Steering clear of divisive politics and economic populism

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

I was recently invited to moderate a session by the European Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka (ECCSL) on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry was one of the Chief Guests and he shared two things we should not do, based on his experience over the past few years in managing a few key portfolios as the Minister of Justice, Finance, and Foreign Affairs.

The event focused on unleashing the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion for businesses in Sri Lanka. Keeping aside the political colours, Sabry’s message on the things Sri Lankans should not do is very apt given the current status of our affairs. These two exhortations were to never play divisive politics and never play with populist economic policies.

The final victim of divisive politics has been none other than our economy and our people. If Sri Lanka is serious about economic development, having a diverse culture is important, as highlighted by Prof. Ricardo Hausmann in his Harvard Growth Diagnostic study on Sri Lanka in 2016-2017. The economic theory behind it is that a diverse culture is capable of creating more combinations of ideas which translate to products, services, and exports.

He provided the example of Silicon Valley – most tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are immigrants to the US, which is one reason a high degree of innovation takes place there. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, our politics is used to dilute this strength, which has led to where we are today. At one point, ethnic tensions led to mass migration and we are very slow to include all our ethnicities and religions in our culture.

The divisive politics is now at a level that goes beyond ethnicities. It is now ranged against certain countries, trade agreements, and imports from certain countries. Some good examples are the Suwa Seriya ambulance service and the trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka.

We almost rejected Suwa Seriya on the grounds that it was an Indian invasion and that Indian Intelligence services wanted to collect intelligence data through the ambulance service. This is a service primarily impacting the poorest of the poor and has now been recognised as one of the fastest services in the region by the World Bank.

Divisive politics is now beyond ethnicities and religions. We created the same tensions with trade agreements and claimed that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore would result in foreigners taking over our jobs. Instead, most Sri Lankans left the country for jobs overseas due to the economic crisis and we now beg people to visit us.

We also created similar tensions over the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement by claiming that the agreement would cause more imports to flow into Sri Lanka, worsening our trade balance. The data shows the exact opposite taking place.

We have a trade surplus with India under the FTA and our trade deficit with India comes from outside the FTA. However, comparing trade balances between countries is completely misleading, since what we need to keep in mind is the budget deficit rather than the trade deficit, because the budget deficit arising from Central Bank lending is what leads to a trade deficit.

At one point, by playing divisive politics, we wanted to boycott our Islamic community. We also wanted to boycott Indian products and chase away Chinese and Japanese investments. To make diversity a strength, we need to look beyond borders and capitalise on the strengths of all communities and all countries.

Minister Sabry’s second directive was to never play with populist economic policies. However, we repeatedly witness political parties engaging in populist politics. We are building resistance against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme without any alternative suggestions. Without the IMF programme, even 0.1% of debt relief is not possible. Many funds by many international partners like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, and bilateral creditor will evaporate in seconds.

On the other hand, growth reforms are almost non-existent. Not a single State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reform has been implemented yet and the SOE Bill has been shelved. On the growth front, a complicated tariff structure remains. The establishment of the Central Bank’s independence was the main reform we have undertaken and we can see the results. It is a pity that the Central Bank completely ignored the optics and raised its staff salaries, even at the risk of some policymakers requesting the reversal of the hard-earned reform of the bank’s independence.

While Minister Sabry has correctly understood what exactly should not be done, unfortunately, our politics remains divisive at a new level and populist economic policies have taken a new turn. We still have a long way to go.

The other side of parate execution suspension

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In India, there was a particular type of cobra that was causing havoc due to snake bites. People were protesting and social pressure was building. The then British Government had a brilliant idea to counter cobra bite-related deaths and bring down the reptiles’ population – it announced an incentive scheme for every dead cobra.

In essence, people in India were encouraged to kill cobras and hand over the animal’s dead body to established Government offices in India and collect cash in return. In the first few weeks, things worked out very well, but later the Government realised that the number of cobras being handed over was increasing exponentially.

Upon investigation, the Government realised that Indians had become somewhat entrepreneurial. They had started cobra breeding houses at homes and killing cobras as a means of revenue generation for the family. At one point, the Government withdrew the cash incentive system given the misuse of the entire scheme.

Since there was no incentive for people to maintain cobra breeding houses, they released the reptiles into the jungle. The cobra population then multiplied several fold more than what it was initially as a result of the same policy being implemented to reduce the cobra population. This is called the Cobra Effect.

