Rajan is right, the window dressing of bad loans by banks should end

ARTS RAJANVivek Kaul

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Raghuram Rajan was speaking at a function to inaugurate the Meghanand Desai Academy of Economics in Mumbai, yesterday (July 28, 2015). Normally, whenever the RBI governor makes a speech, a copy of the speech is made available on the RBI website.

But as I write this on the afternoon of July 29, 2015, the speech is yet to be uploaded on the RBI website. Media reports suggest that the PR agency handling the event sent out a press release yesterday. A report in The Economic Times quotes the press release and points out that one of the things that Rajan had said during the course of the speech: “Declaring an NPA (non-performing asset) is primarily an issue of cleaning up accounting…The market fully understands what is truly non-performing. Moreover, it gives the wrong incentives, as by avoiding NPAs it merely postpones the problem. There is confused understanding of this problem.”

After sending out the press release, the PR agency withdrew the release and sent out another release in which the above statement attributed to Rajan in the first release was missing. The event was closed to the media.

Irrespective of whether Rajan said it or not, the fact that banks need to recognise their non-performing assets i.e. loans which have gone bad, on time, is a very important point. What makes this point even more important is the fact that the lending carried out by public sector banks over the last few years, particularly to the infrastructure sector, will continue to go bad in the days to come.

In a research report titled Current Worries Crisil Ratings estimates that “around 46,000 mw of power generation projects (36,000 mw coal-based and 10,000 mw gas-based) are in distress today. Loans to these projects are around Rs 2.1 lakh crore, with about two-thirds lent by public sector banks.”
Of these loans “as much as Rs 75,000 crore of loans – or nearly 15% of aggregated debt to power generation companies — are at risk of becoming delinquent in the medium term.”

“Further, close to Rs 1.9 lakh crore of loans to six weak discoms, wherein the moratorium under the financial restructuring package (FRP) is ending in the next 18 months, are also at risk if timely support is not extended by the central or state governments,” Crisil points out.

The rating agency feels that the risk is highest in 16,000 mw of projects. “These projects don’t have strong sponsor company support and are not expected to turn viable in the long run even if they are structured under the 5/25 scheme. The exposure of banks and FIs to them was about Rs 75,000 crore as on March 31, 2015. CRISIL believes accretion of non-performing assets (NPAs) from these accounts could be high in medium term.”

This is a worrying sign given that loans to the power sector form 8.3% of the total advances made by scheduled commercial banks. In case of the public sector banks the number is higher at 10.1%. Further, advances to the power sector form 16.1% of the total stressed advances. In case of public sector banks, the number is even higher at 17.3%.

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, which entails a loss for the bank.

Hence, if the stressed advances of public sector banks to the power sector are at 17.3%, it means that of every Rs 100 of loan given to the power sector by the banks, Rs 17.3 has either gone bad or has been restructured.

The power sector in India has been facing many problems. As the RBI Financial Stability Report released in June 2015 points out: “The power sector in India…has been facing significant problems in terms of fuel availability / linkages, project clearances, social activism and aggressive bidding in coal block auctions by power producers resulting in lower plant load factors (PLF). Dependence on imported coal, which is three to four times more expensive, impinges on the bottom lines of companies.”

All these reasons have led to power companies not being able to pay the loans that they had taken on. And this is likely to continue in the days to come, meaning more trouble for banks in general and public sector banks in particular.

It is important that as and when these loans turn bad, they are recognised as bad loans. But that is not something that Indian banks have done over the past few years. Their tendency has been to not recognise the problem and kick the can down the road.

In a research note titled A Growing Need for Indian TARP, Anil Agarwal, Sumeet Kariwala and Subramanian Iyer, analysts at Morgan Stanley point out: “The current managements’ policy of “extend and pretend” is causing banks to move further into problems.”

What do they mean by this? Crisil Research estimates that 40% of the loans restructured during 2011-2014 have become bad loans.

