External Benchmark for Floating Rate Loans: RBI Takes a U-Turn; Shelves Plan Indefinitely
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), now headed by bureaucrat Shaktikanta Das, seems to have succumbed to pressure from banks and has delayed its plan to link floating interest rates for retail loans to external benchmark. 
 
Just in December last year, the central bank, then headed by Dr Urjit Patel had asked all banks to adopt new external benchmark for providing loans for home, auto and micro and small enterprises (MSME) from 1 April 2019. 
 
Just before this, Moneylife Foundation had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court (SC) praying for an external benchmark, among other things. The SC had asked RBI to respond to Moneylife Foundation. Instead of a specific response, RBI had gone ahead and announced the external benchmark.
 
RBI's decision in December 2018 was based on recommendation by Dr Janak Raj Committee. The Committee in its 2017 report 'Internal Study Group to Review the Working of the MCLR System' had provided a shocking account of how wide and deep banking malpractices are with regard to floating rate loans. It confirmed every one of our arguments about how banks cheat customers, fudge rates and extort conversion charges.
 
Dr Patel resigned on 10th December and Mr Das took over as new governor of RBI on 12 December 2018. Mr Das, who is a former revenue secretary, has now decided to keep  the issue of linking interest rates to external benchmark on the back-burner, much to the surprise and dismay of borrowers, who have been short changed by the banks.
 
Mr Das, in his first monetary policy decision in February 2019, called Dr Patel’s directions as ‘draft guidelines’. In the April monetary policy statement, Mr Das stated that RBI would hold further consultations with stakeholders and work out an effective mechanism for transmission of rates. 
 
According to a report from Times of India, banks are understood to have opposed an external benchmark proposal as often the repo rate or the treasury bill rate were not indicative of their cost of funds. 
 
Quoting Sunil Mehta, managing director (MD) and chief executive (CEO) of Punjab National Bank and chairman of Indian Banks' Association (IBA), the report says, "The IBA had represented the apprehension of the banking sector on moving towards the external benchmarks. The RBI has indicated further discussions with the stakeholders before introducing an external benchmark."
 
While the IBA is expressing its apprehension on adopting new external benchmark with interest rates, State Bank of India (SBI), the country's largest lender, had already taken a decision on this. From 1 May 2019, SBI has decided to link interest rates with repo rate for saving bank deposits of over Rs1 lakh and short-term loans. 
 
Regular readers would know Moneylife Foundation has been relentlessly campaigning against arbitrary and opaque bank policies with respect to floating rate loans. Borrowers, who have taken loans on a floating rate basis, suffer an immediate increase when interest rates are hiked by RBI but do not get much relief when rates go down. This makes a mockery of the very concept of ‘floating’ rates. We have highlighted this issue in several articles and our Cover Story “Banksters” (Moneylife, 28 April-11 May 2017). 
 
The external benchmark suggested by RBI in December included its policy repo rate, government of India 91 days treasury bill yield produced by the Financial Benchmarks India Pvt Ltd (FBIL), government of India 182 days treasury bill yield produced by the FBIL, or any other benchmark market interest rate produced by the FBIL.
 
RBI, then headed by Dr Patel, had said, "The spread over the benchmark rate—to be decided wholly at banks’ discretion at the inception of the loan—should remain unchanged through the life of the loan, unless the borrower’s credit assessment undergoes a substantial change and as agreed upon in the loan contract."
 
This, in other words, means that, with the spread remaining fixed, banks will have to adjust interest rates as per the changes in external benchmark. 
 
The RBI study had highlighted how banks deviated in an ad hoc manner from the specified methodologies for calculating the base rate and the MCLR, to either inflate the base rate or prevent the base rate from falling in line with the cost of funds. 
 
It says, “Banks have been quite slow in migrating their existing customers to the MCLR regime. Most of the base rate customers are retail or small and medium enterprise (SME) borrowers. Hence, the banking sector’s weak pass-through to the base rate is turning out to be deleterious to the retail and SME borrowers in an easy monetary cycle.” 
 