The Government decision to suspend parate execution as a relief for Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) is no different. It is true that MSMEs are going through a difficult time as a result of higher inflation, high interest rates, and economic contraction. It is necessary to protect the MSMEs as they comprise about 99% of business establishments and about 75% of employment in Sri Lanka.

However, whether the suspension of parate is really for MSMEs is a question; 557 parate executions have been undertaken as of November 2023. The total value of the parate executions was just Rs. 38 billion, which stands at just 0.4% of total loans and a mere 2.7% of total impaired loans. From the numbers, it is clear that most MSMEs have not been impacted by parate executions.

Effect on MSMEs

Parate is an execution power on the part of banks under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No.4 of 1990, where lending banks can recover non-repaid debt by borrowers by selling assets without going through the judicial processes. In 1961, this power was only granted to People’s Bank and the Bank of Ceylon, and in 1985, the power was extended to regional rural development banks as well.

If MSMEs are not affected, what could be expected to happen when parate executions are suspended until December by the Government? This is likely to backfire on MSMEs given the nature of the banking industry, akin to the Cobra Effect.

Banks lend depositors money. Parate was a safeguard for depositors’ money in case someone was not repaying loans they had taken, giving banks a final resort to recover that money so they could honour the depositors.

Now with parate suspension, banks have a higher risk of not being able to recover the money from the loans extended, so they have to charge a higher risk premium when borrowing for anybody, including MSMEs. Therefore, if MSMEs want to borrow money now, they have to pay higher interest rates, which means further contraction of the economy at a time when it needs to grow.

Triple whammy

On the flip side, this will encourage borrowers to default as they now know the banks cannot execute parate even if they were to willfully default. Additionally, borrowers who are honouring their loan repayments with the greatest difficulty during this economic crisis will be discouraged, because their hard work in honouring the dues will not be rewarded. This does not mean that even the Rs. 38 billion through parate execution has to be understated, but it has to be addressed separately without changing a law which affects the entire banking sector.

The Government declared a Rs. 450 billion bank recapitalisation in Budget 2024 given the instability of the banking sector as losses and loans of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have to be absorbed. On the other hand, licensed commercial banks including State banks are being exposed to sovereign debt restructuring, which is at its final stage. Accordingly, this is detrimental to the stability of the banking sector.

On the depositors’ end, they may be reluctant to deposit money as their risk is now higher on recovery.

Parate execution generally takes place at the last stage of recovery and must go through a court process. Suspension of parate without even consulting banks may provide wrong signals for the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) review, since the IMF initially advised to conduct an assessment on the stability of the banks, although the context has now changed after a few months.

The Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratios of banks are also on the rise, so banks basically face a triple whammy with this parate suspension – having to charge risk premiums, high NPL, exposure to sovereign default, and now difficulties in recovering money and incentives for not servicing existing loans.

However, the need to protect MSMEs is paramount, which requires a separate sequence of actions. Setting up a bank specifically to absorb bad loans, setting up bankruptcy laws, or moratoria on some of the bad loans under parate executions are options. Changing the entire parate system will indeed bring consequences similar to the Cobra Effect in India.

Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Dr Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, Janani Wanigaratne

This article provides an insight on the Personal Income Tax structure in Sri Lanka as the second part of a series discussing potential tax reforms

Raising government revenue is critical for Sri Lanka to recover from the current economic crisis and create a more sustainable economic environment. However, taxes should be paid by those who can bear the burden. 

Personal Income Taxes (PIT) is an effective instrument in generating revenue as well as in reducing inequality through revenue redistribution.  In Sri Lanka, there has been a steady decline in revenue from PIT from 0.9% of GDP in 2000 to 0.2% of GDP in 2022. Revenue collection is  lower than that of even other low income economies. Furthermore, PIT tax revenue as a percentage of direct tax revenue declined from 40% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2022, although GDP per capita increased from USD 869 in 2000 to USD 3,474 in 2022. 

Advanced economies raise approximately 9% of GDP from PIT, while emerging economies and low income economies raise only 3.1% and 2.1% of GDP, respectively. (1)  Sri Lanka reports the  lowest contribution of PIT as a percentage of GDP in 2021, both among  advanced economies in Asia such as South Korea, as well as developing economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and Vietnam (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Performance of Personal Income Tax Collection among Selected Countries

Source : IMF Data Library, OECD

Narrow Tax Base

The narrow tax base is one of the main reasons for Sri Lanka’s low PIT revenue performance. A narrow base not only limits revenue generation but it also makes revenue collection reliant on a small segment of the population. 

