Raghuram Rajan

Interest rates are also about savers, not just about borrowers

ARTS RAJAN

One of the points that I have made in the past is that interest rates are not just about borrowers; they are also about savers.

Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) explained this beautifully in a recent interview to NDTV. At a talk somewhere, one gentleman got up and told the governor that he should bring down the interest rates to 4%.

A point that most people fail to understand is that an RBI governor can decide only on the repo rate. 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 RBI governor does not decide on the interest rate that a bank charges on its loans. Neither does he decide the interest rate a bank pays on its deposits for that matter. That is a decision individual banks make.

Hence, Rajan cutting the repo rate is not enough. Banks need to pass on the cut to the end consumers. Since January 2015, Rajan has cut the repo rate by 150 basis points. Banks have passed on around half of that cut to the end consumers due to various reasons. The public sector banks have been accumulating a huge amount of bad loans and this has limited their ability to cut interest rates on their loans.

Rajan asked this gentleman that the rate of inflation was still 5.5% and if he brought down the interest rate to 4%, would he still deposit his money at the bank? The gentleman said no. So he was not willing to deposit his money at a low interest rate, but wanted banks to lower their lending rates.

To this Rajan said: “say a bank pays 6% on deposits and lends at 4%, who is going to make up for the difference”. “The idea is that somebody is going to pick up the tab. We are used to somebody picking up the tab. Who is going to pick up this tab?”

The point here is very simple. A bank can only lend at a rate of interest which is higher than the rate at which it borrows. Further, it needs to offer a certain rate of interest on its deposits, so that people deposit money with it and do not invest it in other avenues which offer a higher rate of return. Currently, the rate of interest offered on small savings schemes are significantly higher than those of fixed deposits.

Rajan also said that it takes some time for depositors to get used to the fact that inflation has actually come down over the last few years. “The real interest rate they [i.e. depositors] are getting now is much higher than the real interest rate they were getting earlier,” Rajan said.

The real interest rate is essentially the nominal interest rate offered by a bank on its fixed deposit subtracted by the prevailing rate of inflation. “When inflation was 9% they [i.e. depositors] were getting 9%. This meant earning nothing in real terms and losing everything in inflation,” Rajan explained. “Today they are getting 7% on their deposits and inflation is 5.5%. They are earning 1.5%. It is a real difference,” he added.

This is something that will take time to sink in because money illusion is at work. What is money illusion? As Gary Belsky and Thomas Gilovich write in Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes: “[Money illusion] involves a confusion between ‘”nominal” changes in money and “real” changes that reflect inflation…Accounting for inflation requires the application of a little arithmetic, which…is often an annoyance and downright impossible for many people…Most people we know routinely fail to consider the effects of inflation in their finance decision making.”

So, the point is that even though people are earning a better real rate of interest they don’t realise it. What they see is that nominal rate of interest has fallen and given this they are not happy with banks offering a lower rate of interest on their fixed deposits.

As Rajan said in the NDTV interview: “Depositors are already complaining that they are not getting enough. That is why banks are reluctant to cut [deposit] rates.” And unless banks can cut deposit rates there is no way they can cut lending rates, irrespective of what the RBI chooses to do with the repo rate.

This is how bank interest rates work. As Rajan asked: “For somebody to say that I have a God given right to get a loan at low interest rate but I won’t deposit at that rate, where is the money going to come from them?” This basically means that banks lend money they essentially get as deposits. And without deposits there is going to be no lending.

“One of the most difficult things in economics to understand is general equilibrium. You do one thing it has other effects as well,” Rajan said. If interest rate on lending is cut where is the money going to come for savings, Rajan asked.

This is something that people who keep demanding lower interest rate at a drop of a hat don’t seem to understand. There are two sides to bank interest rates. The interest rate banks charge on their loans and the interest rate they pay on their deposits. And if interest rates on deposits can’t fall beyond a point, then the interest rate on loans can’t fall as well.

This is a basic point that people don’t seem to understand. And it’s not rocket science.