"The ad hoc adjustments used by banks, included inappropriate calculation of the cost of funds; no change in the base rate even as the cost of deposits declined significantly; sharp increase in the return on net worth out of tune with past track record or future prospects to offset the impact of reduction in the cost of deposits on the lending rate; and inclusion of new components in the base rate formula to adjust the rate to a desired level. The slow transmission to the base rate loan portfolio was further accentuated by the long (annual) reset periods," the report had said.
 
Noticing this grave injustice, Moneylife Foundation wrote to Dr Patel, the then governor of RBI, requesting to direct banks to calculate the excess interest they have charged (through arbitrary and ad hoc calculations of base rate or MCLR) and refund the money to borrowers, especially retail borrowers and SMEs. (See Excess Interest Charged by Banks under Base Rate and MCLR Regime
 
“The RBI should also direct banks to set up special helplines to handle complaints from borrowers, whom banks have overcharged over the years. We also request the Reserve Bank to immediately issue circular/master directions asking banks and financial institutions to allow existing borrowers to migrate to MCLR or any new system without any conversion fee or any other charges for the switchover,” the memorandum had said.
 
RBI refused to act on it. We then had to file a PIL in the Supreme Court.
 
The PIL filed by Moneylife Foundation sought justice for a huge section of Indian population including the middle class and lower middle class, who are badly affected by such discrimination. The primary respondent was the RBI. Others named were: ministry of consumer affairs, ministry of finance, Indian Banks’ Association (IBA), National Housing Bank (NHB), Banking Code and Standards Bank of India (BCSBI).
 
The petition prayed that,  
 
  • Banking companies and non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) should calculate the amount of excess interest that has been charged to the existing borrowers under floating rate regime by denying the benefit of lower rates to pass through the benefit of a reduction in the interest rates to the existing consumers and borrowers of home loans, education loans and loans provided for consumer durables. 

 

  • The amounts calculated above be transmitted to a central corpus under the aegis of the RBI and refund of such overcharged amount be directed to the borrowers by crediting the accounts through a centralised scheme to be framed by the RBI to pass through the benefit of a reduction in the interest rates to the consumer and borrowers of home loans, education loans and loans for durables. 

 

  • Banking companies and NBFCs be directed that insofar as floating rate loans are concerned there can be no conversion charge extracted from customers who are entitled to avail the lower rate. 

 

  • Banks and NBFCs, with effect from 1 April 2016, should apply to all customers who have availed floating rate loans, the rates computed based on the Master Directions (Interest Rates on Advances), 2016 irrespective of their acceptance; 

 

  • The periodicity of reset under the MCLR system be conducted quarterly. 

 

  • Borrowers be intimated of the change in repo rates and the corresponding reset within a day of such change by at least three modes of communications via multiple channels such as email, text messages and over telephone; and, banking companies and NBFCs should publish the methodology of setting the rate of interest and particulars of the spread on their website on a weekly basis.
 
The Supreme Court, on 8 October 2018 directed RBI to respond within six weeks to representations made by Moneylife Foundation on the unfair practice of banks regarding floating loans.
 
The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SK Kaul and Justice KM Joseph, said, "Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having considered the matter, we are of the view that, at this stage, the RBI should be directed to communicate its decision in the matter covered by the representation or letter of the petitioner dated 12 October 2017 to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter the petitioners, if still aggrieved, will be at liberty to approach this Court once again."
 
We still have not received any positive response from RBI on our memorandums or the directions from the apex court. 
 
Looking at these development, Moneylife Foundation will again have to approach the Supreme Court to seek justice for millions of retail loan borrowers and small enterprises. Meanwhile, RBI has, once again, showed that it is less interested in fairplay for consumers and more in protecting the interests of banks.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

TEJPAL SINGH RATHORE

3 months ago

After reading this article one thing is sure that author doesn't know anything about banking or having knowledge of any act.

ramchandran vishwanathan

3 months ago

Kindly make a representation again with the honorable Supreme Court

Parimal Shah

3 months ago

This gives free hand to banks to fleece public and make good the NPAs.
Horrendous methods.

