While it may not have been possible to capture all the variablesshortage of gas, delayed environmental clearances or problems in acquiring landbankers could certainly have taken far greater care while assessing the financial wherewithal of the promoters they were lending to and the collateral they were asking for. Thats one area where they slipped up badly, lending disproportionate sums to entrepreneurs who simply didnt have the resources to tide over a slowdown.
Hopefully, bankers will be circumspect in the next round of investments, expected to kick off in a year or so. For one, they need to be tempered in their expectations of economic growth and pencil in more regulatory uncertainty; in any case, funds must not be disbursed until all clearances are in. More important, as SBI chairman Arundhati Bhattacharya observed in an interview to this paper recently, is the need to check how deep the promoters pockets are, how he intends to fund the project and whether he has a Plan B. Bhattacharyas point is best illustrated in the recent instance of dues of Delhi electricity discoms where, despite not being paid the full arrears for years, the Tata discom was able to pay suppliersthe other discoms delayed paymentsby leveraging other group resources. Also, banks need to be disciplined, in not lending out of turn and keeping the consortium in the loop, a practice that, if not followed, lets the promoter get away with a free ride. That kind of irresponsible behaviour must stop; RBIs early alert system to spot potentially toxic assets will, to a large extent, take care of some of these issues, but at the risk of using a tired clich, prevention is better than cure.