The column was originally published in the Vivek Kaul Diary on June 10, 2016

Okay, Let’s Get Subramanian Swamy’s Nonsense on Raghuram Rajan Out of the Way

ARTS RAJAN

Subramanian Swamy has gone after the Gandhi family over the last few years and been fairly successful at it. Now he seems to have moved on to a new target—the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) governor, Raghuram Rajan.

Swamy, who recently became a Rajya Sabha member, wrote a letter to the prime minister Narendra Modi, asking him to terminate the services of the RBI governor immediately or when his term ends in September, later this year.

As Swamy writes in the letter: “The reason why I recommend this is that I am shocked by the wilful and apparently deliberate attempt by Dr Rajan to wreck the Indian economy. For example the concept of containing inflation by rising interest rates is disastrous.”

Let’s take the point of Rajan raising interest rates turning out to be disastrous. When Rajan took over as the RBI governor, inflation was close to 10%. Interest rates offered on bank fixed deposits were lower than that. Hence, people were losing money once inflation was taken into account.

Due to this, money had moved into real estate as well as gold, as people looked for a “real” rate of return. In fact, when Rajan took over as RBI governor,
rupee was rapidly losing value against the dollar. One of the reasons was that there was a huge demand for dollars because Indians were buying gold to hedge against inflation. Rajan cracked down on this, and managed to stabilise the value of the rupee.

The stabilisation of the rupee was important because India imports 80% of the oil that it consumes. And when the rupee depreciates oil becomes expensive in rupee terms. This isn’t good for the government nor the overall economy.

Also, over the years high inflation has essentially ensured that the household financial savings as a proportion of the gross domestic product have been falling. Between 2005-2006 and 2007-2008, the average rate of household financial savings stood at 11.6% of the GDP. In 2009-2010, it rose to 12% of GDP. By 2011-2012, it had fallen to 7% of the GDP. The household financial savings in 2014-2015 stood at 7.5% of GDP.

Household financial savings is essentially a term used to refer to the money invested by individuals in fixed deposits, small savings schemes of India Post, mutual funds, shares, insurance, provident and pension funds, etc. A major part of household financial savings in India is held in the form of bank fixed deposits and post office small savings schemes.
In order to ensure that household financial savings go up, basically two things are needed—lower inflation as well as a real rate of return on financial savings that people make, in particular fixed deposits. Fixed deposits offer a real rate of return when the interest rate on the fixed deposit is higher than the inflation.

Since the beginning of 2015, after a very long time, the interest rates on fixed deposits have been in real territory. And this is a very important achievement for Rajan. The interest rates need to stay in real territory, if household financial savings need to go up, in the years to come.

In fact, it needs to be said here that Rajan recognises the fact that interest rates are not just about borrowers. They are also about savers as well. The savers include the young trying to save for the future of their children and the old trying to live a decent life in retirement. And savers need to be paid a reasonable rate of return on their savings as well. This is something that Rajan set right.

Swamy further said: “When the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) started to decline due to induced recession in the small and medium industry, he shifted the target from WPI to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which has not however declined because of retail prices. On the contrary it has risen. Had Dr. Raghuram Rajan stuck to WPI interest rates would have been much lower today, and given huge relief to small and medium industries. Instead they are squeezed further and consequent increasing unemployment.”

It is important to understand here why the Rajan led RBI moved from following inflation as measured by the wholesale price index to inflation as measured by the consumer price index. When the RBI tracked inflation as measured by the wholesale price index, it took a very long time to raise interest rates, and by the time the high consumer price inflation had well and truly set in.

The high inflation then caused problems, as I have explained above. Let’s take the point about high interest rates hurting small and medium industries. Recent data shows that this is not true at all. Data for 2.37 lakh unlisted private firms was recently released by the RBI. This primarily includes small and medium enterprises, which Swamy feels are having a tough time.

This data clearly shows that these firms are doing much better than the big listed firms, over the last three years. Aarati Krishnan writing in The Hindu Business Line points out: “Unlisted firms managed far better sales growth in the last three years. They went from 13.3 per cent sales growth in FY13 to 8.7 per cent in FY14 before bouncing back to a healthy 12 per cent in 2014-15. In contrast, listed companies saw their sales growth dwindling from 9.1 per cent in FY13, to 4.7 per cent in FY14 and further to an abysmal 1.4 per cent by FY15.”

