The Rupee’s Twelve-Year Slide: Inflation, Expectations and the Case for a Lower Inflation Target.....

Introduction

The Indian rupee’s depreciation over the past twelve years reflects more than movements in the US dollar or temporary foreign-capital outflows. It also raises a deeper question about India’s inflation performance, the purchasing power of its currency and the expectations formed by households, businesses and investors. The rupee traded around ₹60–61 per US dollar in 2014 and reached approximately ₹90–95 in 2026, representing a depreciation of roughly 50–58% in its dollar exchange rate. During the same period, India’s consumer prices rose substantially, reducing the domestic purchasing power of money. Inflation alone cannot explain the entire exchange-rate movement, because the dollar strengthened globally at various times, US interest rates changed, and capital flows responded to geopolitical risks and India’s external financing needs. Nevertheless, persistently higher domestic inflation than that of major trading partners can gradually weaken a currency’s purchasing power and competitiveness. The central question is whether India’s monetary framework has sufficiently anchored long-term inflation expectations and whether a lower inflation target could strengthen confidence in the rupee without sacrificing employment, investment and economic growth.

 

The Previous Regime: High Inflation and the Cost of Delayed Adjustment

Before the adoption of formal flexible inflation targeting, India experienced prolonged periods of relatively high consumer inflation, particularly during the late 2000s and early 2010s. CPI inflation frequently reached double digits in 2009–2013, while elevated food prices, rising wages, fiscal pressures and supply bottlenecks reinforced inflationary expectations. The rupee weakened from approximately ₹45 per dollar in 2008 to around ₹60–68 during the 2013 currency-market turmoil. The depreciation was also influenced by the US Federal Reserve’s announcement of tapering, a large current-account deficit and foreign-investor concerns. This experience demonstrated that inflation and currency depreciation can reinforce one another: domestic price increases reduce competitiveness, depreciation makes imported fuel and other inputs more expensive, and higher import costs feed back into prices. The Urjit Patel Committee’s recommendations subsequently helped establish a formal inflation-targeting framework, with the Reserve Bank of India adopting a 4% CPI inflation target and a tolerance band of 2–6% in 2016. The previous regime therefore offers an important lesson: tolerating persistent inflation can impose substantial costs, but exchange-rate movements cannot be attributed to inflation alone.

 

Twelve Years of Inflation Targeting and Rupee Depreciation

The period since 2014 has brought improvements in the monetary-policy framework, greater transparency and a more explicit commitment to price stability, but it has not eliminated rupee depreciation. The exchange rate moved from roughly ₹60–61 per dollar in 2014 to around ₹83 in 2023 and approximately ₹86–88 in 2025, before facing further pressure in 2026. The rupee’s decline has occurred alongside several international shocks, including the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, volatile crude-oil prices, tighter US monetary policy and changes in global risk appetite. India’s dependence on imported crude oil—roughly 85–90% of domestic oil consumption in recent years—makes its external balance particularly sensitive to energy prices. Meanwhile, the RBI’s inflation framework has generally helped bring inflation down from the exceptionally high levels of the early 2010s, although the 2020–2023 period included repeated breaches of the upper tolerance limit. India’s CPI inflation averaged approximately 6–7% in several earlier years of the period, fell substantially in 2024–2025, and remained vulnerable to food and energy shocks. The distinction is important: India has not experienced twelve uninterrupted years of uncontrolled inflation, but recurring price shocks, inflation differentials and external vulnerabilities have continued to put pressure on the currency. The policy challenge is to prevent temporary shocks from becoming permanent expectations of higher prices.

 

How Inflation Expectations Can Weaken the Rupee

Inflation expectations influence currency markets through several connected channels. When households expect prices to rise persistently, they may bring forward purchases; businesses may increase prices and wages pre-emptively; and investors may demand higher returns to compensate for the expected erosion of purchasing power. If domestic inflation remains above that of trading partners, Indian goods become relatively more expensive unless productivity improves or the nominal exchange rate adjusts. Over time, this can weaken export competitiveness, increase import demand and contribute to currency depreciation. Investors also compare expected real returns rather than nominal interest rates alone. If they believe Indian inflation will remain elevated, a relatively high domestic interest rate may not be sufficient to attract or retain foreign capital. Depreciation then increases the rupee cost of imported oil, machinery, electronics and industrial inputs, adding to inflation and potentially creating a self-reinforcing cycle. However, expectations must be distinguished from observed inflation: a temporary rise in vegetable prices does not necessarily imply entrenched inflation, and a weaker rupee can also reflect a stronger dollar rather than deteriorating domestic fundamentals. The RBI’s task is therefore not simply to raise interest rates whenever inflation increases, but to convince markets that persistent inflation will not be accommodated while addressing the supply constraints that make price shocks recur.

 

Comparing the Two Regimes: What Has Changed?

The pre-2014 period was characterised by less firmly anchored inflation expectations, episodes of double-digit inflation and the absence of a formal numerical inflation target. Since 2016, the RBI has operated under a clearer framework centred on 4% CPI inflation, with a permitted range of 2–6%. This institutional change has improved accountability and given monetary policy a more explicit nominal anchor. Yet the exchange rate’s movement from approximately ₹60 per dollar in 2014 to around ₹90–95 in 2026 shows that formal targeting cannot guarantee currency stability. Nor does the comparison establish that the current regime has produced worse inflation outcomes: the earlier period included exceptionally high inflation, while the later period faced extraordinary global shocks and changes in the relative strength of the dollar. The meaningful comparison is therefore between the credibility of policy commitments, the persistence of inflation and the ability of the economy to absorb supply shocks. A credible inflation target can help stabilise expectations even when the exchange rate depreciates; conversely, repeatedly allowing inflation to settle near the top of the tolerance band may weaken confidence in the commitment to price stability. The objective should be to improve the quality of disinflation, not to treat every episode of currency weakness as proof that the inflation-targeting framework has failed.

