Corporates

Why banks love lending to you and me, but hate lending to corporates

RBI-Logo_8
Regular readers of this column would know that I regularly refer to the sectoral deployment of credit data usually released by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) at the end of every month. This data throws up interesting points which helps in looking beyond the obvious.
On December 31, 2015, the RBI released the latest set of sectoral deployment of credit data. And as usual the data throws up some interesting points.

What the banks refer to as retail lending, the RBI calls personal loans. This categorisation includes loans for buying consumer durables, home loans, loans against fixed deposits, shares, bonds, etc., education loans, vehicle loans, credit card outstanding and what everyone else other than RBI refer to as personal loans.

Banks have been extremely gung ho in giving out retail loans over the last one year. Between November 2014 and November 2015, scheduled commercial banks lent a total of Rs 5,04,213 crore (non-food credit). Of this amount the banks lent, 39.4% or Rs 1,98,727 crore were retail loans. Hence, retail loans formed closed to two-fifths of the total amount of lending carried out by banks in the last one year.

How was the scene between November 2013 and November 2014? Of the total lending of Rs 5,45,280 crore carried out by banks, around 27.7% or Rs 1,50,843 crore was retail lending. Hence, there has been a clear jump in retail lending as a proportion of total lending over the last one year.

In fact, if we look at the breakdown of retail lending (or what RBI refers to as personal loans) more interesting points come out.

Outstanding as on: (In Rs crore)Nov.28, 2014Nov.27, 2015Increase(in Rs crore)Increase in %
Personal Loans1105910130463719872717.97%
Consumer Durables1466016545188512.86%
Housing (Including Priority Sector Housing)59460370523511063218.61%
Advances against Fixed Deposits553396045851199.25%
Advances to Individuals against share, bonds, etc.38616886302578.35%
Credit Card Outstanding2948637646816027.67%
Education627216768249617.91%
Vehicle Loans1194101378871847715.47%
Other Personal Loans2258302722974646720.58%

 

The overall increase in retail loans has been around 18% over the last one year. This is significantly better than 8.8% increase in overall lending by banks (non-food credit i.e.). Within retail loans, vehicle loans and consumer durables have grown slower than the overall growth in retail loans. How did things stand between November 2013 and November 2014?

Outstanding as on (in Rs crore)November 29, 2013November 28,2014Increase in Rs croreIncrease in %
Personal Loans955067110591015084315.79%
Consumer Durables998714660467346.79%
Housing (Including Priority Sector Housing)5101715946038443216.55%
Advances against Fixed Deposits5603255339-693-1.24%
Advances to Individuals against share, bonds, etc.28323861102936.33%
Credit Card Outstanding2414729486533922.11%
Education589536272137686.39%
Vehicle Loans979141194102149621.95%
Other Personal Loans1950282258303080215.79%

The retail loans between November 2013 and November 2014 had grown by 15.8%. In comparison, the growth between November 2014 and November 2015 was at 18%. This increase can be attributed to the 125 basis points repo rate cut carried out by the Reserve Bank of India during the course of this year. One basis point is one hundredth of a percentage. Repo rate is the rate at which RBI lends to banks and acts as a sort of a benchmark to the interest rates that banks pay for their deposits and in turn charge on their loans.

But despite a rapid and massive cut in the repo rate, the jump in retail loan growth hasn’t been dramatic. In fact, loans for the purchase of consumer durables grew by 12.9% between November 2014 and November 2015. They had grown by 46.8% between November 2013 and November 2014, when interest rates were higher. Vehicle loans grew by 15.5% in the last one year. They had grown by 22% between November 2013 and November 2014. This despite a fall in interest rates. Home loans had grown by 16.6% between November 2013 and November 2014. They grew by 18.6% between November 2014 and November 2015. There has been some improvement on this front. Hence, lower interest rates have had some impact on retail borrowing, but not as much as the experts and economists who appear on television and write in the media, make it out to be.

What does this tell us? As L Randall Wray writes in Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the Work of a Maverick Economist, quoting economist Hyman Minsky: “According to Minsky, bank lending would…be determined….by the willingness of banks to lend, and of their customers to borrow.”