A loan is said to have been restructured where the borrower is allowed to repay the loan over a longer period of time than was originally scheduled. Or the rate of interest on the loan is decreased. If 40% of the loans that were restructured have gone bad over the years, what it clearly shows is that banks have used the restructuring route to essentially kick the can down the road and not recognise the bad loan problem upfront.

The Morgan Stanley analysts quoted earlier expect nearly 65% of restructured loans to turn into bad loans. This is what Rajan was supposedly worried about in his speech in Mumbai yesterday. As Crisil Research points out in a research note titled Modified Expectations: “Reported gross non performing assets[bad loans] will still remain at elevated levels as some of the assets restructured in the previous 2-3 years, especially in the infrastructure, construction, and textiles sectors, degenerate into non-performing assets again.”

Another sector where the banks have been busy window dressing their bad loans is the steel sector. The sector is in a mess with too much debt and is earning too little money to be able to repay it. As Neelkanth Mishra India Equity Strategist, Credit Suisse points out in a recent column in The Indian Express: “At the end of the last financial year, the total debt outstanding to Indian steel companies was nearly $50 billion. This was nearly ten times the industry’s ebitda (profits before interest, taxes and depreciation are deducted), a good proxy for cash profits.” What this clearly tells us is that the steel industry has borrowed way too much and is really not in a position to repay.

The industry continues to be in a mess due to various reasons. As the RBI Financial Stability Report points out: “the industry is beset with many problems: inadequate capital investments, shortage of iron ore, low paced mechanisation of mines, lower level of capacity utilisation of coal washeries, dependence on imported coking coal (the quality of most of the domestic coking coal is not considered good for steel production)…land acquisitions and environmental clearances issues…deceleration in domestic demand.”

In fact, the industry is even finding it difficult to pay the interest on the debt that they have taken on from banks. As Mishra writes: “Companies are borrowing from banks to pay their interest—as underscored by the many “refinancing” deals recently for broke steel companies, where an additional R5,000-8,000 crore were lent by banks.”

Guess, Rajan if he said what he did, was merely stating the obvious.

