India's RBI announces mega $10 billion FX swap to infuse rupee liquidity
The RBI will conduct the buy/sell swap on February 28, it said in a release. The first leg of the transaction would be settled on March 4 and could infuse around 870 billion rupees ($10 billion) into the banking system.
Earlier this year, the RBI announced a six-month swap through which it infused $5.1 billion into the system, however, cash conditions have remained tight despite the swap and several open-market bond purchases.
The RBI will need to inject at least another 1 trillion rupees into the banking system by March-end, market participants said earlier on Friday.
Investors said three-year liquidity infusion is more assuring compared to a six-month, and far better than up to two-month repo infusions.
"The three-year maturity of the swap indicates that the RBI is looking at injecting more durable liquidity in the system possibly to ensure proper transmission of future rate cuts, the probability of which also has increased now," said Aditi Gupta an economist with Bank of Baroda.
The RBI also cut the repo rate for the first time in nearly five years earlier in February, but without sufficient cash in the banking system, rate cuts will not be effectively implemented by lenders, analysts said.
"This also suggests a possible shift in RBI's forex strategy, indicating a greater tolerance for a weaker currency as long as the depreciation is gradual and measured," Gupta said.
The RBI has infused more than 3.6 trillion rupees of durable liquidity into the banking system in last five weeks through a combination of open market as well as secondary debt purchases, longer-duration repos, and an FX swap.
The three-year swap would also be positive for shorter-duration government bonds and could lead to mild steepening in the yield curve, a senior treasury official said.
"There may not be any immediate need for OMO purchase, but going into March, we could see some debt buying," the official said.
India's banking system liquidity deficit was around 1.7 trillion rupees as of February 20 and is set to widen further moving into the last month of the financial year when liquidity stress is maximum.
($1 = 86.6250 Indian rupees)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
11 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, minister says
SYDNEY, July 13 (Reuters) - Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday, responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the U.S. and China went to war over Taiwan. Australia prioritises its sovereignty and "we don't discuss hypotheticals", Conroy said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance but by the government of the day," he said. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under-secretary of defence for policy, has been pushing Australian and Japanese defence officials on what they would do in a Taiwan conflict, although the U.S. does not offer a blank cheque guarantee to defend Taiwan. Colby posted on X that the Department of Defense is implementing President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda of restoring deterrence, which includes "urging allies to step up their defense spending and other efforts related to our collective defense". China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own and has not ruled out the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te rejects China's sovereignty claims, saying only Taiwan's people can decide their future. Australia's largest war-fighting exercise with the United States, involving 30,000 troops from 19 countries, opens on Sunday on Sydney Harbour. Conroy said Australia was concerned about China's military buildup of nuclear and conventional forces, and wants a balanced Indo-Pacific region where no country dominates. "China is seeking to secure a military base in the region and we are working very hard to be the primary security partner of choice for the region because we don't think that's a particularly optimal thing for Australia," he said, referring to the Pacific Islands. Security is expected to be on the agenda when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets China's leaders this week. He arrived in Shanghai on Saturday for a six-day visit. The Talisman Sabre exercise will span 6,500 km (4,000 miles), from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast. Conroy said it was possible China's navy would be watching the exercise to collect information, as it had done in the past. The United States is Australia's major security ally. Although Australia does not permit foreign bases, the U.S. military is expanding its rotational presence and fuel stores on Australian bases, which from 2027 will have U.S. Virginia submarines at port in Western Australia. These would play a key role in supporting U.S. forces in any conflict over Taiwan, analysts say.
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
EU's von der Leyen warns of countermeasures if U.S. 30% tariffs go ahead
BRUSSELS, July 12 (Reuters) - The EU is prepared to take the necessary steps to safeguard its interests if the U.S. proceeds with imposing a 30% tariff on European goods starting Aug 1, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Saturday. Von der Leyen, who heads the EU's executive arm, said in a statement that the bloc remained ready "to continue working towards an agreement by Aug 1". "Few economies in the world match the European Union's level of openness and adherence to fair trading practices," she continued. "We will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required."