So why are banks more than happy to lend to give out retail loans? As I had pointed out in yesterday’s column, lending to the retail sector continues to be the best form of lending for banks. The stressed loans ratio (i.e. bad loans plus restructured loans) in this case is only 2%. This means that for every Rs 100 lent by banks to the retail sector only Rs 2 worth of loans is stressed.

The same cannot be said about the loans that banks have been giving to corporates. The lending carried out by banks to industry as well as services in the last one year formed around 43.4% of the overall lending carried out by banks. Between November 2013 and November 2014, the lending carried out by banks to industry as well as services had stood at 50% of overall lending.

What explains this? Lending to large corporates has led to 21% stressed loans. The same is true for medium corporates where stressed loans form 21% of overall loans. And this best explains why banks have been happy to lend to you and me, but not to corporates.

The column originally appeared on Vivek Kaul’s Diary on January 6, 2016

Did RBI just hint that Indian corporates have reached Ponzi stage of finance?

ARTS RAJAN
The Reserve Bank of India(RBI) releases the Financial Stability Report twice a year. The second report for this year was released yesterday (i.e. December 23, 2015). Buried in this report is a very interesting box titled In Search of Some Old Wisdom. In this box, the RBI has resurrected the economist Hyman Minsky. Minsky has been rediscovered by the financial world in the years that have followed the financial crisis which started with the investment bank Lehman Brothers going bust in September 2008.

So what does the RBI say in this box? “When current wisdom does not offer solutions to extant problems, old wisdom can sometimes be helpful. For instance, the global financial crisis compelled us to take a look at the Minsky’s financial stability hypothesis which posited the debt accumulation by non-government sector as the key to economic crisis.”

And what is Minsky’s financial stability hypothesis? Actually Minsky put forward the financial instability hypothesis and not the financial stability hypothesis as the RBI points out. I know I am nit-picking here but one expects the country’s central bank to get the name of an economic theory right. I guess given that the name of the report is the Financial Stability Report, someone mixed the words “stability” and “instability”.

The basic premise of this hypothesis is that when times are good, there is a greater appe­tite for risk and banks are willing to extend riskier loans than usual. Businessmen and entrepreneurs want to expand their businesses, which leads to increased investment and corporate profits.

Initially, banks only lend to businesses that are expected to gen­erate enough cash to repay their loans. But as time progresses, the competition between lenders increases and caution is thrown to winds. Money is doled out left, right, and centre and normally it doesn’t end well.

This is the basic premise of the financial instability hypothesis. In this column I will explain that the Indian corporates have reached what Minsky called the Ponzi stage of finance.  Minsky essentially theorised that there are three stages of borrowings. The RBI’s box in the Financial Stability Report explains these three stages. Nevertheless, a better explanation can be found in L Randall Wray’s new book, Why Minsky Matters—An Introduction to the Work of a Maverick Economist.

As Wray writes: “Minsky developed a famous classification for fragility of financing positions. The safest is called “hedge” finance (note that this term is not related to so-called hedge funds). In a hedge position, expected income is sufficient to make all payments as they come due, including both interest and principal.” Hence, in the hedge position the company taking on loans is making enough money to pay interest on the debt as well as repay it.

What is the second stage? As Wray writes: “A “speculative” position is one in which expected income is sufficient to make interest payments, but principal must be rolled over. It is “speculative” in the sense that income must increase, continued access to refinancing must be expected, or an asset must be sold to cover principal payments.”

Hence, in a speculative position, a company is making enough money to keep paying interest on the loan that it has taken on, but it has no money to repay the principal amount of the loan. In order to repay the principal, the income of the company has to go up. Or banks need to agree to refinance the loan i.e. give a fresh loan so that the current loan can be repaid. The third option is for the company to start selling its assets in order to repay the principal amount of the loan.

And what is the third stage? As Wray writes: “Finally, a “Ponzi” position (named after a famous fraudster, Charles Ponzi, who ran a pyramid scheme—much like Bernie Madoff’s more recent fraud”) is one in which even interest payments cannot be met, so that the debtor must borrow to pay interest (the outstanding loan balance grows by the interest due).”

