Yes, large U.S. banks generally have lower Capital Adequacy Ratios (CAR) compared to Indian banks. Let’s break it down:
1. Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) - India vs. U.S. Banks
CAR (or Total Capital Ratio) measures how much capital a bank has relative to its risk-weighted assets (RWA).
| Metric | Indian Banks | U.S. Banks |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Minimum (Basel III) | 11.5% (incl. CCB) | 10.5% (incl. CCB) |
| Large Bank CAR (2024) | 15%-20% (HDFC, ICICI, SBI) | 11%-14% (JPM, BoA, Citi) |
Key Observations
- Indian banks typically maintain 15-20% CAR, which is much higher than the 11-14% range of large U.S. banks.
- The Basel III minimum is 10.5% globally, but India has stricter norms at 11.5%, forcing banks to hold more capital buffers.
- U.S. banks rely more on provisioning (loan loss reserves) rather than capital buffers.
2. Why Do U.S. Banks Have Lower CAR?
A. Different Risk Models (Risk-Weighted Assets - RWA)
- U.S. banks assign lower risk weights to corporate & sovereign loans, meaning their denominator (RWA) is lower, keeping CAR low.
- Indian banks use higher RWA, leading to higher CAR needs.
B. Higher Use of Loan Loss Reserves (LLR) in the U.S.
- Instead of keeping high capital adequacy, U.S. banks provision aggressively (ACL/NPL ~150%+).
- This allows them to operate with a lower CAR.
C. Access to Federal Reserve Liquidity
- U.S. banks can quickly raise emergency capital via the Fed (e.g., repo operations, emergency funding).
- Indian banks don’t have such a deep Fed-like lender-of-last-resort, so RBI demands higher CAR upfront.
D. More Efficient Capital Structure
- U.S. banks optimize their capital structure using hybrid instruments like AT1 bonds, subordinated debt, share buybacks, keeping CAR lean but effective.
- Indian banks rely more on pure equity capital to meet CAR requirements.
3. Are Indian Banks Safer Because of Higher CAR?
Not necessarily.
- Higher CAR gives Indian banks a cushion, but they often have lower profitability (RoE) compared to U.S. banks.
- U.S. banks take on more leverage but manage risks through higher provisioning & deep capital markets.
Example:
- In 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed despite meeting CAR norms, showing capital buffers alone aren’t enough.
- Indian banks with high CAR (like PNB in 2018) still faced issues due to fraud & NPA recognition delays.
4. Key Takeaways
- Indian banks have higher CAR (~15-20%) than U.S. banks (~11-14%) due to stricter RBI norms.
- U.S. banks offset lower CAR by keeping higher provisioning & access to Fed liquidity.
- Lower CAR doesn’t mean U.S. banks are riskier—it reflects different risk models & economic systems.
PCR in Indian banks vs. Reserves in U.S. banks are fundamentally different due to varying regulatory frameworks, risk assessment models, and economic environments. Let’s break this down:
1. Why Does the RBI Allow Lower PCR Compared to the U.S.?
A. Different Banking Structures & Economic Considerations
- India is a high-credit-growth economy, where aggressive provisioning might stifle lending, impacting GDP growth.
- In contrast, U.S. banks operate in a more mature, developed economy, where credit expansion is lower, and risk management is prioritized.
B. Provisioning Norms Differ Based on Accounting Standards
-
India (Ind-AS / RBI Framework)
- Indian banks provision based on prudential norms dictated by the RBI, which focuses on identified NPLs.
- The PCR metric excludes technically written-off (TWO) accounts, giving a lower reported ratio.
-
U.S. (CECL Model - Current Expected Credit Loss)
- U.S. banks follow an expected loss model, meaning they provision in advance for future losses, even if no default has occurred.
- This naturally results in higher reserve levels, pushing ACL/NPL beyond 150-200%.
C. RBI’s Focus is More on Capital Adequacy (CAR) Than Just PCR
- Instead of forcing a higher PCR, the RBI focuses on Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) under Basel norms.
- CAR is above 15-17% for most large Indian banks, meaning they have enough buffer capital to absorb losses.
- In contrast, U.S. banks also prioritize capital adequacy but combine it with aggressive provisioning.
2. Are Indian Banks More Vulnerable Due to Lower PCR?
Yes and No.
- Yes → If an economic downturn suddenly increases bad loans, Indian banks with low PCR could face a crisis (like Yes Bank, PNB).
- No → Because RBI forces capital buffers (Tier-1 capital) instead, which absorbs losses in crisis scenarios.
Example:
- ICICI Bank & HDFC Bank survived the 2008 crisis despite having PCRs in the 50-60% range, because they had strong capital buffers.
- Yes Bank collapsed in 2020 because its capital was weak despite PCR being high at times.
3. Should RBI Push for a 100% PCR Like U.S. Banks?
Not necessarily.
- If Indian banks raise PCR to U.S. levels (~150%), they would need massive provisions, reducing profits and loan growth.
- This would lead to higher borrowing costs for businesses and individuals, slowing economic activity.
Instead, RBI balances between CAR, PCR, and liquidity buffers to ensure the system remains stable.
Final Thoughts
- U.S. banks have higher provisioning because their accounting model (CECL) is forward-looking, while India follows a regulatory-driven model.
- Indian banks maintain lower PCR but compensate with higher capital adequacy.
- In times of crisis (like IL&FS, Yes Bank), the RBI has intervened with capital infusion instead of forcing high provisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment