The Finance Ministry has opened
up the possibilities for fresh
banking licenses to private sector players, and the old debate
around `agency costs' has come to haunt us once again. The issues are far more
serious and complicated this time, and in the light of the global financial crisis,
the regulator doesn't want to take any chances. Although the thought of
issuing fresh licenses is also a testimony to the fact that the Indian banking
sector has witnessed a smooth sailing in the turbulent times and has emerged
almost unscathed from the global financial crisis. Most of the points on
which the RBI has laid emphasis are on expected lines, like capitalization
requirements, caps on promoter holdings, eligible promoters,
foreign shareholding, etc. Also, the various category of applicants may interpret
these requirements in their own manner. The applicants typically fall under five
categories, viz., corporate or industrial houses, financial conglomerates
(including development financial institutions), NBFCs, the communities
(including NRIs), and the state government-owned entities. In almost
all these categories, the RBI's experience has been mixed, for example, most
of the NBFCs who got bank licenses earlier have either sold out or merged
with larger banks. The community banks have struggled in drab times and
have not been able to demonstrate genuine performance. Then applicants
like SIDBI, LIC and IFCI are eligible and have a very good chance of getting a
license.
The most interesting debate is around industrial houses seeking
licenses to operate a bank. Do they have a strong case, is the question. At the
center of the debate is the issue of the promoter's equity holding in the
bank. Under the present norms, promoters are required to hold 40% of
paid-up capital at the time of issue of a bank license, with a lock-in period of
five years. Thereafter, promoters are required to dilute their holding to
10% over a suitable time frame. Promoters may be permitted to hold up to 30% of
a bank's equity, subject to their meeting `fit and proper' criteria.
|