Hence, in the Ponzi position, the company is not making enough money to be able to pay the interest that is due on its loans. In order to pay the interest, it has to take on more loans. This is why Minsky called it a Ponzi position.

Charles Ponzi was a fraudster who ran a financial scheme in Boston, United States, in 1919. He promised to double the investors’ money in 90 days. This was later shortened to 45 days. There was no business model in place to generate returns. All Ponzi did was to take money from new investors and handed it over to old investors whose investments had to be redeemed. His game got over once the money leaving the scheme became higher than the money being invested in it.

Along similar lines once companies are not in a position to pay interest on their loans they need to borrow more. This new money coming in helps them repay the loans as well as pay interest on it. And until they can keep borrowing more they can keep paying interest and repaying their loans. Hence, the entire situation is akin to a Ponzi scheme.

By now, dear reader, you must be wondering, why have I been rambling on about a single box in the RBI’s Financial Stability Report and an economist called Hyman Minsky.

In RBI’s Financial Stability Report the box stands on its own. But is the RBI dropping hints here? Of course, you don’t expect the central bank of a country to directly say that a large section of its corporates have reached the Ponzi stage of finance. And there are many others operating in the speculative stage of finance. Even without the RBI saying it directly, there is enough evidence to establish the same.

In the report RBI points out that as on September 30, 2015, the bad loans (gross non-performing advances) of banks were at 5.1% of total advances of scheduled commercial banks operating in India. The number was at 4.6% as on March 31, 2015. This is a huge jump of 50 basis points in a period of just six months.

The restructured loans of banks fell to 6.2% of total advances from 6.4% in March 2015.  A restructured loan is a loan on which the interest rate charged by the bank to the borrower has been lowered. Or the borrower has been given more time to repay the loan i.e. the tenure of the loan has been increased. In both cases the bank has to bear a loss.

The stressed loans of banks, obtained by adding the bad loans and the restructured loans, came in at 11.3% of total advances. They were at 11.1% in March 2015.
The numbers for the government owned public sector banks were much worse. The stressed loans of public sector banks stood at 14.1%. In March 2015, this number was at 13.2%. This is a significant jump in a period of just six months. The stressed loans of private sector banks stood at a very low 4.6% of total advances.

Let’s look at the stressed loans of public sector banks over a period of time. In March 2011, the number was at 6.6% of total advances. By March 2012, it had jumped to 8.8% of total advances. Now it is at 14.1%.

What is happening here? Banks are clearly kicking the can down the road by restructuring more loans, because many corporates are clearly not in a position to repay their bank loans. Why do I say that? As the Mid-Year Economic Review published by the Ministry of Finance last week points out: “Corporate balance sheets remain highly stressed. According to analysis done by Credit Suisse, for non – financial corporate sector (based on ~ 11000 companies in the CMIE database as of FY2014 and projections done for FY2015 based on a sample of 3700 companies), the number of companies whose interest cover is less than 1 has not declined significantly (this number was 1003 in September 2014 and is 994 in September 2015 quarter).”

Interest coverage ratio is essentially obtained by dividing the earnings before interest and taxes(operating profit) of a company during a given period, by the interest that it needs to pay on the loans that it has taken on.

In the Indian case, a significant section of the corporates have an interest coverage ratio of less than 1. This means that they are not earning enough to even pay the interest on their outstanding loans.

Further, the weighted average interest coverage ratio of all companies in the sample as on September 2015 was at 2.3. It was at 2.5 in September 2014. As the Mid-Year Economic Review points out: “Research indicates that an interest cover of below 2.5 for larger companies and below 4 for smaller companies is considered below investment grade.”

What this means that many corporates now are not in a position to even pay interest on their loans. They need newer loans to repay interest on their loans. They have reached the Ponzi stage of finance, as Minsky had decreed. Still others are in the speculative stage.

