The Small Savings Schemes Conundrum

After the December monetary policy review, the focus is on small savings schemes yet again. In what has become an increasingly familiar trend, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) faulted banks for not passing on benefits of rate cuts to consumers (read cheaper loans). On their part, banks continue to maintain that rates offered by small savings schemes are rather high. Broadly speaking, banks compete with such schemes while raising monies (fixed deposits et al); hence, the cost of borrowing become high, which in turn translates into a higher cost of lending (read expensive loans).

There seems to be consensus on the need to ‘rationalise’ small savings schemes; simply put, small savings schemes need to be made less attractive (typically a lower rate) thereby enabling banks to borrow at an inexpensive rate, and so on. But then, rationalising small savings schemes is easier said than done.

To begin with, there are political implications. Small savings schemes are perceived as (and to a degree rightly so) the layman’s investment avenues. Any attempt to make them less attractive could politically hurt the government. While on one hand, they run the risk of losing favour with citizens, on the other, it is easy to visualize the opposition hurling more ‘suit-boot’ jibes at the government :)  

Furthermore, there is some truth in the theory that small savings schemes are like the proverbial ‘silver bullet’ for a bulk of the population. The combination of low minimum investment amounts, safety (assured returns and protection thanks to a sovereign guarantee) and availability (sold through a vast network of post-offices and branches of select banks), truly make small savings schemes the layman’s investment avenue. Hence, tampering too much won't be a prudent choice. 

Clearly, authorities will have to adopt a middle-of-the-road approach. Here are some thoughts on what could be done:

To begin with, schemes that are targeted at specific investor segments such as Senior Citizens Savings Scheme and Sukanya Samriddhi Accounts will be left unchanged.

There is a school of thought which maintains that Public Provident Fund (PPF) scheme must be suitably modified. The popular scheme received a boost in 2014-15 when the maximum investment limit was increased to Rs 150,000 per annum (versus Rs 100,000 earlier). But I will be surprised if the authorities decide to tinker with PPF. Let’s not forget that retirement planning is yet to find its due acceptance in the country, and PPF features among a handful of genuine long-term investment products available to investors.         

To my mind, the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (POMIS) and Post Office Time Deposits (POTD) will be put under the scanner. As per data from the RBI, as of Feb 2015, Rs 2,010 billion was invested in POMIS. This amounts to roughly one-third of the total corpus in all small savings schemes. Admittedly, there is a need for investment avenues that yield regular assured returns. Then again, both private and public sector banks offer products comparable to POMIS.  What sets the two apart is the rate of return; while POMIS offers 8.4% per annum, similar products from banks offer annual returns ranging from 7.25%-7.75%. It’s quite likely that the authorities will want to address the disparity.

Another aspect which is no less important pertains to the investor segment benefiting from the POMIS. It is an open secret that several affluent individuals have utilised the upper limit of Rs 900,000 available under joint POMIS accounts. Additionally, the monthly returns are invested in a Post Office Recurring Deposit account to further augment returns. Authorities will be inclined to correct this lacuna as well, thereby enhancing the prospects of POMIS being rationalised.

Then there’s POTD, the fixed deposit equivalents from small savings schemes. These deposits are offered in tenures of 1-year, 2-years, 3-years and 5-years. There’s a stark disparity between POTD rates (ranging from 8.4% per annum to 8.5% per annum) and those offered by bank fixed deposits. The popularity of POTD can be gauged by the fact that as of Feb 2015, monies parked therein (Rs 508 billion) accounted for roughly 8% of total assets held under small savings schemes.

It can be safely stated that by modifying two schemes (POMIS and POTD) which attract a bulk of monies, and leaving others unchanged, the much-desired balance can be struck.

There’s a thinking in some quarters that the way to rationalise small savings schemes is by virtually dismantling the structure, thereby ensuring that monies flow into banking channels. Such thinking is flawed to say the least. The small savings schemes framework serves an important function of offering investment options to the lay investor in the farthest corner of the country. The need of the hour is to create a level playing field between small savings schemes and bank products.