such as inflation-indexed bonds, will help. So will lower inflation, which raises real returns on bank deposits. Lower government spending, together with tight monetary policy, are contributing to greater price stability,” wrote Rajan in a column in April 2013.
Rajan has increased the repo rate hoping that bank’s and other financial institutions increase the interest rates on their deposits. This will encourage people to save more. Also, by trying to control inflation Rajan hopes that the real return on deposits (nominal return minus inflation) will go up. Once this happens, people are likely to stay away from investing in gold. If people stay away from investing in gold, it helps bring down our imports and hence, also the current account deficit. This puts lesser pressure on the rupee. The current account deficit(CAD) can also be expressed as the difference between total value of imports and the sum of the total value of its exports and net foreign remittances.
Also, as India saves more the need to borrow from abroad will come down. India’s external debt as on March 31, 2013, stood at at $ 390 billion. Of this nearly 79% debt is non government debt. External commercial borrowings(ECBs) made by corporates form nearly 31% of the external debt.
The trouble is that a lot of this external debt needs to be repaid before March 31, 2014. NRI deposits worth nearly $49 billion mature on or before March 31, 2014. Nearly $21 billion of ECBs raised by companies need to be repaid before March 31, 2014.This will mean a demand for dollars and thus further pressure on the rupee. If India’s borrowing from abroad comes down in the coming years that will mean lesser pressure on the rupee, as the demand for dollars to repay these loans will go down. But for that to happen financial savings need to go up. And that can only happen if inflation is brought under control and real returns on fixed income instruments (like deposits, bonds etc) go up.
Of course, raising the repo rate just once by 25 basis points is not enough for all this to be achieved. Hence, chances are Rajan will keep raising the repo rate in the days to come.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on September 20, 2013
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)