CREDAI

Interest on Interest Case Can Open a Pandora’s Box. Govt and SC Need to Be Careful

Late last week the central government told the Supreme Court that it was ready to waive off the interest on interest (i.e. compound interest) on loans of up to Rs 2 crore during the moratorium period of six months between March and August 2020.

In an affidavit submitted to the Court, the government said: “The government… has decided that the relief on waiver of compound interest [interest on interest] during the six month moratorium period shall be limited to the most vulnerable category of borrowers. This category of borrowers, in whose case, the compounding of interest will be waived, will be MSME loans and personal loans up to Rs 2 crore.”

This response was as a part of the matter of Gajendra Sharma versus the Union of India.

The Reserve Bank of India refers to retail loans as personal loans. Hence, the types of loans which would get a waiver of compound interest for a period of six months of the moratorium are home loans, vehicle loans, education loans, consumer durables loans, credit card outstandings, normal personal loans and MSME loans. This benefit will be available to all borrowers who have taken loans of up to Rs 2 crore, irrespective of whether they opted for the moratorium or not.

Before offering my views on this, let’s first try and understand the concept of compound interest or interest on interest.

Let’s consider a home loan of Rs 2 crore to be repaid over a period of 20 years (or 240 months) at the rate of 8% per year. Let’s further assume that the loan was taken during the month of March and was immediately put under a moratorium (the need to make this assumption will soon become clear).

The moratorium lasted six months. The simple interest on the loan of Rs 2 crore amounts to Rs 8 lakh (8% of Rs 2 crore divided by 2). This is not how banks operate. They calculate interest on a monthly basis. At 8% per year, the monthly interest works out to 0.67% (8% divided by 12). The interest for the first month works out to Rs 1.33 lakh (0.67% of Rs 2 crore).

Since the loan is under a moratorium and is not being repaid, this interest is added to the loan amount outstanding of Rs 2 crore.
Hence, the loan amount outstanding at the end of the first month is Rs 2.013 crore (Rs 2 crore + Rs 1.33 lakh). In the second month, the interest is calculated on this amount and it works out to Rs 1.34 lakh (0.67% of Rs 2.013 crore).

In this case, we calculate interest on the original outstanding amount of Rs 2 crore. We also calculate the interest on Rs 1.33 lakh, the interest outstanding at the point of the first month, which has become a part of the loan outstanding.

At the end of the second month, the loan amount outstanding is Rs 2.027 crore (Rs 2.013 crore + Rs 1.34 lakh).  This happens every month, over the period of six months, as can be seen in the following table.

Interest on interest

 

Source: Author calculations.

At the end of six months, we end up with a loan outstanding of Rs 2.081 crore. This is Rs 8.134 lakh more than the initial loan outstanding of Rs 2 crore. As mentioned initially, the simple interest on Rs 2 crore at 8% for a period of six months works out to Rs 8 lakh.

Hence, the interest on interest works out to Rs 13,452 (Rs 8.134 lakh minus Rs 8 lakh).

What was the point behind doing all this math and trying to explain compound interest here?

The maximum amount on which the government is ready to waive off interest on interest is Rs 2 crore. For the kinds of loan under consideration Rs 2 crore outstanding is likely to be either on a home loan or a SME loan. In case of an SME loan, the interest rate will probably be more than 8%.

On a home loan of Rs 2 crore at 8% with 240 instalments (20 years) left to pay, the interest on interest for a period of six months works out close to Rs 13,500. The point is if an individual can afford to take on a loan of Rs 2 crore at 8% interest and pay an EMI of Rs 1.67 lakh, he can also pay an interest on interest of Rs 13,452. In case of an SME loan, the interest on interest would be higher than Rs 13,432, but it wouldn’t be an unaffordable amount. So, what’s the point of doing this?

An estimate made by Kotak Institutional Equities suggests that this move is likely to cost the government around Rs 8,000 crore (Rs 5,000 crore for banks + Rs 3,000 crore for non-banking finance companies (NBFCs)). While Rs 8,000 crore isn’t exactly small change but it’s not a very large amount for the central government.

But that’s not the point here. This move and the Supreme Court dabbling in this case will end up opening a pandora’s box. Let’s take a look at this pointwise.

1) Media reports suggest that the Supreme Court is not happy with the government’s offer to waive off interest on interest. A report on NDTV.com suggests that waiving interest on interest on loans of up to Rs 2 crore “was not satisfactory and asked for a do-over in a week”.

As the report points out: “The affidavit “fails to deal with several issues raised by petitioners”, the court said. The central government has been asked to consider the concerns of the real estate and power producers in fresh affidavits.” Clearly, neither the Court nor the companies are happy with interest on interest of loans of up to Rs 2 crore being waived off.
By offering to waive off interest on interest the government is trying to meet the Court halfway. Also, it is important that the Court along with the government realise that they are interfering with the process of interest setting by banks, something that largely works well.