The number of income tax payers under the  Pay As You Earn (PAYE)/Advanced Personal Income Tax (APIT) Scheme (2) as a percentage of the total employed population shows  a relatively small proportion of the workforce contributing to income taxes (see Table 1). In 2019,  the proportion of tax paying employees was 33%. This proportion declined to less than 1% in 2021 due to abolishing of PAYE taxes with effect from 1st January 2020.  A voluntary APIT System was introduced with effect from April 1, 2020, where employees can opt in. This shift not only led to a revenue decline but also created monitoring gaps. With effect from January 1, 2023, it was mandated for employers to deduct APIT from employees' income, reverting to the original PAYE scheme.

(2 ) Note: PAYE/APIT is where employers deduct income tax on employment income of employees at the time of payment of remuneration.  PAYE was replaced by APIT with effect from April 2020. This measure of replacing PAYE with APIT essentially made PAYE optional. However, with effect from January 2023, deduction of Withholding Tax (WHT), Advanced Income Tax (AIT)  and APIT has been made mandatory.

Table 1: Employee Contribution to PIT

Source: IRD Performance Reports, Labour Force Survey

The large informal sector also contributes to the narrow tax base and low PIT performance. According to the Labor Force Survey (3) 2022,  the informal sector accounts for around 58% of total employment (see Table 1).  A large portion of the economy operating  outside formal regulation enables tax evasion and avoidance. Transforming the current informal self-employment system to a modern formal employee-employment system would be one way to improve tax revenue collection. 

Two alternative recommendations are proposed to capture informal economic activities into the tax net.  Establishing a universal online payments system would reduce cash transactions in the economy enabling better monitoring; and secondly, by introducing a unique digital identification system that connects tax accounts with income sources, bank accounts, motor vehicle and land registration etc. Authorities could cross check information provided in income tax returns as well as identify individuals who do not file returns. 

Tax Free Threshold and Tax slabs/Brackets

In the recent amendment to the Inland Revenue Act (4),  the tax free threshold for income was reduced from Rs.3 million per annum to Rs.1.2 million per annum. Further, the tax brackets were reduced  from Rs.3 mn to Rs.0.5 million.  Accordingly, the incremental tax rate for each additional Rs. 0.5 million of income was set at 6% (see Table 2).

Table 2:  Tax Threshold and Tax Brackets

Source :Inland  Revenue (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of  2023

Applying the current tax free threshold, income taxes are applicable to  approximately the top 15% of households where around  36% of total  income is concentrated (see figure 2) (5).

(5) Note This is based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019

Figure 2: Share of Income by Population 2019

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019

According to the national poverty line (6) for  July 2023, the minimum monthly expenditure per person required to meet basic needs is Rs. 15,978. Hence, the total cost for a family of four is approximately Rs. 65,000 per month. Assuming salaries and wages remain unchanged at 2019 levels,  more than two-thirds of income is spent by households up to the 9th decile, (see Table 3).  Any additional financial burden including income taxes could further reduce the disposable income of households up to the 9th income decile. Hence, information on household income and expenditure patterns must be considered when setting income tax thresholds.

Table 3 :  Mean Household Expenditure as a % of Mean Household Income

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019 (7)

Although the current tax system applies differential tax rates based on income brackets, an analysis of the effective tax rates paid within these brackets indicates a less than progressive tax system.  An individual crossing the tax free threshold of Rs.1.2 million per annum (equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 100,000) pays an effectives tax rate of 1%, which gradually increases to 12% until the highest income bracket is reached at over Rs. 3.7 million (which is equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 308,333). All the income levels above this income would be taxed at the highest nominal marginal rate of 36%.  However, after a particular income level the effective tax rate flattens (see Table 4). This implies that individuals in the highest income categories effectively pay less taxes. Expanding the income tax brackets would introduce more fairness and progressivity into the tax system.

Table 4 :  Effective Rate of Tax

Source :  Author’s Calculation

Figure 3: Personal Income Tax as a percentage of Annual Income

Source : Authors’ Calculation

The fairness of the tax system is further exacerbated as those whose main income sources are subject to capital gains are taxed at only 10% versus those whose income are subject to PIT who are taxed at a higher rate of 36%. 

As wages and salaries rise to keep up with inflation, individuals may find themselves earning more in nominal terms, but their purchasing power remains relatively unchanged.  Adjusting thresholds for inflation ensures that employees are not disproportionately burdened by bracket creep where taxpayers are pushed into higher brackets due to inflation. A proper rationale and scientific basis for determining thresholds, tax slabs, and tax rates is needed to increase revenue collection and ensure fairness in the tax system.Also, the proposed tax system should generate the estimated tax revenue by the end of the year.

Frequent ad hoc policy changes

Tax policy is frequently subjected to change, without proper economic rationale. For instance, the tax slabs for PIT have been revised 9 times while the tax free threshold was revised 5 times since 2000. Frequent and ad hoc policy changes complicate tax administration and reduce tax compliance.

Conclusion

The country has failed to meet  the first quarter targets for revenue under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility Program. Raising government revenue will be critical to remaining within the program. Improving revenue collection from income taxes will be critical to achieving the revenue targets, while broadening the tax base will ensure the burden of taxation falls on the broadest shoulders.

Part one of the OPED series on Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Macroeconomic Stability and Sustainable Economic Growth can be found here

SL’s tariff regime

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

The Minister of Finance mentioned that “many surprises” would be contained in the Annual Budget for 2024. In economics, surprises are something we would want to avoid; the more surprises we get, the lower stability is. Frequent surprises are a sure way to push away investors and the business community. One surprise measure mentioned recently in Parliament was a tax on primary dealers in the bond markets as they were left out in the Domestic Debt Restructuring (DDR) process.

Just a few weeks ago, this column speculated about the likelihood of selective taxes, such as super gains tax or wealth tax, in the Annual Budget for 2024. If the reason to impose a special tax on primary dealers is the high profits they made as a result of being left out of the restructuring process, does this mean the Government is admitting it made a mistake by leaving them out of the debt restructuring processes? If so, we cannot correct it by imposing a tax, since two wrongs do not make a right.

A special tax on selected groups or industries is the opposite of tax holidays. The way we select industries or business categories for special taxes is the same way we select industries for tax holidays. Both are two sides of the same coin.

It is true that Government revenue is low compared to the size of our economy, but it is definitely not the fault of the businesses which made profits, unless their profits are exempted from taxes.

Sri Lanka’s corporate tax of 30% is a reasonably high rate. Even the UK increased its corporate tax to 25% in 2023 from 19%. Tax competitiveness is already low due to unreasonably high taxes and an unstable economic and political environment. Therefore, what is the rationale for charging a higher tax on a selected industry or a group if they already pay a corporate tax of 30%?

The unfortunate reality is that we cannot increase tax revenue simply by imposing selected taxes or by spontaneously increasing rates. This would bring the same consequences as our tariff structure.

The issue with the tariff structure in Sri Lanka is that we have imposed different taxes for different HS codes, making it very complicated. Some HS codes are charged a CESS and others are charged para-tariffs, creating considerable doubt as to which taxes are applicable when importing anything. This complexity in the tariff structure has resulted in a high level of corruption.

It is argued that bringing the tariff rates down and making it simple will improve tariff revenue. The same logic is applied for income tax and corporate taxes. The more complicated and more targeted special segments are, the more likely tax evasion is, and will eventually lead to our overall tax revenue further deteriorating.

In 2015 and 2021, a similar attempt was made to impose a singular super gains tax on companies earning over Rs. 2 billion. There were many instances where special taxes were imposed on the financial sector without any detailed analysis or impact analysis on overall tax principles.

Has it made our tax revenue better? The answer is an obvious no. Therefore, special taxes which may come as surprises for selected industries may not lead to the expected outcome. Instead, they will create more confusion in the market.

It is likely that the Government is targeting primary dealers due to the controversy that arose during the bond scam in 2015 and similar incidents, with suspicions of insider trading taking place afterwards.

If the reason for super profits is insider trading, the answer is a forensic audit and bringing the related parties to justice. The Government can start the process by releasing the full forensic audit report on the investigation of the presidential commission appointed for the bond scam.

Imposing a special tax to correct the super profits of insider trading may start a vicious cycle of unethical trading and business operations.

Investors will consider the occurrence of a similar circumstance if they make better profits – that they too will be liable for a special tax in addition to the corporate tax they pay.

More importantly, it dilutes the principles of an aspirational society. Assuming that someone should pay a higher tax simply because they made a profit is discriminatory and acts as a disincentive for generating wealth and profit. Those who made a higher profit are already paying a higher tax proportionately, compared to those who made less profit, at a rate of 30%.