The RBI Financial Stability Report again hints at this without stating it directly. As the report points out: “Bank credit to the industrial sector accounts for a major share of their overall credit portfolio as well as stressed loans. This aspect of asset quality is related to the issue of increasing leverage of Indian corporates. While capital expenditure (capex) in the private sector is a desirable proposition for a fast growing economy like India, it is observed that the capex which had gone up sharply has been coming down despite rising debt. During this period, profitability and as a consequence, the debt-servicing capacity of companies has, seen a decline. These trends may be indicative of halted projects, rising debt levels per unit of capex, overall rise in debt burden with poor recoveries on resources employed.”

What the central bank does not say is that rising debt without a rising capital expenditure may also be indicative of the fact that newer loans are being taken on in order to pay off older loans as well as pay interest on the outstanding loans. The public sector banks are issuing newer loans because if they don’t corporates will start defaulting and the total amount of bad loans will go up even further.

In such a scenario, the public sector banks have also been helping corporates by restructuring more and more loans. By doing this they are essentially postponing the problem. A restructured loan is not a bad loan. Further, around 40% of restructured loans between 2011 and 2014 have turned into bad loans.

All this hints towards a large section of Indian corporates operating in what Minsky referred to as a Ponzi stage of finance. Many corporates are also in the speculative stage. And given that, it’s not going to end well.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on SwarajyaMag on December 24, 2015

How the Congress party got corporates addicted to govts buying land for them


One of the main questions that has been asked in the current controversy surrounding the issue of land acquisition is—why does the government need to buy land? Jairam Ramesh and Muhammad Ali Khan try and answer this question in their new book Legislating for Justice—The Making of the 2013 Land Acquisition Law. 

As they write: “Acquisition of property is founded upon the universally recognized principle of ‘Eminent Domain’.” And what is Eminent Domain? “[It] is the power of the Government…to take over resources for the greater national good. At its most basic Eminent Domain refers to the inherent authority of the Government to acquire private property on the payment of fair compensation for a use that benefits public at large,” explain the authors.

Further, a lot of public infrastructure gets built because of Eminent Domain. As Ramesh and Khan write: “Without the power of Eminent Domain, the Government could not establish the infrastructure that we rely on—roads, hospitals, airports, public schools, common facilities such as warehouses for farmers, playgrounds for children all are made possible through the use of Eminent Domain.”

So far so good. But why does the government have to acquire land for private companies? Before I get to answering this question, it is important to realize that the land acquisitions carried out by the government in India can essentially be divided into two eras—those carried out before 1991, the year of the economic reforms, and those carried out after.

As Michael Levien of the Johns Hopkins University writes in a recent research paper titled From Primitive Accumulation to Regimes of Dispossession: Six Theses on India’s Land Question: “Since 1991, India has passed from a regime that dispossessed land for state-led industrial and infrastructural expansion to one that dispossesses land for private—and increasingly financial—capital. Between 1947 and 1991, the Indian state largely dispossessed land for public-sector projects to expand the industrial and agricultural productivity of the country. The main forms of this dispossession were public sector dams, steel towns, industrial areas, and mining.”

But that changed after the economic reforms of 1991, when the private sector began to play a more active and larger role in the Indian economy. The economic reforms unleashed the Indian IT and BPO industry. These sectors had an unending appetite for land and the government helped them by acquiring land for them.

Gradually, public-private partnerships became the preferred method for building physical infrastructure. And this led to the government acquiring more land for private firms. In fact, as Levien points out: “Crucially, compensating private infrastructure investors with excess land and/or development rights became an increasingly popular method of cost recovery in these arrangements—whether for roads, airports, or affordable housing (Ahluwalia 1998; IDFC 2008, 2009). Infrastructure investment thus became a vehicle for private real estate accumulation, culminating with Special Economic Zones in the mid-2000s.”

Hence, land became a sort of a currency for the government. Also, given that the government could acquire land for private firms, it is obvious that a lot of politicians must have made a lot of money as well.

Nevertheless, the question is how did the government get around to acquiring land for the private sector? Before the 2013 land acquisition law was passed, land acquisition in India was governed by the Land Acquisition Act 1894—a law from the time when the British ruled India.