What is interest at the end of the day? Interest is the price of money. By taking on this case, the Supreme Court has essentially gotten into deciding the price of money. When a bank pays an interest to a deposit holder, it is basically compensating the deposit holder for not spending the money immediately and saving it. This saving is then lent out to anyone who needs the money. This is how the financial intermediation process works.

The government and the Court are both trying to fiddle around with the price of money and that is not a good thing. Today one set of companies have approached the Court to decide on the price of money, tomorrow another set might do the same.

2) The companies are clearly not happy with the interest on interest waiver offer primarily because their loans are greater than Rs 2 crore and they want more. This is hardly surprising.

In the affidavit the government has said: “If the government were to consider waiving interest on all the loan and advances to all classes and categories of borrowers corresponding to the six-month period for which the moratorium was made available under the relevant RBI circulars, the estimated amount is Rs 6 lakh crore.”

To this, the response of the real estate lobby CREDAI was: “A lot of facts and figures in the government’s affidavit are without any basis and the finance ministry’s estimate that waiving off interest on loans to every category would cost banks Rs 6 lakh crore is wrong.”

It is easy to verify this with a simple back of the envelope calculation. As of March 2020, the non-food credit of banks was at Rs 103.2 lakh crore. The banks give loans to Food Corporation of India and other state procurement agencies to buy rice and wheat directly from farmers. Once these loans are subtracted from the overall loans of banks, what is left is non-food credit.

The weighted average lending rate of scheduled commercial banks was at 10% in March 2020 (This is publicly available data). Just the simple interest on non-food credit for six months works out to Rs 5.16 lakh crore (10% of Rs 103.2 lakh crore divided by 2).

Over and above this, there is lending carried out by NBFCs, on which interest on interest will have to be waived off as well. Also, once we take compound interest into account, Rs 6 lakh crore is clearly not a wrong figure as CREDAI wants us to believe.

The weighted average lending interest rate has fallen a little since March. In August, the weighted average lending rate of scheduled commercial banks was at 9.65%. Even after taking this into account, Rs 6 lakh crore is not an unrealistic number at all.  The government and the SC need to be careful regarding any demands of lowering interest rates on loans.

3) The real estate companies have an incentive in getting as much from the Court as possible. Financially, many of them are overleveraged. In fact, the former RBI Governor Urjit Patel in his book Overdraft refers to them as ‘living dead’ borrowers or zombies. And a living dead borrower will go as far as possible to survive at the cost of others. Any new bailout allows them to survive in order to die another day. Also, it allows them to continue not cutting home prices.

Clearly, companies want some reworking on the interest front (the interest on interest for a period of six months isn’t going to amount to much). But this raises a few fundamental questions.

If the Court and the government get around to cutting interest rates on loans, they will be deciding on the price of money. If they do it this one time, they are basically giving Indian capitalists the idea that they can approach the courts and challenge the price of money being charged. What stops it from happening over and over again?

While the government does try and influence the interest rates charged on loans by public sector banks, it can’t do so when it comes to private banks, which now form around 35% of the market when it comes to loans. Nevertheless, if any decision lowering interest rates is made they will end up influencing the price of money of private banks as well. And that isn’t a good thing. The last thing you want in a period of economic contraction is to try and disturb the banking system in any way.

4) Also, any interest rate waiver or reduction will give political parties ideas, like waiving off agricultural loans they can waive off other loans as well. And that can’t be a good thing for the stability of the Indian banking system.

5) If the government really wants to help businesses it can do so by reforming the goods and services tax and making it more user friendly. That will go a much longer way in helping the Indian economy without disturbing a process which currently works well. Any fiddling around with interest rates is largely going to help only zombie companies.

As Urjit Patel writes in Overdraft: “Sowing disorder by confusing issues is a tried-and-trusted, distressingly often successful routine by which stakeholders, official and private, plant the seeds of policy/regulation reversal in India.” This time is no different. Hence, both the government and the Supreme Court need to be very careful in how they deal with this. It is ultimately, the hard earned money of millions of Indians which is at stake. The Indian banking system is one of the few systems which people continue to trust. You wouldn’t want that to break down.

 

Here’s Why the Biggest Crib of Real Estate Companies is a Big Lie

India-Real-Estate-Market

Earlier this month, Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) presented the second monetary policy statement for 2016-2017. Rajan decided to keep the repo rate at 6.5%.  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.

The real estate lobby Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI) wasn’t happy with this. As C Shekar Reddy, ex-president and national executive member of CREDAI told The New Indian Express: “Banks are charging 9.50 pc or more interest on home loans. People will be motivated to buy homes if the loan interest rates are lowered. All our representations to banks to cut the interests rates to give a fillip to the struggling housing sector have gone in vain. Whenever we approached the banks earlier, they said they would think of reducing interest rates if RBI did so with its policy rates.”