Taxes have to be imposed based on principles of simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. These are referred to as ‘principles’ because there is a rationale behind it. Statistics without principles and principles without statistics are both dangerous.

Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Macroeconomic Stability and Sustainable Economic Growth

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dr Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, Janani Wanigaratne

This article provides an overview of the current tax system in Sri Lanka as part of a series discussing potential tax reforms.

Sri Lanka is recovering from the worst economic crisis in its history. Continuous high fiscal deficits due to insufficient government revenue to finance growing government expenditure has resulted in an unsustainable level of debt. This has hindered the government's ability to make capital investments and allocate sufficient funds for essential services such as education and healthcare. A large proportion of revenue (77.7% in 2022) goes to finance interest payments, It is also one of the largest items of recurrent expenditure accounting for 44.5% of recurrent expenditure in 2022.  In comparison expenditure on education, health and social protection (Samurdhi) accounted for only 9.3%, 7.9% and 3.4% of recurrent expenditure, respectively, in 2022.  

Getting back on a path of macroeconomic stability requires a significant boost in revenue.Revenue based fiscal consolidation is one of the key pillars of the stabilization program agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The program sets a target of raising tax revenue to 14% of GDP (at the minimum) by 2026 through tax policy reforms and revenue administration reforms.

Taxation as a social contract

The main purpose of taxes is to provide funding for public services. Moreover, it redistributes income through transfer payments to low income households. Taxation is a classic example of the social contract between the citizens of a country and their government but also between citizens. This unwritten agreement influences the willingness of citizens to pay taxes in return for the services they receive from the government. Tax compliance rates in countries indicate a correlation between the payment of taxes and public service delivery. Dissatisfaction with public service delivery is found to be associated with low tax compliance. In Sri Lanka, the state is responsible for providing a wide range of public services such as education and healthcare.  However, the collection of taxes required to finance these public services is woefully inadequate. This could be due to lack of awareness of the role of citizens in the social contract or a lack of quality and availability of public services.  This leads to citizens abandoning public services in favour of the private provision of such services and being unwilling to pay for public services they  feel they don’t use. A robust tax system is necessary for a government to deliver high-quality public services to all its citizens.

The current state of taxes in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s tax revenue collection  has steadily declined from 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1990 to 7.3% in 2022. Although national income has increased over time with  GDP per capita rising from US $ 472 in 1990 to US $ 3,474 in 2022 there has not been a corresponding rise in tax collection (See figure 1).

Figure 1: Declining Tax to GDP

Source : Central Bank Annual Reports

Revenue collection in the country is also highly skewed, with 69.5% of tax revenue collected from indirect taxes. Undue reliance on indirect taxes is due to the large informal sector which is ‘difficult to tax’.  The direct to indirect tax ratio has consistently remained around 20:80 over time. Although direct taxes as a proportion of total tax has gradually increased from around 15% revenue in 2000 to 31.5% in 2022, as a percentage of GDP it has remained at a low level of around 2% for the last two decades, implying that it has not kept pace with the growth in the economy.

Figure 2: Composition of tax revenue

Source : Central Bank Annual Reports

The steady decline in revenue is due to inherent weaknesses in the tax system. One of the key issues is ad hoc policy changes relating to tax rates, thresholds, and exemptions, with little or no economic rationale. The frequency of these tax policy changes worsens the existing compliance issues as well as administrative issues. The resulting loss of government revenue, worsens income inequalities and reduces funds available for essential public services.

These concerns need to be addressed through comprehensive reforms in all 3 broad bases of tax, namely, (1) taxes on earnings such as personal and corporate income taxes; (2) taxes on what is purchased such as the value added taxes (VAT); and (3) taxes on what is owned such as land and property taxes. Identifying the issues in each of these taxes will be key to reforming the tax system and optimizing revenue collection which is vital for ensuring macroeconomic stability.

Conclusion

Building an effective fiscal social contract through taxation is as equally important as addressing the issues prevalent in the current tax system. It requires the government  to use the taxpayers’ money in a responsible and effective manner. Lack of transparency and accountability for the way a government uses the taxes it collects will make it very difficult for the government to convince its citizens to pay their taxes.  On the other hand, citizens are responsible for holding the government accountable and ensuring taxes are utilised for providing good quality public services for the benefit of society as a whole.

Bank interest rates: The A-Z

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

As the Annual Budget approaches in November, there lies the risk of introducing price controls again. Budgets are usually like auctions of resources that don’t actually exist, often used by governments for publicity. In the 2015 Budget, there was a salary increase for Government workers and price controls were placed on items like hoppers and plain tea.