In fact, an amendment made in 1984 to the 1894 Act expanded the government’s ability to “acquire lands for a public purpose ‘or for a private company’”. This amendment allowed the government to acquire land for private companies. And it is worth reminding the readers, those were the days when the Congress party ruled the country.
It was this amendment which was abused by the various state governments around the country to acquire land for private companies. This amendment allowed the government to acquire land from farmers at cheap rates and then sell it on to private companies at a significantly higher price.

The ‘Yamuna Expressway’ is a very good example of this, where the land was acquired by the Uttar Pradesh from farmers and then sold on to private parties at multiple times the price the farmers had been paid for it.

As Ramesh and Khan point out: “In 2009, the Uttar Pradesh Government had indeed acquired land as part of a concession agreement and then resold it to Jaypee associates group as part of a bundling project for the construction of the Yamuna Expressway. There was no legal bar on doing so under the old law [i.e. the 1894 Act].” Further, the purpose for which the land was acquired could be changed as well.

The corporates preferred the government acquiring land for them and then selling it to them at a higher price because of several reasons. Land records in India are poorly maintained and purchase of land can easily be challenged in court at a later date.

As Nitin Desai writes in a recent column in Business Standard: “Many companies want the government to acquire land for them…as to have the assurance that their right of ownership cannot be challenged by some new claimant.”

Further, as Ramesh and Khan point out: “After the initial round of consultations in July-August 2011, it was also acknowledged that land values are, on an average, a sixth of their represented or book value as drawn out in the circle rate. As one moved away from urban centres the disparity became more striking with land records not having been updated for decades in some parts of the country.”

As per the 1894 Land Acquisition Act the government had to compensate the owner of the land at market value. But given that the government land records were infrequently updated, the government on many occasions got away with paying a pittance in comparison to the ‘real’ market value.

Even if the government were to then sell on the land to a corporate firm at a higher price, the firm would still get a good deal because of the huge differential between the price as per the government land record and the real market price.

Another reason corporates liked to outsource the land acquisition process to the government lay in the fact that the 1894 Act had an ‘urgency’ clause. As Ramesh and Khan write: “Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was used to forcibly disposes people of their land in a frequent and brutal fashion by suspending the requirement for due process…Section 5A…allowed for a hearing of objections to be made but put no responsibility on the Collector to take those claims into consideration.”

So people could complain, but it was up to the Collector whether he wanted to listen to them or not. Further, the definition of urgency was also left “to the authority carrying out the acquisition.”  This clause allowed the collector to “take possession of the land within fifteen days of giving notice”. He could take possession of a building within 48 hours of giving notice. No private company could hope to acquire land at such a quick pace.

The irony is that the 1894 Land Acquisition Act was allowed to run for almost 66 years after independence. The Congress party ruled the country in each of the decade after independence and chose to do nothing about it. Under the 1894 Act the government could acquire land in a jiffy, without adequately compensating the land-holder. When the Act was finally replaced, what came in its place has made it next to impossible to acquire land.

In fact, Ramesh and Khan,rather ironically admit to that in their book, when they write: “The law was drafted with the intention to discourage land acquisition. It was drafted so that land acquisition would become a route of last resort.”

To conclude, as far as the land acquisition process is concerned, it is safe to say that we have jumped from the frying pan into fire.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on May 28,2015 