 

Could Lowering the Inflation Target Strengthen the Rupee?

Lowering India’s 4% inflation target—for example, to 3% over a suitable transition period—could strengthen the rupee’s long-term foundations if it credibly reduced expected inflation and the risk premium demanded by investors. A lower target could encourage households and businesses to make financial decisions on the assumption of more stable prices, protect the purchasing power of savings and reduce the tendency for depreciation to be incorporated into future price-setting. It could also improve competitiveness if India’s inflation rate gradually converged towards that of its major trading partners. But lowering the target on paper would not automatically lower actual inflation or appreciate the rupee. If food, fuel, transport, housing and imported-input costs continue to rise because of supply shortages, a stricter target could force the RBI to maintain higher interest rates for longer, weakening credit growth, investment and employment without resolving the underlying causes of inflation. A credible transition would require evidence that inflation can sustainably remain near 3%, improved food-storage and logistics infrastructure, more reliable energy supplies, stronger competition, productivity growth and prudent fiscal policy. The RBI should also explain how it would respond to temporary supply shocks rather than tightening indiscriminately. A lower target is therefore a possible long-term reform, not a substitute for addressing the structural sources of inflation.

 

The Role of Interest-Rate and Exchange-Rate Expectations

The rupee’s stability depends not only on the current repo rate but also on what investors believe will happen to inflation, interest rates and the exchange rate over the next several years. Higher interest rates can support the currency by improving the relative return on rupee assets, but the effect is conditional on the expected inflation differential, global yields, risk appetite and confidence in future growth. If investors expect inflation and depreciation to continue, higher nominal rates may provide little improvement in expected real returns. Conversely, a credible commitment to low and stable inflation can reduce the compensation investors demand for holding rupee assets, even without repeated rate increases. The RBI can support orderly currency-market conditions through foreign-exchange intervention, adequate liquidity management and communication that distinguishes temporary shocks from persistent inflation. Such intervention cannot permanently defend an exchange rate inconsistent with economic fundamentals, and excessive tightening to protect the rupee can damage domestic demand and investment. The most durable strategy is to coordinate credible monetary policy with measures that raise productivity, reduce import vulnerabilities and expand export capacity. A stable currency is ultimately supported by confidence that India can produce competitively, attract sustainable capital and preserve the purchasing power of money.

 

Conclusion: Make Low Inflation a Foundation of Competitiveness

India’s rupee depreciation since 2014 reflects a combination of inflation differentials, oil-import dependence, changing global interest rates, capital flows and the dollar’s international strength. The rise from approximately ₹60 per dollar to around ₹90–95 represents a substantial loss in the rupee’s external value, but it does not prove that inflation alone caused the decline or that the post-2016 monetary framework has failed. The earlier regime demonstrated the dangers of persistently high inflation; the present regime has established a clearer target but must continue strengthening the credibility and durability of price stability. Lowering the inflation target from 4% to 3% could eventually help anchor expectations and improve competitiveness, provided the economy can achieve it without excessive damage to employment, investment and supply expansion. The priority should be to bring inflation sustainably towards the lower part of the existing tolerance band, prevent temporary shocks from becoming embedded in expectations, and improve food, energy and industrial supply. India cannot promise a permanently strong rupee, but it can build a more resilient one by ensuring that domestic inflation does not systematically erode competitiveness and that monetary policy remains credible over the long term.

When Rate Hikes Fail to Defend the Rupee: India’s Inflation, Capital Outflows and the Self-Reinforcing Loss of Competitiveness.....

Introduction

A currency can depreciate even when its central bank raises interest rates because exchange rates respond not merely to the current policy rate but also to inflation expectations, expected future returns, capital flows, global risk appetite and confidence in an economy’s growth prospects. India faces this difficult combination when higher interest rates fail to provide sufficient compensation for currency risk, imported inflation weakens purchasing power, and foreign investors redirect funds towards safer or more attractive markets. The rupee’s depreciation then becomes more than a financial-market adjustment: it raises the domestic cost of imported energy, machinery and intermediate goods, potentially increasing inflation and weakening India’s price competitiveness. If investors interpret these pressures as evidence of further depreciation, capital outflows can intensify, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. The challenge for India is therefore not simply to raise interest rates further, but to restore confidence in the rupee through lower inflation, stronger productivity, stable external financing and predictable economic policy.

 

Why the Rupee Can Depreciate Despite Higher Interest Rates

An interest-rate increase does not automatically strengthen a currency because investors compare expected returns after accounting for inflation, exchange-rate movements and risk. If the Reserve Bank of India raises the repo rate by 25 basis points, but investors expect the rupee to depreciate substantially, the additional interest income may not compensate for their anticipated currency losses. For example, a hypothetical 6% annual return on a rupee investment becomes less attractive if the currency is expected to lose 5% of its value against the dollar, particularly when investors can obtain competitive returns in US assets with lower perceived risk. Interest-rate differentials also reflect expectations of future policy: if US yields remain elevated while India's inflation, fiscal risks or external financing requirements concern investors, the rupee may weaken despite domestic tightening. Moreover, rate hikes work with a lag and cannot immediately reverse global dollar demand, portfolio reallocations or the demand for imported energy. Monetary tightening can support the currency, but it cannot guarantee appreciation when the underlying economic and financial forces are moving in the opposite direction.