The same trend was seen when it comes to net profit as well. As Krishnan points out: “Their profits grew at 16 per cent, 23.6 per cent and 12.3 per cent in the last three years. Listed companies struggled with shrinking profits, their net profits falling by 2 per cent, 5.1 per cent and 0.7 per cent in the same three years.”

So what is Swamy really talking about here? And why is he misleading the prime minister Modi in particular and the nation in general?

Swamy further says: “Thus, in the last two years estimated NPA in public sector banks has doubled to Rs. 3-1/2 lakhs crores.”

What Swamy is basically saying is that the high interest rate regime initiated by the RBI led to small and medium enterprises defaulting on their loans and bad loans of public sector banks doubling. The first point that needs to be made here is that before Rajan took over as the governor of RBI, banks were not recognising their bad loans. He has pushed them to recognise their bad loans. Hence, the jump in bad loans has been primarily because of that.

What this means is that even before Rajan led RBI started raising interest rates, many corporates were not in a position to repay their loans. The banks were pretending all was well, when that wasn’t really the case. Rajan forced them to start recognising bad loans. All these huge losses that banks have suddenly started to report can’t have been created overnight. They are a result of banks not recognising these bad loans for a substantially long period of time. Hence, Swamy’s charge doesn’t hold true.

Also, defaults by mid and large corporates are a very important reason for public sector banks being in the mess that they are in. Crony capitalists close to the previous UPA regime are primarily responsible for this.

The last that I checked the RBI was a regulator of banks and did not give out any loans. So how can the RBI governor be held responsible for what are basically bad lending decisions by banks? How can the RBI governor be held responsible for banks not insisting on enough collateral for the loans that they gave out? And how can the RBI governor be held responsible for politicians forcing public sector banks to give loans to crony capitalists?

Swamy further said: “These actions of Dr. Rajan lead me to believe that he is acting more as a disrupter of the Indian economy [italics are mine] than the person who wants the Indian economy to improve.” I agree with the part of the statement which says that Rajan is acting as a disrupter of the Indian economy.

In fact, on many fronts, the Indian economy did need a disrupter. Rajan has forced banks to start recognising their bad loans instead of extending and pretending, as they were doing earlier. This has brought out the real situation that public sector banks are in.

Further, he has also empowered banks to go after defaulters. A few Indian promoters have started selling their assets in order to repay banks. This is something that hasn’t happened before.

Rajan has also initiated the formation of a monetary policy committee where monetary policy will be made by a committee. As of now, only the governor is responsible for it. A central bank operating through a monetary policy committee is the norm the world over. And by doing this, the governor is essentially diluting his powers.

Further, he has given small banks licenses and payment bank licenses as well, with the idea of expanding financial inclusion across the country. So, yes Rajan is a disrupter, who wants the Indian economy to improve.

Swamy also accused Rajan of being mentally not fully Indian. As he said: “Moreover he is in this country on a Green Card provided by the U.S. Government and therefore mentally not fully Indian. Otherwise why would he renew his Green Card as RBI Governor by making the mandatory annual visit to the U.S. to keep the Green Card current?”

Rajan still has an Indian passport. This after having lived in the United States for more than 25 years. How many Indians who have lived in the United States for 25 years still have an Indian passport?

And if Rajan wants to keep his green card active, what is wrong with that? He is a professional in his early 50s and still has his career to think about. He needs to think about his career beyond the RBI and if that means visiting the US once every year, then so be it.

Swamy finally asked for the termination of Rajan’s appointment as RBI governor. As he said: “I cannot see why someone appointed by the UPA Government who is apparently working against Indian economic interests should be kept in this post when we have so many nationalist minded experts available in this country for the RBI Governorship. I therefore urge you to terminate the appointment of Dr. Raghuram Rajan in the national interest.”