Budgets that come around election periods more often include giveaways and price controls, which cannot be maintained sustainably.

Meanwhile, the Central Bank, in a recent Monetary Policy meeting, hinted at controlling interest rates for certain banking services like pawning, credit cards, and pre-arranged temporary overdrafts.

The Central Bank appears to be in a tough spot, facing pressure from political authorities, the people, and other stakeholders. People and businesses are still struggling with the economic crisis, the aftermath of the Easter attacks, and the after-effects of Covid-19. People need loans (credit facilities and services) during this tough time. Unfortunately, the banking sector is slow to respond by lowering interest rates, even with the Central Bank’s new policies.

Recently, the Central Bank has been lowering interest rates – the Standard Lending Facility Rate and the Standard Deposit Facility Rate. The Statutory Reserve Ratio (SRR) has also been brought down by 2% and changes have been made, but this hasn’t led to a proportional decrease in lending rates by banks.

Unique situations for different banks

Some banks have responded more than others. For example, some banks charge higher interest rates for pawning (27% compared to 20% in other banks) and credit cards (33% compared to 28% in other banks). The same goes for personal loans (4% vs. 2%).

Let’s try to understand why some banks offer higher rates while others don’t.

Each bank’s lending and deposit portfolio is unique. Some banks generally have a higher percentage of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs). For them, bringing interest rates drastically down may be difficult. Since interest income is the key income for banks, if a particular bank has a higher NPL ratio, it would be difficult to adjust the interest rates.

On the other hand, with domestic debt restructuring, certain banks had higher exposure to Treasury bonds. Prior to debt restructuring, these banks faced higher risk, yet as they have been excluded from restructuring, this same exposure became a blessing later. For them there is greater room to adjust the interest rates while others may not have the same leeway.

Different banks have different types of loans. Some focus on small businesses, while others offer pawning. Pawning is safer because there is something valuable as collateral. Each bank’s situation is unique, and ideally in a market system people should switch to banks with lower rates, assuming everyone has the same information.

Options with consequences

However, these changes take time, especially when the country’s monetary system isn’t stable due to debt restructuring and weak economic policy. Also, due to instability, in most cases banks aren’t offering fixed interest rate loans anymore; most loans have flexible rates.

Mounting pressure on the Central Bank has left a few options, each with its own consequences. One option is offering special low-interest credit lines (e.g.: special credit lines with the support of the Asian Development Bank, etc.), like the Enterprise Sri Lanka loan scheme introduced before by former Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera. This could lead to unintended consequences, like people using the loans for non-productive purposes.

For instance, many bank managers disbursed the loans to their existing customers, who basically settled their previous high-interest loans with the new loan at a concessional rate. Some loans were taken for consumption purposes, such as weddings and buying vehicles. There were reports that existing companies, including large companies, set up new entities just to obtain a loan to cover their previous debts. However, this is a solution that can be tested with the least impact within a strict monetary system, but unintended consequences should be expected.

Another option is the Central Bank artificially lowering rates by printing more money. This could worsen the economic situation, causing problems for the exchange rate and later on for inflation and the entire financial system.

Alternatively, the Central Bank could use its influence for the funds it manages (e.g.: Employees’ Provident Fund) and buy Government bonds at lower rates, attempting to push rates down. This also has downsides and is not advisable.

No simple solutions

When a country’s monetary system isn’t stable, these complex situations arise. This column has warned, time and time again, against the monetary instability caused by money printing that led to these situations.

Setting a cap on interest rates is like controlling prices, which isn’t a good idea. It could set a bad precedent and cause further problems. On the previous occasion the Central Bank controlled the exchange rate and forex repatriation, the Balance of Payments (BoP) crisis got worse. Though interest rate caps may have good intentions, the fallout could be tricky. In response, banks with portfolios that don’t support lower rates may reduce their lending, affecting people who need loans.

People who have credit needs may have to settle for further high interest options, making their situation worse on one side. More fake microfinance solutions with very high interest rates may emerge and people will have to depend on informal financial borrowing if the banks impose more restrictions on pawning and selected operations.

Social costs can be seen as there were multiple incidents of conflict in recovering debt and in extreme cases, even the loss of life. The experience over years has been for the Government to provide debt cancellation and relief for people by taking responsibility for the debt when people suffer from bad loans.

Unfortunately, there is no simple solution. The best approach is understanding the issue and its consequences before taking action.