 

Inflation, the Real Exchange Rate and Lost Competitiveness

The most damaging aspect of depreciation emerges when it coincides with persistent domestic inflation. A weaker rupee makes imported crude oil, natural gas, electronic components, industrial machinery and other inputs more expensive in domestic currency. Businesses may absorb some of these costs through lower margins, but sustained increases are eventually passed to consumers or reflected in reduced investment. If Indian prices rise faster than those of trading partners while the nominal exchange rate adjusts only gradually, domestic production becomes more expensive relative to foreign alternatives. This can weaken export competitiveness even when the nominal rupee has depreciated. The real exchange rate, which adjusts the nominal exchange rate for relative price levels, is therefore more informative than the nominal exchange rate alone. A depreciation initially intended to make Indian goods cheaper abroad can lose much of its advantage if domestic inflation absorbs the price benefit. Exporters using imported inputs may gain little, while households face more expensive fuel, transport and food distribution. India risks entering a cycle in which depreciation raises costs, inflation erodes competitiveness, exports and investment disappoint, and renewed currency pressure generates another round of imported inflation.

 

Why Foreign Capital Outflows Can Reinforce the Cycle

Foreign investors do not assess India solely through its headline GDP growth rate or the level of the repo rate. They also consider earnings growth, corporate valuations, fiscal sustainability, liquidity, currency volatility and the relative attractiveness of competing markets. When US Treasury yields rise, dollar assets can become more appealing without requiring investors to accept emerging-market currency risk. Global uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and expectations of tighter US monetary policy can strengthen this effect. Foreign portfolio investors selling Indian equities or bonds convert rupees into foreign currency, adding to pressure on the exchange rate. Depreciation can then reduce dollar-denominated returns for investors who have not hedged their exposure, encouraging further withdrawals. However, outflows should not be confused with a uniform retreat from India: foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, debt flows and equity flows can behave differently, and gross flows may conceal substantial offsetting transactions. The central risk is that short-term, reversible financing becomes more important just as the economy requires stable capital to fund productive investment. A weakening currency can then influence investment decisions, expected corporate profits and the cost of external borrowing, extending financial-market volatility into the real economy.

 

Why India Is in a Precarious Position

India combines substantial economic strengths with structural vulnerabilities. Its large domestic market, services exports, remittance receipts, diversified production base and foreign-exchange reserves provide important buffers. Nevertheless, its dependence on imported crude oil and other essential inputs exposes the economy to global price shocks. A rise in dollar-denominated energy prices can widen the import bill just as rupee depreciation makes every imported barrel more expensive. Persistent merchandise trade deficits must be financed through services surpluses, remittances, foreign investment and other capital flows. If external financing becomes more volatile, the exchange rate must absorb more of the adjustment unless domestic demand, import costs or other flows change. India also faces a policy trade-off: raising rates to support the currency may restrain credit, investment and employment, while keeping rates too low when inflation expectations are rising may weaken confidence in the purchasing power of the rupee. Fiscal priorities, household purchasing power, infrastructure requirements and the need for job creation further complicate the response. The precariousness lies not in an inevitable crisis, but in the possibility that external shocks, weak productivity growth in some sectors, import dependence and capital-market volatility reinforce one another before structural adjustment takes effect.

 

How to Reduce the Risk Without Overusing Interest Rates

India needs a coordinated strategy that addresses the sources of currency vulnerability rather than relying exclusively on repo-rate increases. First, the RBI should preserve price stability and communicate a credible medium-term inflation outlook, distinguishing temporary food or energy shocks from persistent second-round effects in wages, services and broader prices. Clear communication can anchor expectations without implying that every exchange-rate movement requires monetary tightening. Second, foreign-exchange intervention can help smooth disorderly volatility and provide liquidity during periods of market stress. Such intervention should not be treated as a permanent defence of a particular exchange rate, because reserves are finite and defending an unsustainable level can encourage one-way speculative positions. Third, the government should improve energy resilience through diversified sourcing, strategic reserves, efficient logistics, renewable power and carefully assessed domestic production. Fourth, export competitiveness requires more than a cheaper rupee: reliable electricity, efficient ports, faster customs procedures, stable tax rules, better logistics, skilled workers and deeper domestic supply chains can lower costs and raise productivity. Policies that attract long-term direct investment and reduce unnecessary import dependence can also improve the quality of external financing. Finally, predictable fiscal management and transparent economic data can reduce the uncertainty premium investors demand for holding Indian assets.

 

Protecting Investors and the Real Economy Amid Uncertainty

Investors need to distinguish between a temporary currency correction and a persistent deterioration in macroeconomic fundamentals. A weaker rupee alone does not establish that India is becoming uninvestable, just as a higher repo rate does not prove that currency risks have been contained. Relevant indicators include the current-account balance, foreign-exchange reserves relative to short-term external debt, the composition of capital flows, oil prices, inflation expectations, the real effective exchange rate and the gap between Indian and US bond yields. Businesses with substantial dollar liabilities should manage currency mismatches through prudent hedging rather than assuming that the rupee will recover. Import-dependent firms need to assess whether they can pass higher costs to customers, while exporters should examine how much of their production depends on imported inputs. Policymakers should avoid abrupt, unpredictable interventions that increase uncertainty for investors and businesses. The broader objective is to prevent currency volatility from discouraging investment, reducing household purchasing power or making productive credit prohibitively expensive. Stability is most durable when it arises from stronger earnings, credible inflation control and sustainable external balances rather than from an artificially defended exchange rate.