This is a very silly argument. Appointing Rajan as the RBI governor was one of the few correct things that the UPA government did in the second half of its second term. Why undo that?

And as far as Swamy is concerned, there are better ways of showing interest in the RBI governor’s job than this.

The column was originally published in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on May 19, 2016.

The Income of the Average Indian is Significantly Lower Than the Average Income of India

ARTS RAJAN

The speeches made by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) governor, Raghuram Rajan, are always a pleasure to read. In his latest speech made on April 20, 2016, Rajan said: “India is the fastest growing large country in the world, though with manufacturing capacity utilization low at 70% and agricultural growth slow following two bad monsoons, our potential is undoubtedly higher. Growth, however, is just one measure of performance. The level of per capita GDP is also important. We are still one of the poorest large countries in the world on a per capita basis, and have a long way to go before we reasonably address the concerns of each one of our citizens.”

Rajan further said: “We are often compared with China. But the Chinese economy, which was smaller than ours in the 1960s, is now five times our size at market exchange rates. The average Chinese citizen is over four times richer than the average Indian. The sobering thought is we have a long way to go before we can claim we have arrived.”

The point that Rajan was trying to make was that: “As a central banker who has to be pragmatic, I cannot get euphoric if India is the fastest growing large economy…The central and state governments have been creating a platform for strong and sustainable growth, and I am confident the payoffs are on their way, but until we have stayed on this path for some time, I remain cautious.”

This was essentially a retort to politicians who keep tom-tomming India’s dodgy economic growth numbers. While Rajan did not say that he does not believe in the economic growth numbers, he did try and make it clear that if India needs to reach anywhere, it needs strong and sustainable economic growth in the years to come. And achieving that is easier said than done.

Further, Rajan also made a more important point in his speech about India’s low per capita income. What is per capita income? John Lanchester defines per capita income in his book How To Speak Money as: “The total Gross Domestic Product(GDP) of a country divided by the number of people in the country.

As he further writes: “It is a measure of how rich the country’s citizens are on average – though it is a very rough measure of that, since a country’s WEALTH is often very unevenly distributed.”

The phrase to mark in the above paragraph is on average. The question is does an average always represent the right scenario? As Robert H Frank writes in Success and Luck—Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy: “It is of course possible for most people to have a trait the measures higher than the corresponding mean value for the population to which they belong. Since a small number of people have fewer than two legs and no one has more, for instance, the average number of legs in any population is slightly less than two. So most people actually do have “more legs than average”.”

How does the above paragraph apply in the context of the GDP? What it tells us is that the average income of India is not equal to the income of the average Indian. Now what does that actually mean?

Let me explain that through an example. Let’s say on a given day in the city of Mumbai, an Ambani, an Adnani, a Birla and a Tata, walk into a local Udupi restaurant in Matunga. The restaurant is known for its soft idlis and fabulous coffee. And this has attracted the four industrialists to this small place.

The moment these four walk into the restaurant, the average income of the people seated in the restaurant goes up by leaps and bounds. If I may rephrase the last sentence, the per capita income of the restaurant goes up leaps and bounds, when the four industrialists walk into the Udupi restaurant.

But this increase in per capita income of the restaurant will have no impact on the incomes of the other people seated in the restaurant. (This example is essentially an adaptation of an example Charles Wheelan uses in his book Naked Statistics).

As Charles Wheelan writes in Naked Statistics: “The mean, or average, turns out to have some problems in that regard, namely, that it is prone to distortion by “outliers”, which are observations farther from the center.”

So basically, the Ambanis, Adnanis, Birlas and Tatas, of the world, essentially India’s rich, push up the average income of India i.e. the per capita income. As Wheelan writes: “The average income…could be heavily skewed by the megarich.”

In this scenario, the average income does not give us a correct picture. Further, it is safe to say, that the income of the average Indian is lower than the average income of India.

At this point it is important to introduce another term i.e. the median. As Wheelan writes: “The median is the point that divides a distribution in half, meaning that half of the observation lie above the median and half lie below.”

Hence, the median income is the income of the average Indian. Given this, the median income is the right representation of the income of the average Indian. This is because the rich outliers (the Ambanis, the Adnanis, the Tatas and the Birlas) are taken into account. Data from World Bank shows that the top 10% of India’s population makes 30% of the total income. And this pushes up the per capita income.

The trouble is that it is not so easy to find median income data in the Indian context. A survey carried out by Gallup in December 2013, put India’s median income at $616. Data from the World Bank shows that India’s per capita income during the same year was $1455.
Hence, the median income was around 58% lower than the average income or the per capita income. And that is not a good sign at all.

This shows the tremendous amount of inequality prevalent in the country. The difference in the income of the average Indian and the average income of India is thus huge. In fact, I had written about this inequality in the column published on April 19.

In 2015-2016, the average income of those not working in agriculture was 4.9 times those working in agriculture (using GDP at current prices). If we were to use GDP at constant prices (at 2011-2012 prices), the ratio comes to 5.5. Constant prices essentially adjust for inflation.

And this is really a big worry!

The column originally appeared on the Vivek Kaul’s Diary on April 25, 2016

Here is More Evidence on India’s Love for Black Money

rupee

In the budget speech made on February 28, 2013, the then finance minister P Chidambaram had said: “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year.”

This statement caused a lot of hungama at that point of time. Recently, the revenue secretary Hasmukh Adhia made a similar sort of statement. “There are only 1.5 lakh individuals whose total income would be above Rs 50 lakh,” Adhia recently remarked.

This statement by Adhia has been largely ignored. It essentially implies two things: a) India is a poor country where very few people actually earn more than Rs 50 lakh. b) Very few Indians actually pay income tax and black money forms a major part of the Indian economy. Black money is money which has been earned, but on which tax has not been paid. While, there is no denying that India is a poor country, in this context the second option makes more sense.

In a country of close to 125 crore people, only 1.5 lakh individuals, or 0.012% of the population has an income of over Rs 50 lakh. This is a tad difficult to believe. The consumption patterns clearly prove otherwise.

One argument that can be made here is that many people earning over Rs 50 lakh are making money in forms that are tax-free, like capital gains and dividends from stocks. Dividend earned from stocks has been tax-free for a while now. In the budget presented in February earlier this year, the finance minister Arun Jaitley introduced a “tax at the rate of 10% of gross amount of dividend…payable by the recipients, that is, individuals, HUFs and firms receiving dividend in excess of Rs 10 lakh per annum.” (HUFs = Hindu Undivided Families).

While Chidambaram had used the phrase “taxable income”, Adhia just used the term “income”. So in Chidambaram’s case it is clear he meant that only 42,800 Indians had a taxable income of more than Rs 1 crore. Hence, there are more than 42,800 Indians making more than Rs 1 crore per year. This would include those who make money through capital gains and dividends from stocks, on which taxes need not be paid.

In Adhia’s case, he has just used the term “income”. Hence, the 1.5 lakh individuals who make more than Rs 50 lakh per year, would also include those who make money in forms, on which income tax does not have to be paid. It also includes those who make more than Rs 50 lakh per year, but whose taxable income is less than Rs 50 lakh, given that they make use of various deductions that are available.

Adhia’s statement was made in a certain context. In a notification put out on April 1, 2016, the ministry of finance had said: “With Assessment Year 2016-17, individuals and HUFs filing their returns of income in ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-2A and ITR-4S, having income exceeding Rs.50 lakh will now be required to furnish information regarding assets and liabilities in Schedule-AL of the relevant ITR form.”

Basically those earning more than Rs 50 lakh would now have to declare their assets (cars, investments, property etc.) as well as liabilities (like loans being re-paid) while filing their income tax returns.

There were some protests against this move, which led Adhia to state that: “There are only 1.5 lakh individuals whose total income would be above Rs 50 lakh. This schedule in ITR only applies to ultra rich and will not affect the common man… 99.5 per cent taxpayers are not affected by this requirement. Only the ultra rich will have to give this information in their I-T Returns.”