Harish

3 months ago

Please approach the Supreme Court again asap. Would like to contribute a small amount towards the expenses.

MIHIR AVINASH KULKARNI

3 months ago

Royal Backstabber of India

Nikhil Vadia

3 months ago

RBI is for the banks and by the banks. Not much is done for consumers who do not have much choice. Most banks act as a cartel when it comes to interest rates and charges.

IL&FS Mess: C Sivasankaran to Settle Dues with IFIN, says Report
C Sivasankaran, mentor of Siva Group of companies will be settling dues to IL&FS Financial Services Ltd (IFIN), says a report. IFIN had given a loan to Siva group, which are under the probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). But more about it later. 
 
According to the report from The Hind, Siva Shelters and Constructions Private Ltd had paid Rs5.22 crore towards interest on the loan till December 2018.
 
“IL&FS Financial Services has requested the company to return the money. Siva Shelters is in the process of returning the money by selling the land. The land is worth Rs175 crore, and is already pledged with IL&FS Financial Services,” Mr Sivasankaran told the newspaper.
 
In March 2018, IFIN had disbursed about Rs50 crore in two tranches to Siva Shelters, promoted by Hi-Tech Housing Projects Private Ltd for developing affordable housing project in Hyderabad and Chennai. 
 
The loan was given for 60 months with a put or call option. The interest rate of 14% was linked to IFIN's benchmark rate and a land measuring 17.48 acre was provided as security for the loan. 
 
As on 1 March 2019, Siva Shelters had a total outstanding of Rs58.65 crore, IFIN had said. It exercised the put option and demanded repayment of the loan from Siva Shelters.
 
According to a report from Indian Express, the SFIO is probing role of Hari Sankaran, vice chairman and managing director of IL&FS in giving loans to Siva group companies.
 
“Despite the previous default, in February 2018, IFIN extended a loan facility of Rs175 crore to a Siva Group firm — Siva Shelters and Construction Pvt Ltd and disbursed a loan of Rs50 crore to the construction company,” the report says quoting a source. 
 
Earlier this month, the SFIO arrested Hari Sankaran for abusing his powers in IFIN, through his fraudulent conduct and in granting loans to entities, which were not creditworthy or have been declared non-performing assets (NPAs) and caused wrongful loss to the company and its creditors. 
 
"(Mr) Sankaran has been charged with getting a Rs175-crore loan sanctioned to a company owned by a person with whom he had a 'close relationship' even after being informed and aware of the factual position, legal constraints and risks to the company," says a report from the Economic Times.
 
Last week on Thursday, a metropolitan court in Mumbai remanded Hari Sankaran to judicial custody for 14 days after SFIO did not press for his custody.  
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

Lakshmi Vilas Bank with Rs 30K cr deposits must be merged with PSU bank: AIBEA
Citing the Rs 30,000 crore public deposits in Lakshmi Vilas Bank (LVB), the All India Bank Employees' Association (AIBEA) has demanded its merger with a public sector bank (PSU) than be acquired by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd (IBH).
 
In a letter to the Governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Sunday, AIBEA General Secretary C.H. Venkatachalam said: "Taking into account the fragile health of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., it is necessary for the RBI to take a holistic view and merge it with one of the public sector banks in public interest instead of allowing LVB to merge with IBH."
 
"The Bank may be a private bank but the deposits in the bank (Rs 30,000 crore) belongs to the people at large and is public money," he added.
 
Venkatachalam said, it is already known that IBH had applied for banking licence to start a Bank on its own but the same was not sanctioned by the RBI.
 
"Having failed to get a banking licence, it is now found that IBH is trying to become a bank by merging LVB with itself. This is obviously a short-circuit method by IBH," he said.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

COMMENTS

Ramesh Poapt

3 months ago

objection sustained!

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)