While corporates continue to screw banks, the small guy is paying up

rupee
One of the themes that I have explored since I started writing for The Daily Reckoning last year, is the bad state of banks in India. And the way things are right now it doesn’t seem like the situation is going to improve on this front any time soon.
In a research note titled For banks, no respite from bad loans this year released yesterday, Crisil Research estimates that gross non performing assets or bad loans of banks will touch Rs 4,00,000 crore during the course of this year. This will mean an increase of Rs 60,000 crore. More precisely, the bad loans of banks will increase to 4.5% of the total advances of banks, from 4.3% currently.
What is worrying is that 40% of the loans restructured during 2011-2014 have become bad loans. A restructured loans is where the borrower has been allowed easier terms to repay the loan (which also entails some loss for the bank) by increasing the tenure of the loan or lowering the interest rate. If 40% of restructured loans have gone bad, it is safe to say that the banks have been essentially restructuring loans in order to postpone recognizing them as bad loans.
Crisil Research also points out that the weak assets of banks are are expected to stay high at 6 per cent of advances or Rs 5,30,000 crore. The public sector banks which are essentially in major trouble with their weak assets forming around 7% of their advances. For the private sector the number is around 2.9% of their advances.
In fact, Jayant Sinha, the minister of state for finance in a written reply told the Rajya Sabha yesterday, that around 23% of the projects to which public sector banks had given loans worth Rs 54,056.75 crore in 2014-2015, have turned into non performing assets. He told the Upper House of Parliament that 17 out of the 74 projects to which public sector banks had given loans had turned bad.
Further, some year end results of public sector banks reaffirm the bad state that they are in. Take the case of Punjab National Bank. As of March 31, 2015, its stressed assets ratio increased to 16.2%. It was at 15.4% at the end of December 2014. The stressed asset ratio is the sum of gross non performing assets(or bad loans) plus restructured loans divided by the total assets held by the Indian banking system. The borrower has either stopped to repay this loan or the loan has been restructured, where the borrower has been allowed easier terms to repay the loan by increasing the tenure of the loan or lowering the interest rate.
In Punjab National Bank’s case of every Rs 100 of loan given out by the bank, Rs 16.2 has either gone bad or has been restructured. How does the situation look on the whole? S S Mundra, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India gave an indication of this in a recent speech. He pointed out that the stressed assets ratio of banks in India as a whole stood at 10.9%. This meant that for every Rs 100 given out as a loan, Rs 10.9 has either gone bad or has been restructured.
As Mundra pointed out: “The level of distress is not uniform across the bank groups and is more pronounced in respect of public sector banks…The stressed assets ratio[of public sector banks] stood at 13.2%, which is nearly 230 bps[one basis point is one hundredth of a percentage] more than that for the system.” The stressed assets ratio of public sector banks as on March 31, 2014, was at 11.7%. The overall stressed assets ratio of banks was at 9.8%.
This is clear indicator that the banking sector in general and the public sector banks in particular continue to remain in a mess. In fact, the bad loans of most public sector banks which have declared results up till now, have gone up. This is primarily because the exposure of public sector banks to “vulnerable sectors is expected to remain high, just the way it was in 2014-15”. The vulnerable sectors include infrastructure, mining, aviation, steel, textile etc.
What this means is that corporates who had taken on loans from banks have been unable to repay and are now in the process of defaulting on loans or renegotiating the terms. That was the bad news. Now some good news.
A newsreport in the Daily News and Analysis points out that the defaults by small borrowers have fallen. The newsreport points out that data from the Credit Information Bureau (India),  the country’s leading credit information company, shows that as on December 31, 2014, the defaults on home loans dropped to 0.5% of total advances of banks. It was at 1.06% of advances at the end of 2010.
A similar trend has been seen when it comes to personal loans as well. Defaults have fallen to 1.01% of advances from 2.65% earlier. In case of unsecured loans (like credit cards) the defaults have fallen to 1.19% of advances from 3.27% earlier.
While, the corporates have been on a defaulting spree, the individuals who take on various kinds of loans have been repaying them at a much better rate than they were in the past.
To conclude, the bigger learning here is that the small guy in this country continues to do his job well, tries to earn an honest living, repay his loans on time, and so on. The big guy, on the other hand, is out screwing the others including the banking system.

