Tue, Sep 15 2009. 10 16 AM IST
RBI wasn’t slow to react to the crisis
RBI wasn’t slow to
react to the crisis
By Tamal Bandyopadhyay
Mumbai: Rakesh Mohan was
deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) when the global financial
crisis swept into India last September. He saw it coming and was part of the
core team that, along with D. Subbarao, who took over as governor 10 days
before the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,
tackled the crisis. While the intensity of the liquidity crunch that followed
was wholly unexpected, the central bank was one of the few regulators which
sensed that something was seriously amiss with the financial system as far back
as 2005, as the then governor Y.V. Reddy said in an interview that Mint
carried on Monday. Mohan also backed the assessment of his boss at the time, as
he relates in this email interview.
Lehman
Brothers collapsed on 15 September 2008, but the financial crisis started much
before that. When did you first sense it?
We had been tracking the
international economic situation continuously as the financial imbalances
started growing since 2004. We had been concerned about the rise in asset
prices all over the world, both in terms of equity prices and real estate
prices.
Furthermore, the rise in
oil and other commodity prices had also caught our attention.
Some of this concern was
reflected in my October 2005 speech—“Some Apparent Puzzles for Contemporary
Monetary Policy” (which was included in Mohan’s recent book). Despite the rise
in asset and commodity prices, CPI (Consumer Price Index) in most countries
remained muted, leading to the retention of low policy interest rates and
extended monetary accommodation in advanced economies, particularly the US.
At the 2007 Jackson Hole
meeting, (economist) Robert Shiller drew everyone’s attention to the very
abnormal rise in US housing prices in the previous five years or so, and
predicted a very severe fall in those prices over the next few years. This
again drew our attention to the kind of problems that could arise in the
future.
We had also been
tracking the huge increase in derivative volumes across the world and sensed
that something wasn’t right.
So, we were constantly
apprehensive of what might happen in the international economy in the light of
the large and growing global financial imbalances and their impact on the
financial sector in different economies. That having been said, no one,
including ourselves, could have foreseen the collapse that took place after the
Lehman bankruptcy. We had been clearly concerned, but had not sensed the
enormity of the situation ex ante (before the event).
Was
it the toughest assignment in your career as deputy governor?
Thinking solutions: Rakesh Mohan says one of the lessons of the
crisis was not to be afraid of taking unconventional actions to maintain
stability. Abhijit Bhatlekar/Mint
Monetary and external
management were very tough all through 2007 and 2008. The excess inflow of
capital in 2007-08 of almost 10% of GDP (gross domestic product), about $100
billion (Rs4.9 trillion now), was totally unprecedented, as was the subsequent
reversal in 2008-09.
Doing forex operations
of that volume required sterilization of a very high order, and we had to use
all the instruments at our command, including the raising of CRR (cash reserve
ratio, or the portion of bank deposits kept with RBI) and MSS (monetary
stabilization scheme).
The government was very
generous in allowing the expansion of MSS to the amount required. Raising CRR
is always painful, so the steps that we had to take in this regard in 2007-08
were not easy, but they had to be done.
In retrospect, we can
now see that India was an outlier in terms of volume of net capital flows,
though they had increased worldwide to unprecedented magnitudes, including
among advanced countries.
The reversal of
portfolio flows and the seizing of global credit markets then led to the
reversal of capital flows in 2008-09, and we had to take corresponding measures
in terms of unwinding MSS and CRR, along with the easing of monetary policy.
That we were able to insulate the movement of monetary aggregates from these
very large external disturbances shows the efficacy of the measures used. But it
was a continuous challenge and at any given time, we could not know what lay in
the future.
For example, if the
capital flows of 2007-08 had continued in similar fashion for another year, it
would have been even more challenging to manage such flows. Similarly, if the
outgo of forex reserves that took place in October 2008 had continued at a
similar pace for a few months, that would also have required even more skilful
management. So, this whole period was very tough, and it is difficult to single
out any particular occasion.
Were
you ever scared? Did you think serious troubles lay ahead for India?
No. I don’t think we
were ever “scared”. We didn’t think at any time that India had serious troubles
ahead though the prospects of the global financial system overall did seem to
be on the edge in October/November/December 2008.