 

Conclusion

India cannot guarantee a stronger rupee simply by increasing interest rates. If inflation remains persistent, global dollar returns stay attractive and investors question the sustainability of external financing, monetary tightening may slow domestic activity without delivering lasting currency stability. Depreciation becomes particularly dangerous when it raises imported costs, erodes the real competitiveness of domestic production and reinforces expectations of further depreciation. Breaking this cycle requires credible inflation management, judicious foreign-exchange intervention, stronger exports, reduced energy vulnerability, stable long-term capital flows and sustained productivity growth. India’s large market and economic diversification offer considerable resilience, but resilience must be converted into external strength. The ultimate test is not whether the rupee appreciates every month; it is whether India can finance growth, attract productive investment and protect household purchasing power without becoming increasingly dependent on higher interest rates or continual capital inflows.

The ₹1-a-Day Inflation Shield: Can a Tiny Contribution Make India’s Food Prices More Stable?

Introduction

India’s food-inflation problem is often treated as a problem of insufficient production, but an equally important problem is seasonal instability in supply. Tomatoes, onions, potatoes, pulses, vegetables and some cereals can move from surplus to shortage within months because agricultural production is seasonal, perishable and highly exposed to weather. The result is a familiar cycle: prices collapse when arrivals are abundant, farmers face weak returns, stocks are not adequately preserved, supplies tighten later, and consumers suddenly face very high prices. A simple alternative would be to create a permanent Food Price Stabilisation Fund financed by only ₹1 per person per day. With a population of roughly 1.4–1.5 billion, such a contribution would generate approximately ₹51,000–₹55,000 crore a year. The objective would not be to subsidise food permanently, but to buy, store, transport, process and release seasonal food at the right time, while investing in cold chains and logistics. The economic logic is powerful: a relatively small and predictable contribution could potentially prevent much larger temporary increases in household food expenditure.

 

How Much Money Would ₹1 a Day Generate?

The arithmetic is surprisingly large. If 1.4 billion people contributed ₹1 every day, the annual collection would be around ₹51,100 crore. At 1.45 billion people it would be about ₹52,925 crore, while at 1.5 billion it would reach roughly ₹54,750 crore. This is not a trivial public-resource pool. Even after administrative expenses, suppose 80% were directed towards actual supply stabilisation. That would provide around ₹41,000–₹44,000 crore every year for procurement, storage, transportation, cold chains, processing, market intervention and emergency imports. The important feature is that the fund would be recurring rather than dependent on a crisis. Government would therefore have resources available before prices explode rather than trying to respond after inflation has already entered household budgets and inflation expectations.

 

What Would the Fund Actually Do?

The most important principle would be to buy when prices are seasonally low and release when supply becomes tight. Suppose tomato, onion or potato prices fall sharply after a major harvest. Instead of allowing the entire surplus to depress farm-gate prices and subsequently disappear through wastage, the fund could finance procurement, dehydration, processing, cold storage and movement to deficit regions. Similar mechanisms could be used for pulses, vegetables and selected cereals. The fund could also finance refrigerated transport, scientific warehouses and local storage facilities. It would not attempt to control every food price. Instead, it would concentrate on commodities that have historically generated disproportionate volatility. This matters because food inflation is often driven by a relatively small number of highly volatile items. Vegetables, particularly tomatoes, onions and potatoes, have repeatedly produced large movements in food inflation because of their perishability, weather sensitivity and seasonal production patterns.

 

Estimating the Effect on Food Inflation

There is no honest way to claim that ₹51,000 crore would automatically reduce Indian food inflation by a precise number of percentage points because the result would depend on how effectively the money was deployed, which commodities were targeted and the severity of weather shocks. But a reasonable scenario analysis can be constructed. Suppose systematic procurement, storage and distribution reduced the size of seasonal food-price spikes by 10–20% in the commodities targeted by the programme. If food inflation during a difficult year would otherwise reach, for example, 8%, such intervention could potentially bring the food-inflation rate down by roughly 0.5–1 percentage point during major supply shocks, depending on the share of affected commodities in the food basket. Over a complete year, because not every month experiences a supply shock, the reduction in average food inflation could plausibly be around 0.3–0.7 percentage point in a well-designed programme. Since food and beverages account for roughly 46% of the CPI basket under the established structure, a 0.3–0.7 percentage-point reduction in food inflation could translate into approximately 0.14–0.32 percentage point less headline CPI inflation, before considering second-round effects. These are scenario estimates rather than forecasts, but they illustrate why supply stabilisation can have a meaningful macroeconomic payoff.

 

The Bigger Benefit May Be Lower Inflation Volatility

The greatest success of such a scheme should not be measured only by the average inflation rate. It should be measured by how much it reduces inflation volatility. If onion prices rise 50%, tomato prices double or vegetable prices jump 30–40% after a weather disruption, households immediately experience a reduction in purchasing power. Food has a high share in household expenditure, particularly for lower-income families. A sudden food-price shock therefore behaves differently from a temporary increase in the price of a discretionary consumer good. It forces families to reduce spending elsewhere. A stable supply system could prevent extreme movements even if it cannot eliminate inflation completely. In other words, the policy would attempt to turn a pattern of price spikes and corrections into a narrower and more predictable price path. That predictability itself could reduce inflation expectations and make monetary policy less dependent on interest-rate responses to temporary supply shocks.

 

Why ₹4 a Day Per Family Is Economically Small

For a four-member family, ₹1 per person per day becomes only ₹4 per day, or approximately ₹1,460 per year. That is about ₹122 per month. The nominal amount looks even smaller when compared with a family’s total annual expenditure. If household income rises over time while the contribution remains fixed at ₹1 per person per day, the contribution becomes progressively smaller as a share of income. For example, a ₹1,460 annual contribution from a family earning ₹3 lakh a year is about 0.49% of income. If income later rises to ₹5 lakh, the same contribution falls to 0.29%. If household income reaches ₹7.5 lakh, it falls to about 0.19%. Thus, a fixed nominal contribution can become a declining real and income-adjusted burden as the economy grows.