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

The column originally appeared on Firstpost on July 29, 2015

Why Indian businesses don't create enough jobs

jobsVivek Kaul
Neelkanth Mishra, the India Equity Strategist for Credit Suisse, has written a very interesting column in today’s edition (August 6,2013) of The Indian Express. In this column Mishra writes “It shocks most people to hear that India had 42 million enterprises in 2005, but that’s what the Economic Census found. This is when, even as late as 2012, India had less than a million companies.”
What this means is that the average business in India is very small in size. “In 2005, each enterprise on average employed a shockingly low 2.4 people. Almost 40 per cent of the enterprises were in trade (retail, wholesale, or repair of motor vehicles), with average employment of 1.7 people! Truly mom & pop, father & son, and one-man enterprises (the statisticians have a better name for them: “Own Account Enterprises”). Even in manufacturing, which is 20 per cent of all enterprises, the average employment is merely three,” writes Mishra.
Given this small size of Indian businesses, the salaried class still forms a small proportion of the population. As
the Report on Employment and Unemployment Survey 2011-2012 “In the rural areas, 11.1 per cent households are estimated to be having regular/wage salary earning as major source of income. In the urban areas, 42.3 per cent households are estimated to be having regular wage/salary earnings as major source of income.”
The report also found that “50.8 per cent or majority of the households are found to be having self employment as the major source of income.” Not surprising, given that small firms cannot create jobs and thus people have to fend for themselves.
These numbers need to be read along with the numbers and arguments provided by economists Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya in their book
India’s Tryst with Destiny – Debunking Myths that Undermine Progress and Addressing New Challenges. As they write “The number of workers in all private-sector establishments with ten or more workers rose from 7.7 million in 1990-91 to just 9.8 million in 2007-2008. Employment in private-sector manufacturing establishments of ten workers or more, however, rose from 4.5 million to only 5 million over the same period. This small change has taken place against the backdrop of a much larger number of more than 10 million workers joining the workforce every year.”
What all these numbers clearly tell us is that Indian businesses have not been able to create enough jobs. And this explains to a large extent why 50.8 per cent of households are self employed.
A major reason for the lack of creation of jobs is the fact that an average Indian business was and continues to be very small. As Bhagwati and Panagariya write “employment in India is heavily concentrated in the small enterprises. While the large enterprises have some presence, the medium size enterprises are entirely missing.”
Research and data prove this point even more conclusively. “An astonishing 84 per cent of the workers in all manufacturing in India were employed in firms with forty-nine or less workers in 2005. Large firms, defined as those employing 200 or more workers, accounted for only 10.5 percent of manufacturing workforce. In contrast, small- and large-scale firms employed 25 and 52 per cent of the workers respectively in China in the same year,” write Bhagwati and Panagariya.
What is true about manufacturing as a whole is also true about apparels in particular,which is highly a labour intensive sector. 92.4% of the workers in this sector work with small firms which have forty-nine or less workers. Now compare this to China where large and medium firms make up around 87.7% of the employment in the apparel sector.
This leads to poor performance on the export front as well. “The near absence of medium and large firms in apparel, especially when compared with China, is clearly linked to the poor performance of this sector. The inability to massively capture the export markets in this major sector with comparative advantage is linked to the poor performance of labour-intensive manufacturing and, therefore manufacturing in general. The ultimate reason why growth has not been as inclusive in India as in South Korea,Taiwan and China remains the absence of large-scale firms in labour-intensive sectors in India,” write Bhagwati and Panagariya.
This lack of inclusive growth comes from the tendency of Indian businesses to remain small. Since businesses continue to remain small they do not generate as many jobs as they could. Ultimately, maximum jobs in any economy are created when small firms graduate to becoming medium firms and then finally large firms.
This really hasn’t happened in the labour-intensive manufacturing sector in India. The labour intensive sectors of manufacturing accounted for around 12.94% of the gross value added in the organised manufacturing in 1990-1991. This number rose to 15.9% in 2000-01 and then fell back to 12.91% in 2003-04. “And, in all likelihood,this share has further declined since 2003-04. In fact, some of the fastest growing industries between 2003-04 and 2010-11have been automobiles, two- and three-wheelers, petroleum refining, engineering goods, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, finance and software. All these sectors are either capital intensive or skilled-labour intensive,” write the authors.
A major reason behind businesses in labour intensive sectors continuing to remain small are the labour laws. Labour comes under the Concurrent list of the Indian constitution, meaning both the state government as well as the central government can formulate laws in this area. “The ministry of labour lists as many as fifty-two independent Central government Acts in the area of labour. According to Amit Mitra(the finance minister of West Bengal and a former business lobbyist), there exist another 150 state-level laws in India. This count places the total number of labour laws in India at approximately 200. Compounding the confusion created by this multitude of laws is the fact that they are not entirely consistent with one another, leading a wit to remark that you cannot implement Indian labour laws 100 per cent without violating 20 per cent of them,” write Bhagwati and Panagariya.
And the presence of these ‘burdensome’ labour laws explains to a large extent why entrepreneurs in labour intensive sectors like apparel, where labour costs account for 80 per cent of the total costs, choose to remain small. As Bhagwati and Panagariya write “As the firm size rises from six regular workers towards 100, at no point between these two thresholds is the saving in manufacturing costs sufficiently large to pay for the extra cost of satisfying the laws”.
The authors recount an interesting story told to them by economist Ajay Shah. Shah, it seems asked a leading Indian industrialist about why he did not enter the apparel sector, given that he was already making yarn and cloth. “The industrialist replied that with the low profit margins in apparel, this would be worth while only if he operated on the scale of 100,000 workers. But this would not be practical in view of India’s restrictive labour laws”.
There is a problem and there is a solution. But every time there is some talk about labour reforms being reformed, political parties (almost every one of which has a labour union) start protesting. But what they don’t realise is that by protesting they essentially ensure that firms in labour intensive sectors continue to remain small. And that means creation of fewer ‘new’ jobs.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on August 7, 2013 

(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek)