On 27th
October the Reserve Bank of India released one more of its routine
quarterly reviews of monetary policy. On reading the text, an interested
observer would consider this a non-event. The central bank has done
virtually nothing in terms of policy change. Interest rates such as
repo rates at which the RBI lends to the banking sector which had
been reduced in the wake of the global crisis have been left untouched.
And the cash reserve ratio that impounds a part of the banks' deposits,
which too had been reduced, has not been hiked. The only change even
worth noting was the decision to restore the Statutory liquidity Ratio
(SLR) (or the ratio of investments by banks in specified—largely government—securities
relative to their net demand and time liabilities) to its earlier
25 per cent level, from the 24 per cent to which it had been reduced
as part of the monetary easing resorted to in the wake of the crisis.
This could in principle pre-empt a part of the banks' resources, but
is without any import because excess liquidity with the banks had
already encouraged them to invest in SLR securities, with such investments
amounting to 27.6 per cent of their net demand and time liabilities
on October 9, 2009.
Besides this, other changes are principally reductions in enhanced
refinance facilities for export credit provided by banks and the discontinuation
of a couple of special refinance facilities aimed at increasing liquidity
in the banking system. Put simply, not much has been done, especially
given the RBI's own assessment that ''the banking system has been
awash with liquidity since November 2008'', so that ''the utilisation
of the several refinance facilities instituted by the Reserve Bank''
has been low.
Despite the absence of anything new in this edition of a routine quarterly
exercise, it attracted much attention in the financial press. Moreover,
the major stock markets and stock price indices sank on the day of
and after the announcement, and analysts attributed the dampened sentiment
to the monetary policy review. Clearly, for the financial sector at
least, monetary policy today is far more important than it was in
the past. So much so that a review near-bereft of new substance is
significant enough to elicit a sharp response. There could be two
reasons for the latter. One could be that the financial sector expected
some ''positive'' initiatives which did not materialise. The other
could be that it gleaned from the review signs of developments that
it would consider adverse. In fact, it possibly was a bit of both.
The importance of monetary policy clearly derives from its role in
determining the availability and cost of credit. In earlier times
this mattered only because of the influence this had on productive
investment. So long as the inducement to invest existed, the availability
of reasonably priced credit facilitated such investment. However,
with the onset of financial liberalisation credit gained in importance
because of its enhanced role in two other areas. First, it supported
credit-financed housing investments, automobile purchases and consumption
of various kinds. Hence, easy and cheap credit spurred demand, served
as a stimulus to economic activity, contributed to better profit performance
and imparted a degree of buoyancy to financial markets. Second, with
liberalisation increasing the number and types of financial agents,
all of whom are less regulated, credit and leverage played a role
in driving activity in financial markets, including activity of a
largely speculative nature.
Monetary policy has also gained in importance because an abiding feature
of the consecutive waves of ''economic reform'' in the age of active
finance, is growing fiscal conservatism. Governments now accept in
principle, even if not always in practice, that a proactive fiscal
policy incorporating significant deficit-financed spending needs to
be abjured. They see such intervention as being potentially inflationary
and disruptive of financial markets. In the view of finance, therefore,
macroeconomic management should rely more on monetary policies devised
by a central bank that should be made independent of government.
One consequence of this privileging of monetary policy relative to
fiscal policy was that even when the global crisis, precipitated by
a speculative, mismanaged and poorly regulated financial sector, forced
governments to accept the need for a ''fiscal stimulus'', most stimulus
packages included efforts to pump liquidity into the system and keep
interest rates low Such packages have served finance well, since they
not only benefited real economy actors but the financial sector as
well. In fact, the scenario today in most developed countries is one
in which the financial sector which was near collapse is faring better
than the real economy, and within the financial sector, those entities
which are focused on making and managing financial 'investments' are
faring better than those that are dependent on the revival of credit
demand from the real economy (such as the typical commercial bank).
