One last time: The govt shouldn't be running 27 banks

Nov 5, 2015

- By Vivek Kaul

Vivek Kaul
In yesterday's edition of The Daily Reckoning I explained why the privatisation of IDBI Bank is a test case for the Narendra Modi government.

The other important point that I made in the column (and have made in the past) and will make again today is that there is no reason the Modi government (or for that matter any other) should be running 27 public sector banks.

Let me first explain why I am making this point again today. Yesterday's edition of The Times of India had a news-report headlined "Govt looks at 3 options to reduce stake in IDBI Bank". This news-report talks about the three options the government is looking at in order bring down its stake in IDBI Bank.

While a decision on how the shares of IDBI Bank will be disinvested hasn't been made, the three ways the government is looking at are: a) to sell the shares in small lots to the public through the stock exchanges. The trouble with this option is that the government may not be able to sell the shares at the best possible price.

  Vivek Kaul's  
  "Easy Money"  
  Get This Trilogy Worth Rs 1,215 For FREE!  
  Vivek Kaul's Easy Money Book sets Vivek Kaul, Editor of the Daily Reckoning, is a master storyteller. And in this trilogy, he tells us probably one of the most important stories that has yet been told... the story of Money.

A highly recommended read that teaches you lessons that could help you avoid the next global meltdown. Don't Miss It!

Claim your Free set worth Rs 1,215 now...

Hurry! We only have limited copies of Vivek Kaul's "Easy Money" Trilogy books to give away.

b)The second option being considered is to sell the IDBI Bank shares to the likes of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India, other government owned insurance companies and pension and provident funds, at a premium to the current market price. This option, as has often been the case in the past, is taking the easy way out.

c) The third option (which is very similar to the second option) being considered is to sell shares to public sector banks and financial institutions. This was tried in the case of Maruti Suzuki in 2005-2006. A PTI news-report published on January 12, 2006 points out: "The government today sold 8% shares in MarutiUdyog for Rs 1,567.60 crore with Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) picking up more than 50% of the 2,31,12,804 shares sold by the government. LIC successfully bid for 1,68,00,000 shares at Rs 682 per share. Eight public financial institutions have picked up Maruti shares. SBI would be getting 39,27,074 shares at Rs 660 per share."

None of these methods will lead to genuine privatisation. If the government sells shares to the general public through the stock exchanges, it will continue to remain the majority owner of shares in the bank. And that is the basic problem. As I had pointed out in yesterday's column, the private sector banks are much better run and more profitable than their public sector counterparts.

Currently, the government owns 76.5% of the IDBI Bank. Even if it were to reduce its shareholding to 49%, it will still continue to be the biggest shareholder in the bank. With government ownership comes political corruption, crony capitalism and bad lending, which leads to bad loans. This story has played out over the last few years.

In fact, the net non-performing assets of public sector banks, for the financial year ending on March 31, 2015, stood at 2.92% of their total advances (i.e. loans). It was at 2.01% for the financial year ended March 31, 2013. In comparison, the private sector banks are extremely well placed with their net non-performing assets being at 0.89% of their total advances. For financial year ending on March 31, 2013, the net non-performing assets of these banks stood at 0.52%.

What this clearly tells us is that the private sector banks are better at lending money given that they don't have to deal with political corruption and crony capitalism. In a poor country like India it is important that any money that is being lent is utilized properly as far as possible and is not siphoned off by greedy businessmen. It has become clear over the last few years that businessmen find it easy to siphon off money they have borrowed from public sector banks in comparison to private sector banks.

The second option being considered by the government is to sell shares to LIC. The interesting thing is that LIC already owns 8.59% of the bank. Does it make sense to allow LIC's investment in any stock to go beyond 10%? The Securities and Exchange Board of India does not allow mutual funds to own more than 10% of a company. This is to prevent concentration of risk on the overall investment portfolio. But this does not apply to LIC, given that it is an insurance company.

The question is why is the government allowing this concentration of risk in LIC's investment portfolio to happen? Ultimately like mutual funds, LIC is also basically managing money.

Further, it is also important to state here that the money that LIC has is not government's money. LIC manages the hard earned savings of the people of India and given that these savings need to be treated with a little more respect.

Also, selling shares to LIC or the State Bank of India, for that matter, means that the ownership stays with the government. And that as I have stated earlier, is the basic problem. For IDBI Bank to do well, it needs genuine privatisation with a private owner, with the government being a minority shareholder at best.

As I had mentioned in yesterday's column, IDBI Bank is saddled with a huge amount of bad loans. And given this it is not surprising that the government owned financial institutions are not keen on picking up any stake in the bank.

The Times of India news-report cited at the beginning points out: "State-run entities are, however, not very keen on buying the government stake. "Given the distress in the banking sector, IDBI Bank may not be the best bet since its retail as set base is weak and it has legacy issues," said a top official."