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why becoming a republic would be financially stupid
Leave aside what you think of the social merits of the Royal Family and look at the economics. £130 million is a lot of money, about half a CalMac ferry in fact. That money would be better spent on the health service etc etc say the detractors. Read More: The reality is that if we didn't have a Royal Family then in purely financial terms we should invent one. Looked as a business the Royal Family is a market leading and highly profitable British product, with large export earnings and no effective competition. The Royal Family doesn't cost us a penny; it is hugely profitable for Britain and contributes to our national income many times more than it costs. Take non-doms as another example. People from elsewhere who live in this country but pay less tax than British people do. Seems unfair so let's nail them for more tax. Exactly what Rachel Reeves has done but now it is dawning on her that driving these people away by taxing more of their earnings and assets means we collect less tax rather than more. Why would an Indian Citizen who bases themselves in Britain and pays full tax on their British income and assets stay here if we want to charge Inheritance Tax on their global assets when India and lots of other places don't have Inheritance Tax? The answer is that they would be crazy to stay and, in many cases reluctantly, they are leaving. So less tax revenue for us here. Well done Rachel. (Image: PA) What Governments have got to focus on is increasing the amount of tax we actually get not pandering to people's prejudices by turning the screw on people they are envious of. Becoming a republic would be tragic in many ways but it would also be financially stupid. The non-dom tax regime needs to be looked at again. We want people from other countries who can contribute very positively to our economy to base themselves here, we want more of them not fewer. Governments need to realise that people who have very significant wealth tend to have interests in many countries. Basing themselves in Britain is a choice they make rather than something they can be compelled to do. Rachel Reeves needs to realise this and act sensibly. So what about Scotland? What can we do here other than continue to demand more money and more powers which we then misuse? Scotland has control over its own income tax rates and so far, other than virtue signalling tweaking at the bottom end to give lower paid workers a few extra pence a month, it has chosen to increase income tax rates so that somebody earning from about £45,000 upwards pays markedly more tax than they would elsewhere in the UK. Nigel Farage has come up with an idea for the UK to charge non-doms a one-off £250,000 fee and then distribute this money directly to lower earners. Gimmicky it is but entirely daft it isn't. Scotland could learn from it. Only about 30,000 taxpayers in Scotland pay the top rate of tax which starts at income of roughly £125,000. The exact number is not available but the number of Scots earning over £500,000 will be vanishingly small, perhaps only 1,000 people, certainly less than 5,000. What if we could attract a net additional 10,000 very high earners by putting a cap of £250,000 on the amount of Scottish income tax anybody resident in Scotland has to pay? To pay that amount of tax you would have to earn just over £500,000. If we could do this we would raise the tax collected in Scotland by £2.5 billion pounds every year. Nobody already here would pay more, nobody loses out, it's pure good news. Read More: This boost is before the positive knock-on effect of those extra taxpayers spending money on goods and services in Scotland which in turn creates more jobs and tax revenue to pay for public services. The rest of the UK cannot follow us down this road because it has too much to lose because there are so many more very high earners already there. You could argue that the £250,000 cap on tax payment is too high. A taxpayer paying £100,000 in tax is contributing more than 20 times as much as an average earner. "But it's not progressive" the socialists will wail. Indeed it is not. It's just smart. Our public services in Scotland are crumbling and our tax rates are stifling enterprise and driving people away. If we could attract very high earners to make their homes in Scotland - 10,000 seems a relatively modest target - we could transform our ability to fund public services as well as attract people who will help our nation's economy grow. Why not give it a try? Guy Stenhouse is a notable figure in the Scottish financial sector. He has held various positions, including being the Managing Director of Noble Grossart, an independent merchant bank based in Edinburgh, until 2017
