While going about one’s day to day business, one often
stumbles upon the truth. But one then picks oneself up, pretends that nothing
has happened, and moves on. For some, ignorance is bliss, and knowledge is not
for sharing. If to no one else, these laments of mine could surely apply to
some of the banks in India. I was a banker once, and am still one at heart – if
you dig seep enough.
Was I to believe that everyone
who was someone at the helm of affairs at these banks – especially those
dealing with international banking or staff training – was unaware of a
document called the UCP (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International
Chamber of Commerce Publication No.600)? Were they similarly unaware of its
companion publication, the ISBP (International Standard Banking Practice for
the Examination of Documents under UCP 600)? I am sure some of them must have
stumbled upon these ICC publications somewhere, some day. Strangely, it seems
that the information was never passed on, necessary training not given. the
knowledge not shared.
Well, at least that’s the impression I came away with after
I met a group of bankers in early January at Gurgaon (Haryana, India). These
bankers had come from branches across India to participate in a training
programme. During my sessions, they admitted that even though they were dealing
with export bills and LCs for years, they knew next to nothing about the UCP. I
couldn’t help but ask if they had come across LCs stating that these were subject
to ICC UCP 600. Indeed they had. And their response? I wanted to know.
Absolutely nothing, they admitted. What about using their smart phones or the
internet to find out what the words signified? They had not bothered to try.
I introduced the UCP to them, and showed them a copy of the
original publication. It was pointless to ask if they had ever read the ICC
publication. Yet, I did. One admitted having read UCP 500 (no typo here) but
had given up mid-way. The others had no idea what the UCP was about, or how important
it was for documentary credit operations. The group included bankers who had
served their respective banks for between three to thirty years, with direct ‘working
knowledge’ between six months to twenty years in their respective foreign exchange
departments.
For good measure, I checked with them the status of
Incoterms 2010 and marine cargo insurance. Alien concepts, all….. I gave up.
The tragic part of all this was that every bank in India had
its own training centres spread all over India. Some of these were called training
‘colleges’, often headed by very senior bankers. Every year these training
establishments drew up elaborate annual training plans for courses (including
foreign exchange). The Foreign Exchange Dealers’ Association of India (FEDAI),
too, did something similar. So far so good! The real problem lay elsewhere – with
their ostrich-like attitude. They believed that their in-house faculty, made up
of officers of the banks themselves, were good enough. The banks firmly believed
that no external faculty could add further value, could bring to the table any knowledge
they themselves did not already possess.
A cursory glance at their curriculum would show that, even
when they take up the ICC rules for training, the course curriculum barely scratches
the surface. The depth is invariably missing. Not enough time is given for the
participants to get a proper grip on the subject. May be, these training
centres are in a perennial state of denial. Or, may be, they simply do not know
how much they need to know of what they do not
know. For many of the faculty members, their posting as faculty is not perceived
as a great opportunity to do something good, but as a punishment transfer (if
you can’t fit him anywhere, dump him at a training centre), or a long vacation
from the stress and strain of day-to-day banking.
Most of the new generation banks in India have centralised
their key operations, including that of the examination of documents, issue of
documentary credits and so on. This approach has its benefits, but also limits the
knowledge base to a small group.
My session with the participants I was referring to earlier,
began slowly. I used the Q&A mode to highlight key issues, and later
explained the solutions in detail. Using the questions as starting points, I dwelt
on some of the more important UCP articles, demonstrated their applications in
practice, showed how these UCP articles could help them avoid the land mines.
They grew in confidence as our interaction progressed. They admitted that not
knowing anything better, they had all along accepted without protest every
(so-called) discrepancy claim the foreign banks had thrown at them. The best
part perhaps came when I introduced the ISBP, pointed out its utility and
relevance, pulled out a copy and gave them a bit of time to glance through its
pages. The look on their faces told me that all my efforts had been amply
rewarded. Fortunately for me, there was no other speaker to follow. I used this
opportunity to continue for more than two hours beyond the scheduled close.
The flood of enquiries continued through the next morning, so
much so that I had great difficulty in bringing my session to a close. The muted
comments that had started the previous day swelled in intensity the next
morning. They said in one voice, “All these days we had no idea that we were making
so many mistakes every day. God knows what errors we must have committed in the
past. Why didn’t anyone tell us!” Being
able to open a few doors for my fellow bankers made my day.
The key takeaways from this encounter may be summed up as
follows:
a)
The UCP was neither a popular nor an essential study.
Their banks were not pro-active in facilitating the learning process. Rarely was
a copy provided to the operating staff, nor were they adequately trained in its
proper application. For no apparent reason, the decision makers at these banks had
not shown the required interest in creating awareness among its operating staff.
b) As always, the very existence of the ISBP came
as a total surprise to everyone present. (No surprises; I had seen this happen many times
earlier.)
c)
External faculty or guest speakers are rarely, if
ever, invited to speak at these banks’ training centres or to their
export-import customers.
d) The ICC appears to be equally accountable for not
creating the necessary awareness. If the importance of some of the ICC
publications had been impressed upon the front-line staff, surely some interest
could have been created, some benefit could have percolated down to the base of
the pyramid.
e) Had the banks identified or addressed the training
needs seriously enough, it would surely have avoiding additional costs, helped
in the smooth handling of documents related to international trade and further improved
their image abroad.
Having worked as a banker in India and overseas for more
than 25 years, followed by a decade and more as a trainer, author and faculty
on international trade, I may be allowed to stick my neck out and say that several banks in
India, including the biggest of them all, are partners in the same crime. The unfortunate
fact is that these banks simply do not seem to be seriously interested in skill
development. They refuse to look beyond their internal resources, refuse to
admit that relying on their in-house faculty may not be enough. They needed to
broaden their horizons, look beyond their home grown resources for fresh inputs,
but they rarely did anything about it.
This frog-in-the-well attitude of some of the banks that I have come across puzzles
me no end, for it defies logic. It’s no wonder the quality of their documentary
credit operations continue to a source of frustration for the trading and the international
banking community.
02 March 2016.