IDBI Bank was a major lender to Kingfisher. It also lent to Deccan Chronicle Holdings, Bhushan Steel and Jaypee Associaties, companies which are in a financial mess.

Also, if the government follows any of these three methods to sell shares in IDBI Bank, as the majority shareholder it will have to continue to keep pumping money into the bank. In fact, the government holding in the bank has gone up "from 65.14% in July 2010 to 76.5% in December 2013 by total equity infusion amounting to Rs 5,300 crore".

Any increase in holding will bring us back to square one.

In May 2014, the Committee to Review Governance of Boards of Banks in India (better known as the PJ Nayak Committee) had submitted a detailed report on reforming the public sector banks in India.

The Nayak committee estimated that between January 2014 and March 2018 "public sector banks would need Rs. 5.87 lakh crores of tier-I capital." The committee further said that: "assuming that the Government puts in 60 per cent (though it will be challenging to raise the remaining 40 per cent from the capital markets), the Government would need to invest over Rs. 3.50 lakh crores."

The government on the other hand estimates that "the capital requirement of extra capital for the next four years up to FY 2019 is likely to be about Rs.1,80,000 crore." Of this amount it proposes to invest Rs 70,000 crore. It has not explained from where will it get the remaining Rs 1,10,000 crore.

These are not small amounts that we are talking about. The tendency is to look at the government ownership in many public sector enterprises as family silver and hence, be careful while selling it. But in case of many public sector banks that cannot be really said. If the government continues to own public sector banks in the years to come it will have to keep pumping money into them in order to keep them going.

Take a look at the accompanying table. I have picked up five banks which are of a similar size. There are two private sector banks (HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank) and three public sector banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank) in the table. The profit of the private sector banks is many times the profit made by the public sector banks. Their bad loans are also significantly lower. In fact, HDFC Bank makes more money than Bank of India, Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank put together. So does ICICI Bank.

Name of the bank Total assets (in Rs crore) Net profit (in Rs crore) Bad loans (Net NPAs to Net Advances)
HDFC Bank 5,90,503 10,215.92 0.20%
ICICI Bank 6,46,129 11,175.35 1.61%
Bank of India 6,18,698 1,709.00 3.36%
Punjab National Bank 6,03,334 3,062.00 3.55%
Canara Bank 5,48,001 2,703.00 2.65%
Source: Indian Banks' Association. As on March 31, 2015

To conclude, people keep reminding me that comparing the performance of public sectors banks with private sector banks is like comparing apples and oranges. The public sector banks have social obligations which private sector banks don't. This is true. Nevertheless, the question is does the government need to own 27 banks in order to fulfil its social obligations?

I think, the government can easily go about fulfilling social-sector obligations by owning the State Bank of India and 4-5 other banks which are strong in different regions of the country.

Finally, a government should not be running so many banks. There are so many other things that it should be concentrating on, but it doesn't.

Vivek Kaul is the Editor of the Diary and The Vivek Kaul Letter. Vivek is a writer who has worked at senior positions with the Daily News and Analysis (DNA) and The Economic Times, in the past. He is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. The latest book in the trilogy Easy Money: The Greatest Ponzi Scheme Ever and How It Is Set to Destroy the Global Financial System was published in March 2015. The books were bestsellers on Amazon. His writing has also appeared in The Times of India, The Hindu, The Hindu Business Line, Business World, Business Today, India Today, Business Standard, Forbes India, Deccan Chronicle, The Asian Age, Mutual Fund Insight, Wealth Insight, Swarajya, Bangalore Mirror among others.

Disclaimer: The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Recent Articles

The Great Leader Has Won the Cow-Teller Award and Now Wants a Case Study January 17, 2019
This is a spoof.
Mohammed "Munna" Aziz and the Summer of 1989 November 28, 2018
Vivek reminisces a nearly three decade-old summer, spent listening to a Hindi film song.
I'm Looking for Companies Not Influenced by Farm Loan Waivers and Minimum Support Prices November 16, 2018
Are there any good companies in the agrochemical space worth looking at?
Should You Abandon Your Investment Strategy in This Falling Market? November 2, 2018
It is in these volatile times, when investors' mettle is tested the most...

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "One last time: The govt shouldn't be running 27 banks". Click here!

14 Responses to "One last time: The govt shouldn't be running 27 banks"

Deepak Padher

Nov 10, 2015

Convincing article. With number games it can be easily proved that private sector banks are more profitable and efficient.
Tt can also be proved that the indian people are not capable of running Govt. then let us call American company or East India company to run Govt.
Is anybody have data about account holders of these private banks? From which class they come from?
Before nationalisation of banks, all banks were private, then where was our economy that time? And now after nationalisation- where are we?

