RBI can’t wish away fintechs from UPI just yet
The central bank is worried about banks not doing enough to boost their market share vis-a-vis fintechs, but there is little incentive for private sector lenders to up their UPI game.
Why read this story?
Editor's note: Reserve Bank of India deputy governor T. Rabi Sankar recently said at a conference hosted by the Indian Banks’ Association that banks have conceded the Unified Payments Interface market to a handful of fintech firms. “How is it that a system of transactions between two bank accounts has evolved in a way that most businesses are owned by non-banks? Clearly, banks have missed a step here.” The Times of India quoted Sankar as saying. “Probably the feeling that small-value transactions are an insignificant business to put your resources into.” Interestingly, his comments came soon after the National Payments Corporation of India, or NPCI, extended the deadline for third-party apps to limit the market share of their UPI transactions to 30% of the total volume to December 2024. Sankar’s remarks elicited immediate responses from the industry, most notably from two banking and fintech veterans. Amrish Rau, chief executive of Pine Labs, tweeted: “It’s fashionable to beat up Banks. Fintechs (combined) would have invested north of 5Bn to drive UPI acceptance and issuance. Most banks are public[ly] listed and don’t have the …
More in Internet
You may also like
Q3 earnings lay bare $5 billion migraine for four of India’s top banks
While the earnings have been encouraging, the real challenge lies in addressing the slowing deposit growth and leadership uncertainty.
The hidden debt behind rural India’s ‘prosperity’
How well rural consumption is doing is subjective. What isn’t subjective is how growing indebtedness, combined with stagnant income growth, is creating a tinderbox for households, banks and consumer companies that no one is talking about.
Why IndusInd Bank promoter Ashok Hinduja was never really in the dark
As the private lender reeled from serial scandals, Hinduja insisted he was merely a shareholder. Board-level links, conflicts of interest and regulatory blind spots suggest otherwise.