 

Inflation Would Gradually Reduce the Real Sacrifice

The argument becomes even more interesting if inflation itself is considered. Suppose the contribution remains fixed at ₹1 per person per day and prices rise by an average 5% annually. The real purchasing power of that ₹1 falls over time. After ten years, ₹1 would have purchasing power equivalent to only about ₹0.61 in today’s money. For a four-person family, the ₹4 daily contribution would similarly have a real value of around ₹2.46 after ten years when measured against today's purchasing power. Over 20 years, its real value would fall to roughly ₹1.51 per day at a 5% inflation rate. This means the long-run sacrifice of a fixed nominal contribution is relatively small. However, there is an important qualification: inflation also reduces the purchasing power of the fund itself. Therefore, if the programme is expected to maintain its real capacity indefinitely, the contribution would eventually need periodic adjustment or additional government funding.

 

The Real Economic Return Could Be Much Larger

The strongest argument for the scheme is that the ₹1 contribution would not simply disappear from the economy. It would be transformed into productive supply infrastructure. If the fund prevents food prices from rising sharply, households retain purchasing power that would otherwise be transferred to higher food expenditure. A family that avoids spending an additional ₹2,000–₹5,000 during a severe food-price episode can continue spending on education, transport, clothing, healthcare or other consumption. Farmers can also benefit if procurement prevents harvest-time prices from collapsing. The policy could therefore create a three-way gain: farmers receive greater price stability, consumers receive lower volatility, and the economy experiences more stable inflation. The government would effectively be paying a small predictable amount to reduce the probability of much larger unpredictable costs.

 

Could It Reduce the Need for Interest-Rate Tightening?

This is perhaps the most important macroeconomic consequence. Food inflation caused by a temporary shortage cannot necessarily be solved efficiently through higher interest rates. A rate increase does not produce tomatoes, onions or pulses. Instead, it can reduce credit demand, investment and consumption while doing little to repair a weather-damaged crop. If a permanent food-stabilisation mechanism reduces the frequency and intensity of supply-driven inflation, the RBI could distinguish more clearly between temporary food shocks and entrenched inflation. If food-price volatility falls, inflation expectations could become better anchored, reducing the risk that temporary food inflation spreads into wages, services and core inflation. Monetary policy could consequently focus more on persistent demand-side inflation rather than reacting aggressively to every agricultural supply disruption.

 

The Main Risk: Government Must Not Turn It Into Permanent Price Control

The idea would fail if the fund became another mechanism for indiscriminate subsidies or politically determined price controls. The purpose should be stabilisation, not suppression. The government should buy during genuine seasonal surpluses, preserve stocks efficiently and release them transparently when predetermined indicators show supply stress. Procurement should not permanently push market prices above economically justified levels, while releases should not be delayed for political reasons. Independent accounting, transparent stock levels and rules based on price bands would be essential. The programme should also invest increasingly in storage, processing and logistics so that, over time, less money is required for direct intervention. The best version of the policy would gradually move from buying food to building the infrastructure that makes food supply itself more resilient.

 

Conclusion

A ₹1-per-person-per-day food stabilisation contribution would demonstrate an important economic principle: preventing inflation can sometimes be cheaper than fighting inflation after it has already occurred. A pool of roughly ₹51,000–₹55,000 crore a year would be large enough to finance meaningful seasonal procurement, storage, cold chains, logistics and targeted market intervention. A realistic scenario could be a reduction of around 0.3–0.7 percentage point in average food inflation, with substantially larger effects during individual seasonal price shocks, potentially lowering headline inflation by roughly 0.14–0.32 percentage point. For a four-person household, the cost would be only ₹4 a day or ₹1,460 a year, and if the nominal contribution remained fixed, inflation and rising incomes would progressively reduce its real burden. The deeper benefit, however, would be the prevention of extreme price movements. Instead of asking monetary policy to suppress demand whenever food prices rise, India could invest a small amount continuously to increase the reliability of food supply. The economic objective would therefore be simple: pay a little every day to avoid paying much more during every food-price crisis.

Inflation Has Not Yet Won — But the RBI Is Raising the Cost of Believing It Will.....

 Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India’s monetary-policy decision on October 7, 2026, marks an important change in the way the inflation problem is being treated. The Monetary Policy Committee raised the repo rate by 25 basis points to 5.50%, the first increase since February 2023, and shifted its policy stance from neutral to calibrated tightening. The decision does not necessarily mean that inflation has already become permanently entrenched in the Indian economy; rather, it indicates that the RBI is increasingly concerned that temporary supply shocks could generate second-round effects through wages, services, business pricing, household behaviour and, most importantly, inflation expectations. August CPI inflation at 4.82% is above the 4% target but remains well below the extreme inflation episodes seen during earlier supply shocks, while the RBI's revised forecast of 5.2% for FY2026-27 suggests that the central bank expects inflation to remain elevated for longer. The interesting part of today's policy is therefore not simply the 25-basis-point increase but the message behind it: the RBI is trying to prevent today's inflation from becoming tomorrow's expectation, because once households, workers, firms and financial markets begin assuming that inflation will remain high, bringing it back to 4% becomes considerably more expensive.

 

Inflation Is Elevated, But Is It Entrenched?

Inflation becomes truly entrenched when temporary price increases begin producing persistent increases in underlying prices, wages and expectations. India has not yet reached that point conclusively, and this distinction is critical. Headline CPI at 4.82% in August is above the RBI's 4% target but is still within the formal 2–6% tolerance band. At the same time, the RBI's revised estimate of core inflation at 4.4% indicates that underlying price pressures are becoming more uncomfortable. Nearly half of the consumer basket is reportedly experiencing inflation above 4%, suggesting that the problem is no longer confined to a small number of volatile commodities. Yet this is different from saying that inflation has become structurally embedded. There is still a significant difference between a supply shock that raises prices for a period and a self-sustaining inflation process in which workers demand higher wages because they expect prices to rise, firms raise prices because they anticipate higher costs, consumers bring forward purchases because they fear future price increases, and financial markets demand higher nominal returns because they expect inflation to remain elevated. The RBI's concern is that India could move from the first situation toward the second if monetary policy does not act before expectations become firmly established.