Like (1)

jagdish kumar mathur

Nov 10, 2015

The writer has shown a new angle to the entire gamut of Banking in India.The banks were nationalized by Indira Gandhi keeping the social objectives in mind. In view of the on-going economic liberalization,social contents seem to have taken the back seat. According to the new norms, the banks should be left to their own devices to evolve and prosper with out the shackles of governmental control. But the fact is that the record of private banks in not exemplary in India or elsewhere. In the past 60 years or so, at least 60 small and medium banks had to be compulsorily merged with stronger Public Sector banks like the SBI and the losses had to be absorbed by the latter, substantially denting their profitability.Out of 9 liceces given to private players to open banks ( Times bank,Centurion bank, Global Trust etc, only 3 are existing and the rest had to merged.The regulatory work of RBI will not lessen even if a few PSBs are privatized.

Like (1)

K Sengupto

Nov 8, 2015

It is absolutely correct, the govt must come out of running banks which do no reach poor, but lends to the rich and not to recover.
Now the social obligations. The govt can segregate the social work done by these psu banks and allocate to a few banks and then sell the rest. This will unleash the market forces and the survival of the fittest, will come into play and benefit all.

Like (1)

pranav kumar

Nov 8, 2015

nice artical... but keep u r knowledge to yourself.... whst do u thing we psu bankers are doing... we work 10 hrs every day spclyin idbi bank.. try to give best service possiable... look what we get... we all have called a strike on 27th Nov. And we are united... after bihar this govt cannot do any thing...
do u know working in private bank.. they dont have work ethic just targets... taking people for ride just thats it... its shit there..
Talk to a banker befor growing u r brain on such issues...

Like (1)

Alok Kelkar

Nov 7, 2015

True, but where will the money to divest come from. In this article, you seem to be saying that privatising one IDBI is difficult. How does the Govt. get rid of 27?

Like (1)

ramana kumar

Nov 7, 2015

there is a lot of commentary abt PSU banks. but the writers concluding remarks are fair. India is still a poor and developing country. we need PSU banks for at least till the time that India becomes a 'rich' country. we cannot just make the public bear the cost of bank failures, because they lack that capacity. also, social objectives cannot be trashed. the PMJDY push for financial inclusion was a success on a global & historic scale - impossible without PSU banks. so yes, GOI need not own 27 PSU banks, but it does need to own quite a few of the large, systemically impt ones.

Like (1)

veeramani vishwanathan

Nov 6, 2015

Nice explanation and I will always with your views expressed here and it is correct and good information which I hope that the Government take into their thougts to downgrade their holding in so many banks.

Like (1)


Nov 5, 2015

Sir, I do not appreciate your problems, if the Govt had 27 banks with them. Have you forgotton the GTB ? The great Ramesh Gelli had started? Let the PSU banks die its own death, if that happens. This present Govt is not going to lift them up, if they are dooming. Can you tell me, what is their contribution to Jan Dhan Yojana? How many ATMs have these socalled pvt sector banks put in rural areas? If not for the presence of PSU banks, the Indian economy would have collapsed multiple times by now. What about the priority lending? Democracy had a price in its inefficient institutions. Done kill PSUs like your seniors killed UTI.

Like (1)

Manish Shah

Nov 5, 2015

why would government let go of control on banks. There are three things whichever party comes in power would not let go 1. Police 2. Banks 3. PSUs . These are 3 things from which Money and power flows. As pointed out , the NPAs of the banks are climbing up due to bad loans given based on crony capitalism and favourtism reeking of corruption. And pray who pays these losses??? Honest tax payer like me and you.Police brutally beats up people and what is done ??? A probe is ordered and at the most concerned policemen are suspended.Matter is then promptly forgotten by people and Media. PSUs like Air India violate and bend rules to accomodate VIPs.Hue and cry is raised for few days and things again go back to same thing. I am pretty sure that by hook or crook controls will be kept ( directly or indirectly) without any accountability being seriously enforced.

Like (1)


Nov 5, 2015

A very revealing article on the state of PSU banks. But the solution offered needs to be more dramatic and, particularly in an era of reforms, I see no place for the govt to own majority stake, nay, any stake in PSU Banks. The term PSU is a misnomer in a capitalist-driven economy. Even after a quarter of a century of (so called) liberalization, we allow public sector units to bleed the economy, while this money could well have been diverted to social and nation building activities. If an independent and unbiased inquiry is conducted, it will easily come to the conclusion that PSU banks has been the major agency or conduit for the promotion & spread of black money in the economy. In fact, in my opinion, the PSU banks must be denationalized in a phased manner, say, over a period of 4-5 years. In the meantime, the govt. should consider bank reconstruction & consolidation and then sell by auction the reformed banks to the highest bidder -- domestic or foreign. Huge tax payers money is being frittered away in the name of recapitalization of the PSU banks. Similar action should be taken in the case of PSU units like Air India. The moot question is: who has and where is the political will & honesty? Neither MMS or Arun Jaitely or PC or Rajan himself would ever broach such a subject as it will tantamount to cutting the very legs of the chair (read, power) on which they sit (enjoy).

Like (1)
Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "One last time: The govt shouldn't be running 27 banks". Click here!