You will recall that all
Indian banks have remained well capitalized; and all have remained profitable
throughout this challenging period.
Furthermore, the Indian
money market, foreign exchange market and credit markets functioned relatively
normally throughout the period in terms of magnitude and smoothness of
transactions. This was during a period when money and credit markets had frozen
in many advanced countries. There was no period when mistrust grew among Indian
banks, as it did in many countries. So, there was no objective reason to be
scared.
There was relatively
higher volatility in the exchange rate and interest rates during this period,
and steps had to be taken very quickly to contain that volatility.
What
is the key takeaway from the crisis?
Among the actions that
we took internally in early 2008 was to prepare detailed contingency plans for
the unfolding of different scenarios: continued excess capital flows or their
reversal. We had an available tool kit of what to do in different circumstances
as they might have unfolded.
So, one lesson is “be
prepared” as macro/financial stability managers. The second lesson is not to be
tied to orthodoxies, and to have good financial intelligence systems to sense
unfolding future developments in the financial system. The third is to not be
afraid of taking unconventional actions for the sake of maintaining financial
stability.
I believe that the
downside of financial instability is much higher for developing countries, as
has been demonstrated repeatedly in Latin American countries and even some
Asian countries. A financial meltdown or hyperinflation leaves lasting effects
that are difficult to come out of for many years. So, we need to be more
careful in managing our financial systems in developing countries such as ours.
How
did you manage to insulate the Indian system from the global meltdown?
Actually, one of the
interesting developments in the current crisis is that EMEs (emerging market
economies) in Asia and Latin America have all avoided the global financial
meltdown doing very similar things. The lessons of the Latin American debt
crisis and the Asian financial crisis have been learnt well in most of our
countries.
Most of these countries
have followed responsible fiscal and monetary policies in recent years; they
have managed their capital accounts to varying degrees, though with greater
openness; most have followed the policy of managed floats for their exchange
rates, but with increased flexibility; and they have taken prudential actions
with respect to financial regulation of their banks and other financial
institutions.
There are, of course,
differences in degree in each of these areas among countries, but the
similarities are remarkable. In our case, we perhaps have done more on
financial regulation than some other countries in the kind of direction that
the G-20 (Group of 20) is now advocating.
It
seems you took time to react. When the central banks around the world were cutting
rates and pumping in liquidity, RBI did not do anything in September 2008. It
started acting from the next month. Were you slow in appreciating the gravity
of the situation?
Action was taken
immediately the day after the Lehman bankruptcy. It is not correct to compare
us with...central banks of advanced countries, since they clearly had different
and more severe problems. In such situations, we not only have to guard against
financial contagion, but also against policy contagion!
What is done in any
country should be appropriate to the problems and conditions in that country,
including a good understanding of the monetary transmission process.
The
toughest challenge ahead seems to be rising inflation and withdrawing monetary
accommodation. How smooth will the task be?
This is a general issue
for all central banks in the world. The recent G-20 finance ministers’ and
governors’ communique has acknowledged the problem and asked for international
coordination on the issue.
Yes, it is going to be
very difficult: Premature withdrawal can stymie the economic recovery and delay
can lead to inflation. There are no formulae to guide the timing, so central
bankers will have to use all the skills available to them.
It
seems, globally, most central banks were too open and now they are turning
conservative. In India, RBI has been conservative and now the demand from
various quarters is that it should open up. What is your take?
If conservatism means
8-9% GDP growth, increasing savings and investment levels, high credit growth
leading to continuing financial deepening, stable and consistent growth of
monetary aggregates, well capitalized and profitable banks and companies,
sustained low inflation and financial stability, then I will go for RBI
conservatism any day.
Should
RBI dissociate itself from managing the government’s debt?
I will stand by my
dissent statement in the FSAP (financial sector assessment programme) report on
debt management, and with the views given in that overview report on other
issues (Mohan has opposed any move to discontinue RBI’s role as the
government’s debt manager, and assign it to a separate office).
Rakesh
Mohan is consulting professor at the Stanford Center for International
Development (SCID). SCID is a centre within the Stanford Institute for Economic
Policy Research, which focuses on international trade and development. Faculty
at SCID focus their research on economic policies in developing and transition
countries.