(The column originally appeared in The Daily Reckoning on May 13, 2015)

Rahul Gandhi’s ‘suit boot ki Modi sarkar’ jibe stinks of hypocrisy

rahul gandhi
Vivek Kaul

Rahul Gandhi, the Gandhi family scion and the vice-president of the Congress party, is back from his two month holiday (57 days to be exact). And if nothing else, he surely has discovered his political machismo during the period. Speaking in the Lok Sabha today (April 20, 2015) Rahul said that the Narendra Modi led National Democratic Alliance(NDA) government was a government of industrialists, or as he put it: ‘suit, boot ki sarkar‘.
In a speech he made at the Ram Lila Maidan in New Delhi on April 19, 2015, he made similar allegations when he said: “Let me tell you how Modi ji won the election. He took loans of thousands of crores from big industrialists from which his marketing was done. How will he pay back those loans now? He will do it by giving your land to those top industrialists. He wants to weaken the farmers, then snatch their land and give it to his industrialist friends.”
There are multiple points that need to be made here. Is Rahul Gandhi trying to suggest that the Congress party did not get corporate funding to fight the 2014 Lok Sabha elections? Is he trying to suggest that the Congress party has never got corporate funding to fight elections? Is he trying to tell us that the Congress party has never used “black-money” to fight elections?
Or is it more a case of sour-grapes—the fact that when it came to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections the corporates where on Modi’s side, given the sordid performance of the Manmohan Singh government. As Jairam Ramesh told The Times of India after the Lok Sabha elections: “We were out-campaigned, out-manoeuvred, out-funded and out-spent by Modi.” So, it is clearly a case of sour grapes for Rahul. Also, in all these years that Congress was in power, why did it never try to clean up political funding? Does Rahul have an answer for that?
Rahul, further said in his Lok Sabha speech that: “You know as well as I do, that this government is one that works for industrialists.” So, does this imply that the last Congress led United Progressive Alliance government did not work for industrialists?
If that was the case then why did so many scams involving corporates happen in the second term of the Congress led UPA government? Was the telecom 2G scandal a creation of the Modi government? Did the Commonwealth Games scam happen under the Modi government? Did the coalgate scam, where the governments loss lakhs of crore happen under the Modi government?
Rahul also suggested in his two speeches that the Modi government is hell bent on taking away land from the farmers and giving it to corporates. The question is what were multiple Congress governments doing since the independence?
Until 2013, the land acquisition act 1894, governed land acquisition in India. A 1985 version of this Act stated: “Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.”
The language of the 1894 Act shows that it gave unlimited power to the government to acquire land. This wasn’t surprising given that the law came into being when the British ruled India. The Act allowed governments all over India to acquire land from the public. Many governments passed on this land to corporates, and in the process both the government and the corporates made money.
The only one who did not make money was the individual whose land was being acquired. Of course, this did not go unnoticed. People saw politicians and corporates making a killing in the process. And the trust that is required for any system to work completely broke down. The various Congress governments which led the country between 1947 and 2013(nearly 66 years) chose to do nothing about it. In 2013, the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) brought in The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
By ensuring that corporates got land on a platter, the Congress party essentially helped build a system of political-corporate corruption. Further, given that governments acquired land for them, Indian corporates have become lazy over the years. Also, many of them started to see themselves as landlords and wanted land just for the heck of it. This can be said from the inefficient use of industrial land in India. Narendra Modi had no role in building this system. He just inherited it.
And there is more. Along with the budget document, the government releases a statement of revenue foregone every year.  “The estimates and projections are intended to indicate the potential revenue gain that would be realised by removing exemptions, deductions, weighted deductions and similar measures,” the statement points out.
For the year 2014-2015, the government is expected to forego revenues of Rs 62,398.6 crore because of exemptions and deductions given to corporates. Interestingly, the bigger the corporate the more deductions and exemptions they take. Corporates which make an operating profit within the range of Rs 0-1 crore have an effective tax rate of 26.89% Those in the Rs 50-100 crore range have an effective tax rate of 24.29%. Whereas those making a profit of greater than Rs 500 crore have an effective tax rate of 20.68%. The overall rate is 23.22%. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has been true for many years.
Who has built this tax system which favours the corporates? The Congress party is the answer. The party has been in the government in every decade after independence. Narendra Modi has not been in power even for a year. Once these factors are taken into account, the only thing one can say is that Rahul’s “suit boot ki Modi sarkar,” comment, stinks of hypocrisy. Guess, the two month sojourn hasn’t done him much good.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on Apr 20, 2015