First of all, wishing all the visitors and well wishers a very happy diwali.
Shri M. Rajeshwar Rao, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India in this speech traces evolution of financial system:
Since independence, our country has taken giant strides in growth and development in all sectors. The GDP of India rose from a meagre Rs. 5 lakh crore (1950-51) to about 147 lakh crore (2020-21) at constant prices of 2011-12, growing about 27 times with a CAGR of about 4.8 per cent. But in the shadow of this growth story lies a duality which attracts the attention of every policymaker and concerned citizens. Even as the GDP has grown 27-fold in last seven decades, the per capita income has grown merely seven-fold from about Rs.14,000 (1950-51) to about Rs. 1 lakh (2020-21) at constant prices of 2011-12, with a CAGR of about 2.9 per cent2. This duality highlights the importance and requirement of inclusive growth of our country – a goal we all should aspire for and contribute towards in our respective professional capacities.
The evolution of the financial system, too, has been dotted with several twists and turns, reflecting the policy choices made in a given socio-economic and political context. As is generally said, policy making is not amenable to corner solutions. The outcomes more often than not lie somewhere in the hazy middle, reflecting the contextual trade-offs. In my remarks today, I intend to dwell on some of these tradeoffs, the idea being not to judge them for their existence, or to contemplate about their counterfactuals but just to bring forth the specific structural paths our financial system has journeyed over the course of last seven decades whilst bolstering the ever-evolving Indian growth story.
I will therefore briefly touch upon some of such structural and regulatory dualities of Indian financial system which are integral to addressing some of the key questions that I highlight, while venturing with a few thoughts of my own on the way ahead.
He touches on 4 themes:
II. Bank-led vs market-led financial intermediation in India Is it possible to envision a transition from a bank-dominated financial system to a non-bank intermediation channel?
III. Ownership – Public vs Private Does there exist a middle ground in the debate?
IV. Business models – Diversified vs Specialised Does the promise of niche, specialised banking still hold?
V. Innovation vs. Customer Protection
In the end:
I have tried to briefly highlight the critical dualities of Indian financial system. As mentioned earlier, I do not intend to judge any of these categories. The only intention to bring forth these dualities is to emphasize the largely organic evolution of Indian financial system in response to our growing economy and highlight that the regulatory frameworks of RBI have facilitated meeting the ever-changing needs of the country. At every juncture of growth in financial system, at every kink, there are innumerable policy choices for a regulator. The decisions we make today have the potential to shape the present and future of our economy and our nation. But sometimes, we can wonder on what could have been the counterfactual and answering such a counterfactual is difficult. But it can be most certainly stated that the depth, size, and resilience of Indian financial system owes much to such decisions in past taken at various crossroads. One may well argue that these policy choices were not necessarily pro-active but sometimes reactive as well. True! Central Bankers do not have liberty to innovate freely, we have to put our mandate and financial stability first. There have been times when we are appreciated for our prudent policies and times when we are criticised for being conservative. But let me assure you, whatever we do, we strive to do in broader public interest. Every policy stance of ours is customised to the need of our growing economy and preserving financial stability, and that remains our guiding principle.
In a conventional set-up, the banking regulation has some pre-specified toolkits which are time tested and globally adopted. Every financial crisis offers some insights to the regulators, and the toolkit is accordingly modified in response to the lessons learnt. But, with a dynamically evolving financial system, regulators do not have liberty to rely excessively on existing means because many of the potential challenges emanating from the emerging financial order are not foreseeable. Worldwide, regulators are striving to remain ahead of the curve, because they simply cannot afford to be reactive in this environment. The changes we feel to be insignificant can now grow manifold in a very short span of time posing threat to the stability of financial system. Therefore, we have to be cognisant of all the financial changes happening around and respond appropriately to such changes. As the regulatory perimeter gradually extends to uncharted domains – climate finance, regulation of digital lending, etc. some of these issues will become even more relevant.
To guide us in this transition, we have tried to fix some broad principles that make the policy stances adaptive enough to cope up with any present and future challenges, while creating enabling environment for innovations with positive externalities. At a broad level, three guiding principles that would be helpful in framing financial regulation going ahead are – principle-based, proportionate and activity-based regulations. In an uncertain business environment, it is very difficult to predict and then prescribe all possible scenarios of a financial transaction. Therefore, such complex superstructure warrants that regulator should move away from rule-based prescriptive regime to principle-based regime and the principles of regulation should always have the financial stability and interests of consumers at its core.
The second principle for present and future regulation should be a differentiated regulatory system based on size, complexity and contribution to systemic risk. Further, as the interconnectedness, scope of activities and harmonisation of financial intermediation increases, entity-based regulatory architecture may create arbitrage between different entities undertaking similar activity. Therefore, going forward, activity should form a common regulatory thought for future regulations.
Like this:
Like Loading...