What the remarkable responses in post-reform India to monetary policy
pronouncements, including the most recent quarterly review, suggest
is that this country too has seen post-reform changes that give monetary
policy and its consequences an important role in economic management.
In fact, there is reason to believe that the role of monetary policy
would increase substantially in the immediate future. The reason for
this is that a combination of the outlays necessitated by the Sixth
Pay Commission's recommendations and the moderate fiscal stimulus
resorted to in the wake of the slowdown in growth induced by the global
crisis have substantially increased the government's deficit-financed
spending. The budget for 2009-10 had projected the fiscal and revenue
deficits for the year at 6.8 and 4.8 per cent respectively, and figures
for the first 5 months of the financial year (April-August) indicate
that 46 and 55 per cent respectively of the projected deficits have
already been incurred. This increases the pressure on a fiscally conservative
government bound by its own Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
Act to prune these deficits. Put otherwise, the fiscal stimulus is
likely to get weaker rather than stronger in the future, since there
is little additional headroom available on the fiscal front. The reliance
on monetary policy is, therefore, bound to increase.
In fact, the reliance on the monetary lever has already been substantial
in recent months. Between October 2008 and October 2009, the RBI has
reduced the repo rate by 425 basis points from 9.00 per cent to 4.75
per cent, the reverse repo rate by 275 basis points from 6 per cent
to 3.25 per cent and the cash reserve ratio by 400 basis points from
9 per cent to 5 per cent. In sum, the central bank has already extended
itself significantly to increase the volume of liquidity and reduce
interest rates.
The financial sector has benefited from the monetary largesse of governments,
both foreign and domestic. The massive infusion of liquidity into
the economies of the developed countries by their governments has
substantially increased the access of foreign institutional investors
(FII) to cheap finance, which they have been leveraging to invest
in their own equity markets and in those of emerging markets like
India. The net result has been a remarkable rally in India's stock
markets. That FII-induced rally has, in turn, encouraged domestic
entities to access the cheap liquidity infused by the RBI to invest
in equity and exploit the stock market boom, driving stock prices
even higher. Nothing illustrates this more than the fact that even
banks have leveraged the excess liquidity in the system to make substantial
investments (of around Rs.92,000 crore during the months till October
in the current financial year) in units of mutual funds. What banks
cannot do as regulated financial intermediaries, they seem to be doing
by finding proxy investors for themselves.
However, the response to the recent monetary policy review indicates
that all this is not good enough for financial players. The problem
is that there is growing realisation that markets have overshot the
real economy by a substantial margin, with price earnings ratios touching
uncomfortable levels. If the boom in the stock market is not to unwind
a more robust recovery of the real economy is necessary. The RBI's
growth projections do not provide grounds for optimism on this front.
Credit off take by the private sector is low, and the growth in scheduled
commercial banks' non-food credit at 4.3 per cent is significantly
lower than the growth of 10.5 per cent in the corresponding period
of last year. And the private banks have reined in retail lending
which supports demand, because of the risk accumulated by their already
high exposure to the retail sector. In fact, foreign banks have reduced
their aggregate exposure to the retail sector. This deprives the system
of an important stimulus for recent growth.
Given all this perhaps the markets were looking for a concerted effort
on the part of the RBI to push credit, cut interest rates, stimulate
demand and the real economy and provide the foundations for the recent
rally in stock markets. Instead what they have got is an expression
of concern that the government's fiscal deficit is far too high and
a declaration that the stage has been reached where, given the excess
liquidity in the system, a strategy to exit from the easy money policy
adopted in response to the global crisis must be formulated and implemented.
A reduce fiscal stimulus and monetary tightening if combined would
have seriously adverse consequences.
Even though the quarterly review could do or actually did little to
advance these tentative objectives outlined by the central bank, the
fact that it did not do anything to the contrary may have frightened
markets. However much they may rail against the State and its intervention,
these markets need either the Finance Ministry or the Reserve Bank
of India to support and increase their profits. If these agencies
even just hold back, disappointment is intense and the results are
intriguing.