Log has written
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

Unlike Alan Greenspan, who didn’t believe it was his job to even point out bubbles, much less try to deflate them, Reddy saw his job as making sure Indian banks did not get too caught up in the bubble mentality. About two years ago, he started sensing that real estate, in particular, had entered bubble territory. One of the first moves he made was to ban the use of bank loans for the purchase of raw land, which was skyrocketing. Only when the developer was about to commence building could the bank get involved—and then only to make construction loans. (Guess who wound up financing the land purchases? US private equity and hedge funds, of course!)

Then, as securitizations and derivatives gained increasing prominence in the world's financial system, RBI sharply curtailed their use in the country. When Reddy saw American banks setting up off-balance-sheet vehicles to hide debt, he essentially banned them in India. As a result, banks in India wound up holding onto the loans they made to customers. On the one hand, this meant they made fewer loans than their American counterparts because they couldn’t sell off the loans to Wall Street in securitizations. On the other hand, it meant they still had the incentive—as American banks did not—to see those loans paid back.

Seeing inflation on the horizon, Reddy pushed interest rates up to more than 20%, which of course dampened the housing frenzy. He increased risk weightings on commercial buildings and shopping mall construction, doubling the amount of capital banks were required to hold in reserve in case things went awry. He made banks put aside extra capital for every loan they made. In effect, Reddy was creating liquidity even before there was a global liquidity crisis.

Did India’s bankers stand up to applaud Reddy as he was making these moves? Of course not. They were naturally furious, just as American bankers would have been if Greenspan had been more active. Their regulator was holding them back, constraining their growth! Parekh told me that while he had been saying for some time that Indian real estate was in bubble territory, he was still unhappy with the rules imposed by Reddy. “We were critical of the central bank,” he said. “We thought these were harsh measures.”

“For a while we were wondering if we were missing out on something,” said Kochhar. Banks in the US seemed to have come up with some magical new formula for making money: make loans that required no down payment and little in the way of verification —and post instant, short-term, profits.

As Luis Miranda, who runs a private equity firm devoted to developing India's infrastructure, put it: “We kept wondering if they had figured out something that we were too dense to figure out. It looked like they were smart and we were stupid.” Instead, India was the smart one, and we were the stupid ones.

Kochhar said that the underlying risks of having “a majority of loans not owned by the people who originated them” was not apparent during the bubble. Now that those risks have been made painfully clear, every banker in India realizes that Reddy did the right thing by limiting securitizations. “At times like this, you tend to appreciate what he did more than we did at the time,” said Kapoor. “He saved us,” added Parekh.

1 2 3  4 
READ MORE ARTICLES BY:
 
Vikram Said:


And after all of this, what do the federal reserve in the US do? They drive the mortgage rate to 4%. This is an interesting world :)

Posted On 12/22/2008 10:39:12 AM
Anand Said:


I disagree with the author's basic premise. While the article gives due credit to YV Reddy's foresight of 'applying brakes too early than too late', I find the complete lack of comparing the two situations in the right context, apalling! One needs to compare oranges with oranges, after all. The crux of the problem in the US economy is the government sponsored push towards increased home ownership. This push by the US state to over-promote homeownership has been the 'prodigal push to the stack of dominoes' which eventually lead to Fannie and Freddie becoming over aggresive mortgage lenders, to the over exposure to subprime borrowers, development of CDOs and all those other weapons of financial mass destruction. The important fact one needs to observe here is that the crux of the issue starts with government interferring in the working of the market. By artificially trying to boost homeownership, the government essentially lets loose excessive corporate risk taking - this is essentially what happened. Like one of the bank CEO's mentioned in the interview - "All those exotic structures like CDO and securtization are a very tiny part of our banking system. So a lot of the temptations didn't exist." Luckily, it seems that the Indian State has not got behind the 'increasing home ownership' bandwagon. Housing market has not come under pressure from the government to boost home ownership and therefore no apparent need to take excessive risks by creating money out of thin air using CDOs and other weapons of mass financial destruction. Rothbard says the 'bust' in the business cycle is usually causally linked to the earlier government generated 'boom'. The market economy is self correcting and will quickly eliminate the earlier government generated errors in investment, unless the process of adjustment is interfered with by government policies. I think it would incorrect to say Indian banks are 'saved' due to tight regulation. http://anand-mind-spark.blogspot.com

Posted On 12/22/2008 4:18:56 PM
Re: Venkatesh Said:


While the political forces focus on the people and try to win their votes, the pudits who run the Central Banks of countries are generally well educated economists whose job it is to put long term stability of the Nation to the forefront. I think this applies universally except in 'grave' situations created by greed, like in the current context.

Posted On 12/24/2008 12:41:10 PM
Shijo Said:


A very interesting perspective.

Posted On 12/22/2008 7:14:42 PM