On the face of it, this seems like another move on the part of the Narendra Modi government to crackdown on black money. While this might look like another move to tackle black money, to me it seems more like a classic bureaucratic exercise to harass those who are already paying income tax and following the law of the land.

The number 1.5 lakh is anyway so small that this lot of people is probably not in a position to hide its income given that most of it is tax deducted at source(TDS). Chances are that these individuals are either salaried and/or honest.

Hence, what is the point in making their income tax filings more complicated than it currently is? Is the chartered accountant(CA) lobby at work? Is it trying to ensure that filing income tax returns gets more complicated by the year, leading to more CAs being able to charge more?

I really don’t have answers for that. But in a country where conspiracy theories thrive, this one makes immense sense.

Also, from April 1, 2016, onwards, many high value transactions are to be reported to the income tax department.

These include: a) buying or selling of immovable property worth more than Rs 30 lakh. b) purchase of shares worth more than Rs 1 lakh or mutual funds worth more than Rs 2 lakh. c) payment of credit card bills more than Rs 2 lakh. d) investment of more than Rs 1 lakh in gold ETFs. e) investment of Rs 5 lakh or more in debentures or bonds of a company. f) cash deposit of more than Rs 10 lakh made into a savings bank account.

Hence, the government will have access to most of the information that it now wants from those earning more than Rs 50 lakh to declare in their income tax returns. Why is it still asking for this information? One possible explanation is that given the slow pace at which our bureaucracy works, the expectation is that this information will not be shared with the income tax department at a fast pace or on a regular basis. Hence, the department now wants the information coming to it directly. Again, I don’t have any evidence for this, but it makes for a good conspiracy theory.

Also, the moot question is what is the government doing to expand the tax base? Is it looking at the right places for people and institutions which are avoiding to pay income tax? Take the recent data on money supply released by the Reserve Bank of India.

Between March 2015 and March 2016, the currency with the public went up by 15% or Rs 2.08 lakh crore. Between March 2014 and March 2015, the jump had been 10.6% or Rs 1.33 lakh crore. So why this sudden jump?

The RBI governor Raghuram Rajan explained this in an interaction with the media after presenting the first monetary policy statement for this financial year on April 5. He explained that assembly elections are currently on in several states. Around this time, the cash in hands of the public increases.

As Rajan said: “you can guess as to reasons why…we also guess.” This increase is not only in the states that go to elections but also in neighbouring states. Having said that, this explains only a part of the increase.

This money that has gone out of the banking system to finance elections, is very easy to track. The income tax department can easily check if tax has been paid on this income. Typically, black money finances elections. But given that this money is financing assembly elections, and politicians are involved, the chances of anything like this happening are remote.

The column originally appeared on Vivek Kaul’s  Diary on April 7, 2016

Money Printing: Rajan Launches QE Lite to Bring Down Interest Rates

ARTS RAJAN

In the first monetary policy statement for this financial year, Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) cut the repo rate by 25 basis points to 6.5%.

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 for the short and medium term interest rates in the economy.

In the column dated March 30, 2016, I had said that it is best if the RBI cuts the repo rate 25 basis points at a time and not more.

My logic for writing this was fairly straightforward. From January 2015 onwards, the RBI had cut the repo rate by 125 basis points. In comparison, the banks had cut their lending rates by only around 60 basis points. Meanwhile, they have cut the interest rates on their fixed deposits by more than 100 basis points.

This means that the banks have cut their lending rates at a very slow pace. Hence, there was no point in the RBI cutting the repo rate by more than 25 basis points, given that the banks have not passed on that cut to their prospective and current borrowers, in the form of lower lending rates.

In this scenario the best strategy for the RBI is to cut the repo rate 25 basis points at a time and then take a check if the cut has been passed on to the borrowers by banks.

And this is precisely what Rajan did yesterday by cutting the repo rate by 25 basis points. Honestly, the cut in the repo rate was not the most important part of yesterday’s monetary policy statement.

In the most important paragraph of the monetary policy, the RBI said that it will “continue to provide liquidity as required but progressively lower the average ex ante liquidity deficit in the system from one per cent of NDTL [net demand and time liabilities] to a position closer to neutrality.”