Similar statements were made by other CREDAI officials as well. As Geetambar Anand, the president of CREDAI told the Press Trust of India: “It was on expected lines. Now, banks should be advised to reduce interest on home loans by another 50 basis points.” One basis point is one hundredth of a percentage.

The basic point being made is that the RBI has kept the repo rate too high. As the repo rate is high, the interest rate charged by banks on home loans are high. As interest on home loans is high, people are not buying homes. As people are not buying homes, real estate companies are suffering. Or as SARE Homes MD Vineet Relia told PTI: “Since demand in real estate and allied industries remains sluggish, a rate cut could have improved liquidity and created renewed interest in property purchase.”

While all this sounds quite logical, it isn’t correct. Every month, the Reserve Bank of India releases the sectoral deployment of credit data. This data essentially gives out the total amount of lending carried out by banks to different sectors. And this includes home loans given out for the purchase of homes.

In the last one year (actually it’s a period slightly greater than a year, between April 17, 2015 and April 29, 2016), the overall lending of banks (i.e. non-food credit) has grown by just 8.4%. As I explained in yesterday’s column, this has happened primarily because banks have more or less stopped making fresh loans to industry.

Nevertheless, the retail loans of banks have grown at a very good pace, over the last one year. The retail loans include home loans, vehicle loans, education loans, credit card outstanding, loans against fixed deposits, loans against shares/bonds, and personal loans.

The overall growth of retail loans in the last one year stood at 19.7%. This had stood at 15.7% between April 2014 and April 2015. The home loans given out by banks have also seen a fairly robust growth. Home loans grew by 18.1% to Rs 7,58,203 crore, over the last one year. They had grown by 17.1% between April 2014 and April 2015.

Things become a little more interesting if we look at this data in a little more detail. The RBI gives also gives data on priority sector home loans. As per the Master Circular issued by the RBI in July 2014, priority sector home loans are essentially loans to individuals up to Rs 25 lakh in metropolitan centres with population above ten lakh and Rs 15 lakh in other centres.

The home loans given under the priority sector lending that banks need to carry out, grew by 7.6%, over the last one year. They had grown by 4.4% between April 2014 and April 2015.

As far as the non-priority sector home loans (home loans greater than Rs 25 lakh in centres with a population of above 10 lakh and greater than Rs 15 lakh in other centres), are concerned, they grew by a whopping 28.6%, in the last one year. The loans had grown by 33% between April 2014 and April 2015.

What does this tell us? The priority sector home loans are not growing because there are very few real estate markets in the country which banks service, where homes of up to Rs 15 lakh or Rs 25 lakh are available. The growth in priority sector home loan lending has been even slower than the overall bank lending growth.

In fact, in April 2014, priority sector home loans, made up for 56% of total home loans. By April 2015, this was down to 50%. And in April 2016, this stood at 45%. This is definitive evidence of the high real estate prices that continue to prevail in this country, despite what real estate builders keep telling us.

As far as non-priority sector home loans are concerned, they have grown by close to 29% over the last one year, after growing by 33% between April 2014 and April 2015. And that is a pretty good rate of growth, when overall lending growth is 8.4%, and retail lending growth is 19.7%. So what are the builders really complaining about?

I think what seems to be happening is that the home buyers are no longer buying under-construction homes. I have no way of verifying this through data. But that is what the data along with the builders cribbing all the time about the RBI, seems to suggest.

Over the last few years, many builders haven’t delivered homes on time. This has led to a situation where many individuals have had to pay the pre EMI along with the rent as well. Some people I know are even paying their EMIs along with their rents. (I don’t know how EMIs have started without possession of the home being taken).

Some builders have disappeared as well, after taking money from home buyers. Hence, homebuyers are staying away from under-construction property is what my analysis seems to suggest. It seems the buyers are now buying completed homes, which is where the home loans taken are basically going. This can mean that investors who had bought homes in the past are now selling out. It could also mean that builders who had completed inventory are selling it now.

This has hit the entire business model of the real estate developers, who raise money from prospective buyers, when they start building, without putting much of their own capital at risk. But then, for this, they have no one but themselves to blame.

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul Diary on June 16, 2016

Do Lower Interest Rates Revive Consumption? Not Always

ARTS RAJAN
The Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan presented the sixth monetary policy statement for this financial year, earlier this month. In the policy he decided to maintain the status quo and not change the repo rate. Repo rate is the rate at which RBI lends to banks, which acts as a sort of a benchmark to the interest rates that banks pay for their deposits and in turn charge on their loans.

After the policy, the representatives of the industry protested and said that they were expecting a repo rate cut, which would revive consumption as well as investments. As Chandrajit Banerjee, director of business lobby CII, said: “A rate cut would have been spot-on for rejuvenating the investment cycle. We hope RBI would resume the rate-cutting cycle in the subsequent monetary policy soon after the Union Budget to complement the government’s efforts to revive private investments and bring the economy back to sustained growth.”

Getamber Anand, president of real estate lobby CREDAI, echoed Banerjee’s sentiments, when he said: “We are very disappointed. We were expecting a 25 basis points reduction in the repo rate.” He also said that home loan interest rates should be lower than 9%.

The belief is that at lower interest rates people borrow and spend more, and industries also invest more. This sounds very convincing but is essentially very simplistic thinking that lobbyists try to peddle.

Conventional thinking assumes a negative relationship between consumption and interest rates. But that is also a function of how people save money. Michael Pettis in his book The Great Rebalancing—Trade, Conflict, And the Perilous Road Ahead for the World Economy makes a very interesting point about China.

As he writes: “Most Chinese savings, at least until recently, have been in the form of bank deposits. In a financial system in which deposit rates are set by the central bank, the value of bank deposits is positively, not negatively, correlated with the deposit rate. Chinese households, in other words, should feel richer when the deposit rate rises and poorer when it declines, in which case rising rates should be associated with rising, not declining, consumption.”

Given that a large portion of the financial savings are invested in bank deposits, any rise in interest rates should make people feel richer and in the process make them consume more.

Vice versa, any fall in interest rates should make people feel poorer and lead to lower consumption. Further, if the interest rate on deposits is lower than the rate of inflation, or around the rate of inflation, or not substantially different from the rate of inflation, any rise in interest rates should lead to a higher consumption.

As Pettis writes: “If deposit rates do not reflect market conditions—most important, inflation rates…then bank deposits, who measure their wealth in terms of the expected real return on their depositors, should welcome rising rates and deplore declining rates.  The former should make them feel richer and so increase their consumption and the latter make them feel poorer.”

This is something that is largely applicable to India as well. While the central bank does not set interest rates on fixed deposits as such, large portions of household financial savings are invested in bank deposits, provident and pension fund schemes (with a significant portion of these schemes being run by the post office). In these investments, as interest rates go up, people feel richer.

In 2012-2013, the 54.4% of household financial savings were in bank deposits and provident and pension fund schemes. Nearly 16.2% of household financial savings were held in the form of cash. Only 6.62% of household financial savings were invested in stocks and debentures. 24.4% of the savings were invested in life insurance, where it is next to impossible to figure out what returns to expect.

In 2011-2012, 56.7% of the household financial savings were invested in bank deposits and provident and pension fund schemes. In 2010-2011, 51% of the savings were invested in deposits and provident and pension fund schemes.

The point being that a major portion of household financial savings get invested in bank deposits and pension and provident fund schemes. This means when interest rates go up or are high, people are more likely to spend more.

Also, the another point that people forget is the multiplicity of needs. Not everyone is looking to borrow and spend when interest rates fall. As Malhar Nabar writes in an IMF Working Paper titled Targets, Interest Rates, and Household Saving in Urban China: “China’s households save to meet a multiplicity of needs – retirement consumption, purchase of durables, self-insurance against income volatility and health shocks – and act as though they have a target level of saving in mind. An increase in financial rates of return, which raises the return on saving, makes it easier for them to meet their target saving.”

This is a point that needs to be taken into account. It applies as much to India as it does to China. People are trying to save money for emergencies as well their retirement, education and weddings of their children and so on. And this lot gets hurt every time the interest rate on their deposits goes down.

This means they need to save more and consume less when interest rates go down. Hence, lower interest rates do not lead to an increase in consumption for everybody. The truth is a lot more nuanced than that.

There is another point that needs to be made here. Between December 2014 and December 2015, the disbursal of personal loans (the term RBI uses for home loans, education loans, vehicle loans, loans against shares, bonds and fixed deposits, and what we call personal loans) went up by 16.1%. This after the RBI cut the repo rate by 125 basis points during the course of the year. One basis point is one hundredth of a percentage.

How good was the personal loan growth between December 2013 and December 2014? 15.3%.

Hence, the difference in personal loan growth for the one-year period ending December 2014 and the one-year period ending 2015 is not substantial, despite lower interest rates. One explanation for this lies in the fact that banks have not passed on the entire benefit of the repo rate cut to the end consumers.

The other reason lies in the fact that not everybody is looking to borrow. Those looking to save are hurt by lower interest rates and end up consuming lesser in order to meet their target saving. And this is a point that doesn’t get discussed enough, given that it isn’t so obvious.

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul Diary on Equitymaster on February 11, 2016