INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: Governor Urjit Patel may have gone to town complaining about RBI's perceived lack of power over public banks, but former Sebi
chief M Damodaran is not impressed.
Powers are often what you exercise, notwithstanding what the statute provides, he told ET Now.
"I was
both surprised and saddened by that statement," Damodaran said, noting that Patel is representing a central bank which is in existence since
"To say in public that my organisation does not have powers does not inspire confidence."
In a recent address in Gandhinagar, Patel spoke of
His remarks came close on the heels of the Rs 13,000 crore PNB scam, billed to be largest banking fraud in India's history.
In fact, the
Governor listed out the factors seen as a drag on RBI's regulatory powers
One, the central bank cannot remove PSB directors or management, who are central government appointees, nor can it force a merger or trigger
liquidation of the lender
Rules say RBI cannot remove directors and management at PSBs since Section 36AA(1) of the BR Act is not applicable to them
Supersession of a bank board also does not apply to PSBs and regional rural banks as they are not banking companies registered under the
The clause dealing in removal of the chairman and managing director (MD) of a banking company does not cover PSBs.
Damodaran asserted that
these issues have been raised before
"The RBI cannot remove a public sector bank chairman
But many years ago, the RBI once spoke to the government and got rid of one executive director/chairman in a public sector bank
The regulator and the owner act together
It does not matter where formal power resides
What matters is you are on the same page as far as the person is concerned," he said.
RBI's inability to force a merger in the case of PSBs
is also seen as a sticking point
Under the guidelines, the PSBs' banking activity does not require a licence from the RBI, which means RBI cannot revoke the licence, unlike
their private counterparts
Last, the central bank cannot trigger liquidation of PSBs.
"Furthermore, in a remarkable exception of sorts, in some cases there is duality
said on March 14.
Putting out his understanding, Damodaran told ET Now that the Reserve Bank is being attacked and maybe, Patel felt obliged
"I was a little disappointed to say the least, maybe he had his reasons," he added.
Patel in his speech had suggested three ways to keep
banking frauds in check
1
Investigative/vigilance/legal deterrence: Criminal investigation of frauds and attached penalties can serve as an effective deterrence if
reporting and investigation are expedient and penalties are adequately severe relative to the gains from fraudulent activity.
2
Market discipline: Fraudulent activity can be a net loss to the bottom line
In this case, bank investors would impose deterrence, e.g
capital and inducing solvency questions
In anticipation of such disruptive outcomes that might cause loss of control, management and board members may put in place governance
mechanisms to prevent or reduce the incidence of fraud and/or hold larger buffers in the capital structure to bear losses when fraud
Regulatory discipline: Banks in most parts of the world, however, have a significant portion of deposit funding that is insured
And since banks serve critical payments and settlements function, they are often too big to fail or too many to fail
Hence, a part of the market discipline is weakened as a trade-off with financial stability and is substituted by delegation of supervisory
and regulatory powers to a banking regulator
Detection and punishment by the regulator then need to be effective to discipline fraud.