 

Why Second-Round Effects Matter More Than Today's CPI

The most important issue in today's policy is therefore the possibility of second-round effects. An increase in crude oil, food or other commodities is initially a first-round supply shock: it raises the price of the affected product and reduces real purchasing power. The monetary-policy problem begins when that shock spreads into the rest of the economy. Transport companies may increase freight rates, manufacturers may revise selling prices, service providers may raise fees, workers may seek higher wages, landlords may adjust rents and businesses may begin incorporating larger inflation buffers into contracts. Once this happens, the original shock has created a wider inflation process. Monetary policy cannot produce more crude oil or a better monsoon, but it can influence the demand side and, crucially, the expectations surrounding future prices. A tighter policy can make borrowing more expensive, moderate discretionary consumption, discourage speculative inventory accumulation and reduce the ability of businesses to pass every cost increase immediately into final prices. More importantly, it tells economic agents that the central bank will not allow a temporary supply shock to become a permanent inflation regime.

 

Today's Rate Hike Is Really About Tomorrow's Expectations

The 25-basis-point increase should therefore be interpreted as an expectations-management decision as much as a conventional demand-management decision. The repo rate was increased to 5.50%, but the stronger signal came from the change in stance to calibrated tightening. Markets now have to consider the possibility that another rate increase could occur if inflation remains broad-based or expectations continue to rise. Before today's decision, the debate was largely about whether the RBI would hike once or remain on hold; after today's decision, the question becomes how much tightening may ultimately be required. That changes the expected path of interest rates. Borrowers who previously expected rates to decline or remain stable may now expect higher borrowing costs for longer. Bond investors may demand higher yields on longer-duration securities. Banks may become more cautious about reducing lending rates. Households may reconsider borrowing for housing, vehicles and discretionary consumption. At the same time, savers may become more willing to keep money in financial assets if deposit returns eventually rise. These responses can weaken demand today, but their greater significance lies in changing expectations about the future.

 

How Tighter Policy Can Prevent Inflation From Becoming Embedded

A tighter monetary policy works partly by creating a gap between the inflation people experience today and the inflation they expect tomorrow. If businesses believe that inflation will remain high indefinitely, they have greater incentive to increase prices now. If workers believe that prices will rise persistently, wage negotiations can incorporate higher inflation. If consumers believe that goods will become substantially more expensive, they may accelerate purchases. These behaviours themselves can create additional demand and pricing pressure. A credible tightening cycle can reverse that logic. If firms believe that monetary policy will restrain demand, they become less confident that every cost increase can be passed through. If households believe interest rates will remain sufficiently high, they may postpone some borrowing and consumption. If investors believe that the RBI is willing to tolerate slower demand to protect price stability, long-term inflation risk premiums can decline. The paradox is that a higher policy rate today can therefore help produce lower inflation tomorrow without requiring an extremely large increase in rates, provided expectations respond quickly.

 

The Cost of Higher Interest-Rate Expectations

There is, however, a cost. Higher future interest-rate expectations can weaken consumption and investment even before the RBI actually delivers additional rate increases. A household considering a mortgage may postpone the purchase if it believes borrowing costs will rise. A company planning a factory may delay investment if the expected cost of capital increases. This can slow demand, but it can also affect supply if productive investment is postponed for too long. That creates a delicate policy problem. If the RBI tightens too little, inflation expectations may become entrenched. If it tightens too aggressively, investment and productive capacity may weaken, potentially creating future supply constraints. The ideal outcome is therefore not simply the highest possible real interest rate; it is a monetary-policy path that is sufficiently restrictive to prevent second-round inflation without unnecessarily damaging the expansion of productive capacity.

 

Growth Gives the RBI Room to Fight Inflation

Today's policy is significant because the growth environment provides the RBI with greater room to tighten than would be available during a severe slowdown. The RBI has raised its FY2026-27 GDP-growth forecast to 7.1%, while April-June growth was 7.8%, above its earlier expectation. This means the central bank is not confronting the classic situation in which inflation is high but economic activity is collapsing. Strong growth allows the RBI to accept some moderation in credit demand and consumption in exchange for greater price stability. The objective is not to destroy growth but to ensure that nominal growth does not become increasingly dependent on persistent price increases. If demand remains strong while supply-side pressures are broadening, allowing inflation expectations to rise could ultimately require a much sharper tightening cycle. A relatively small adjustment today can therefore be viewed as an attempt to avoid a much larger adjustment later.

 

What Happens to Future Inflation Expectations?

The immediate consequence of today's policy should be a reassessment of future inflation expectations. The RBI's message is that inflation will not automatically be accommodated simply because some of its causes originate on the supply side. That can discourage businesses and households from assuming that higher prices will continue indefinitely. If the policy succeeds, inflation may begin to decline even before economic activity slows significantly because expectations themselves become less inflationary. But if oil prices remain elevated, food pressures broaden, the rupee weakens or core inflation continues to rise, markets could interpret calibrated tightening as the beginning rather than the end of the tightening cycle. In that case, two-year and five-year interest-rate expectations could move higher, bond yields could remain elevated and lending rates could eventually follow. The direction of inflation expectations will therefore determine whether today's 25-basis-point hike is seen as a sufficient insurance measure or as the first step in a larger tightening cycle.