What does this mean in simple English? There is a certain demand for money that the banking system has. But there is only a certain supply of it going around which is not enough to fulfil demand. The difference is referred to as liquidity deficit.

Hence, banks cannot borrow as much as they want to from the banking system. In this scenario they have to pay a higher rate of interest to borrow.

The monetary policy statement of the RBI puts the liquidity deficit at 1% of demand and time liabilities. This means that the liquidity deficit in the banking system is at 1% of the total current account deposits, savings account deposits and fixed deposits, of banks.

As on March 18, 2016, the total demand and time deposits of banks stood at Rs 93,786,60 crore. The liquidity deficit is 1% of this and hence works out to around Rs 93,786 crore. This is where theoretically the deficit in the banking system should have been.

But the actual deficit is more than this. Rajan in his interaction with the media after presenting the monetary policy conceded that the actual liquidity deficit was around Rs 50,000-60,000 crore more than the RBI had estimated. This means that the actual daily liquidity deficit is around Rs 1,50,000 crore.

There are multiple reason for the same. Assembly elections are currently on in several states. Around this time, the cash in hands of the public increases. As Rajan said: “you can guess as to reasons why…we also guess.” This increase is not only in the states that go to elections but also in neighbouring states.

Then there was the issuance of tax-free bonds. Further, before the interest rates on small saving schemes were cut there was an inflow of money into these schemes. All these factors have essentially ensured that the liquidity deficit in the banking system is around Rs 1,50,000 crore.

The RBI now plans to bring down this deficit to a position closer to neutrality. The RBI plans to steadily reduce this deficit. The question is how will the RBI do this? The central bank will have to buy assets from banks.

One way of going about it is to carry out open market operations and buy bonds from banks. In fact, the RBI announced an open market operation of Rs 15,000 crore, yesterday.

The question is where will the RBI get this money from? The RBI, like any other central bank, has the ability to create money out of thin air by printing it, or rather by creating it digitally these days.

And this is precisely what the RBI will do—it will print money to buy bonds. When it buys bonds, it will pay for it through this freshly created money. When this freshly created money enters the banking system, the supply of money will go up and the liquidity deficit will come down. This will push down interest rates and in the process banks will pass on lower interest rates to the end consumers.

Of course this is not going to happen overnight and will happen over the course of this financial year and perhaps even the next.

In fact, what the RBI is trying to do is similar to what happened in the aftermath of the financial crisis that started in September 2008. The Federal Reserve of the United States decided to print money and buy bonds, in order to drive down interest rates, so that people would borrow and spend more. This is referred to as quantitative easing or QE.

The RBI is also doing a smaller version of QE. We can perhaps call it QE lite.

There were other moves also to help banks lower lending interest rates. Up until the RBI had maintained a difference of 100 basis points between the reverse repo rate and the repo rate.

While repo rate is the rate at which the RBI lends to banks, the reverse repo rate is the rate at which the RBI borrows from banks. Before today, the repo rate was at 6.75% and the reverse repo rate was at 5.75%. The difference, as mentioned earlier, was 100 basis points.

The RBI cut the repo rate by 25 basis points to 6.5%. At the same time, it increased the reverse repo by 25 basis points to 6%, thus narrowing the difference to 50 basis points. Hence, banks will now pay a lower interest when they borrow from the RBI and get a higher interest when they have excess funds, which they can park at the RBI. This basically will help banks to earn more and make it more likely for them to cut their lending rates.

Further, banks need to maintain 4% of their demand and time deposits with the RBI as a cash reserve ratio(CRR). Currently, the banks need to maintain 95% of the required CRR with banks on a daily basis. This has been lowered to 90%. This will help ease the pressure on banks and they will have more free cash. This should again help them cut their lending rates.

Up until now, the RBI repo rate cuts led to interest rate on deposits being cut more rapidly than lending rates. This time around, the lending rates are also likely to be cut.

Watch this space!

The column was originally published on Vivek Kaul’s Diary on April 6, 2016