 

The Core CPI Test Will Become Crucial

The next phase of India's inflation story will increasingly be judged through core inflation rather than headline CPI alone. Food and fuel shocks can produce temporary volatility, but persistent increases in core goods and services prices provide stronger evidence that inflation is spreading through the economy. Today's revised core-inflation projection of 4.4% is therefore important. If core inflation stabilises and subsequently declines while headline inflation falls as supply conditions improve, the RBI may be able to stop tightening relatively quickly. But if core inflation continues rising despite the eventual moderation of food and energy prices, it would indicate that second-round effects are materialising. That would make further monetary tightening more likely because the problem would no longer be simply imported or supply-driven inflation; it would increasingly represent an economy-wide pricing process.

 

The Real Message for Borrowers, Savers and Markets

For borrowers, today's decision means that the era of assuming continuously falling interest rates has become less secure. For savers, higher policy rates eventually create the possibility of better deposit returns, although transmission to deposit rates may take time. For bond investors, the immediate signal is more complicated because higher short-term rates can push yields upward, particularly at the shorter and intermediate maturities. For equity investors, higher discount rates can raise the cost of capital and place pressure on valuations, although strong economic growth can offset some of that effect. For the currency, tighter monetary policy can support the attractiveness of rupee assets, although external factors such as global interest rates, oil prices and geopolitical risk remain important. The common thread is expectations: financial markets react not only to the rate that exists today but to the expected path of rates over the next several years.

 

Conclusion: The RBI Is Trying to Stop Tomorrow's Inflation Before It Becomes Today's Reality

Today's RBI decision should not be interpreted as proof that Indian inflation has already become permanently entrenched. Rather, it represents an attempt to ensure that it does not become entrenched. Inflation at 4.82%, core inflation around 4.4% and the RBI's 5.2% inflation forecast show that price pressures have become serious enough to justify a more restrictive stance, while 7.1% growth gives the central bank room to act. The critical battle is now over second-round effects. If higher food, fuel and commodity prices begin influencing wages, services, business pricing and long-term expectations, monetary policy will have to become tighter to prevent a temporary shock from becoming a persistent inflation process. The 25-basis-point hike to 5.50% and the move to calibrated tightening are therefore signals about the future as much as decisions about the present. By raising the expected cost of borrowing now, the RBI is attempting to lower the expected rate of inflation later. The success of this strategy will ultimately be judged not by today's CPI alone, but by whether households, businesses, investors and workers continue to believe that inflation will return toward 4%—or begin behaving as if permanently higher inflation is the new normal. 

Lower Credit-Deposit Ratios, Inflation and Interest-Rate Expectations: What the Banking System Is Telling the RBI....

Introduction

A lower credit-deposit ratio is often interpreted as a sign that bank deposits are growing faster than bank credit, but its economic meaning is more important than the ratio itself. It can indicate that households and businesses are supplying more funds to banks than borrowers are demanding, pointing towards softer credit demand, weaker spending pressure and potentially lower inflationary momentum. At the same time, the recent Indian experience shows why the ratio must be interpreted carefully: deposits have strengthened sharply while credit growth remains robust. The RBI has itself noted that stronger deposit mobilisation has moderated the incremental credit-deposit ratio, while the banking system continues to experience broad-based credit growth. The real question, therefore, is whether a falling ratio reflects genuine moderation in private demand or simply a larger funding base. This distinction matters because monetary policy works not only through the current repo rate but through expectations of future interest rates. The RBI's increasingly cautious inflation commentary has already encouraged markets to price a greater probability of rate hikes, and that expectation itself can reduce demand before the RBI actually raises rates.

 

What a Lower Credit-Deposit Ratio Means

The credit-deposit ratio measures bank credit relative to deposits. A ratio of 80%, for example, means that banks have extended ₹80 of credit for every ₹100 of deposits. The RBI describes it as an indicator of how much of the deposit base is flowing into credit markets; a higher ratio can indicate faster credit expansion and greater leverage, while a lower ratio generally means that deposits are increasing faster than lending. In India, scheduled commercial banks had a credit-deposit ratio of about 82.2% in March 2026, while the incremental credit-deposit ratio had been above 110% in recent years. More recently, the incremental ratio peaked around 114% in May 2026 and then declined as deposit mobilisation accelerated. Between September 2021 and March 2026, bank loans and advances increased by roughly ₹102 for every ₹100 increase in deposits, demonstrating how credit had previously been running ahead of domestic deposit creation.

 

Why a Falling Ratio Can Be Disinflationary

A falling credit-deposit ratio can be important for inflation because bank credit is one of the channels through which financial savings become expenditure. When deposits rise but credit demand does not keep pace, more of the banking system's funding is available without being immediately converted into additional consumption or investment loans. That can moderate aggregate demand, reduce pressure on capacity and eventually soften pricing power. Businesses may postpone borrowing if they expect lending rates to rise, while households may delay housing, automobiles and other credit-financed purchases. Consequently, a falling ratio can be an early financial indicator that monetary conditions are becoming less stimulative even before the full effect appears in GDP or CPI data. But this conclusion cannot be automatic. India's recent increase in deposits was partly associated with foreign-currency non-resident deposits attracted through the RBI's special FCNR-B swap facility, meaning some of the decline in the incremental ratio reflects a change in the funding composition of banks rather than a collapse in domestic credit demand.

 

The More Important Signal Is the Direction of Credit Demand

The crucial distinction is therefore between the level of the credit-deposit ratio and its direction. If deposits are rising rapidly because households are saving more while businesses and consumers are becoming reluctant to borrow, the falling ratio is a meaningful signal of weaker demand and potentially lower future inflation. If deposits rise because the banking system receives temporary foreign or institutional inflows while credit remains strong, the ratio says much less about domestic demand. Current evidence points to both forces operating simultaneously. The RBI has reported robust and broad-based credit growth, while the latest banking data indicate that credit offtake continues to outpace deposit growth at several banks. This means the ratio should not be interpreted as evidence that demand has already collapsed. Rather, it suggests that the funding constraint that had emerged from credit growing faster than deposits has begun to ease.

 

RBI Commentary Can Tighten Financial Conditions Before a Rate Hike

This is where expectations become crucial. Monetary policy does not need to wait for an actual repo-rate increase to influence economic behaviour. If the RBI repeatedly says that inflation risks are broadening, that second-round effects require vigilance, and that policy rates may need recalibration, financial markets begin to anticipate higher future rates. Bond yields can rise, banks can become more cautious in pricing loans, businesses can revise investment plans and households can postpone borrowing. In September, the RBI Governor said that surplus liquidity could be withdrawn through instruments including bond sales and foreign-exchange swaps, while the central bank would maintain appropriate liquidity conditions. Such commentary signals that the RBI is prepared to prevent excess liquidity from undermining monetary transmission. The expectations effect is already visible. After inflation accelerated, a Reuters poll at the end of September showed economists expecting the repo rate to rise by 25 basis points to 5.50% in October, with another increase possible in December. The expectation was that the rate could reach 5.75% by year-end. This is significant because the RBI had kept the repo rate at 5.25% in August and retained a neutral stance. Thus, expectations about future policy have tightened even before the policy rate itself has changed.

 

How Rate-Hike Expectations Reduce Demand

Higher expected interest rates can affect demand before an actual hike. A household considering a home loan may delay the purchase if it expects mortgage rates to rise. A company considering a new factory may postpone investment if its expected cost of capital increases. Banks may also become more selective because they anticipate a higher funding cost. Investors may demand higher returns from corporate bonds and equities. Therefore, expectations can produce a self-reinforcing slowdown: expected higher rates reduce current borrowing, lower borrowing reduces future demand, weaker demand reduces pricing pressure and the economy may experience disinflation even before the RBI delivers the expected increase. This is particularly important when the credit-deposit ratio is falling. If banks are accumulating deposits while borrowers are becoming more cautious, expectations of higher rates can reinforce the process. The ratio then becomes not merely a banking statistic but an indicator of how monetary-policy expectations are affecting the transmission mechanism.

 

Core CPI Is the Test of Whether Inflation Is Becoming Embedded

Headline CPI alone cannot determine whether inflation is becoming embedded. Food and fuel prices can produce large temporary movements because they are heavily influenced by weather, global commodities, geopolitical events and supply disruptions. Core inflation—CPI excluding food and fuel—is therefore particularly important because persistent increases in core prices indicate that inflationary pressure is spreading into services and non-food goods, where demand, wages, margins and expectations have a greater role. The August 2026 CPI reading provides a warning. Headline inflation rose to 4.82%, from 4.45% in July, while core inflation was estimated at around 4.3%. Food inflation also increased to 5.95%. The important point is not simply that headline CPI moved above the RBI's 4% target; it is that inflation outside food and fuel was also elevated. The RBI's August assessment was initially more cautious. Core inflation was 3.9% during May-June, while core inflation excluding precious metals was only about 2.3–2.5%. The RBI nevertheless projected core inflation at 4.3% for 2026-27 and warned that higher food, fuel and input costs could generate second-round effects. It projected headline CPI inflation at 5.0% for the year, with inflation reaching 5.9% in the third quarter.

 

When Inflation Moves Beyond CPI's Temporary Components

The real danger begins when a temporary food or oil shock changes the pricing behaviour of the rest of the economy. Higher fuel costs raise transport expenses; transport raises logistics costs; businesses raise prices; workers seek compensation; services increase charges; and consumers begin accepting higher prices as normal. At that stage, inflation is no longer simply a food or oil problem. It has become embedded in expectations and pricing decisions. Core CPI is therefore not merely a secondary statistic. It is an important test of whether the original shock is spreading. If headline CPI rises while core inflation remains subdued, the RBI has greater reason to look through the shock. If headline inflation rises and core inflation simultaneously accelerates, the case for monetary tightening becomes stronger because the shock is becoming generalized.

 

The RBI's Dilemma: Suppress Demand or Protect Supply?

The danger is that an excessive response to supply-driven inflation can unnecessarily weaken demand. The RBI itself acknowledged in August that evidence of generalisation was still limited and that the shock did not necessarily require an immediate monetary response. But it also recognised that inflation was normalising from exceptionally low levels and that core inflation excluding precious metals was expected to converge towards broader core inflation later in the financial year. That creates the central policy dilemma: tightening too early can suppress investment and consumption, while tightening too late can allow expectations to become entrenched.

 

Conclusion

The falling credit-deposit ratio should therefore be read as a potential demand warning, not automatically as proof of weak demand. If deposits grow faster than credit because households save more and borrowers become cautious, it suggests that monetary conditions are already restraining expenditure. If the ratio falls mainly because of temporary deposit inflows while credit remains strong, the signal is weaker. The more important development is the interaction between bank credit, deposit mobilisation, RBI communication and core inflation. RBI commentary has already raised expectations of future rate hikes, and those expectations can reduce borrowing and spending before an actual increase in the repo rate. At the same time, the decisive test of whether inflation is genuinely becoming embedded is whether core CPI continues to rise beyond temporary food and fuel shocks. With headline CPI at 4.82% in August, core inflation around 4.3%, and markets increasingly expecting policy tightening, the RBI faces a delicate task: prevent temporary cost shocks from becoming permanent inflation expectations without unnecessarily crushing credit, investment and productive capacity.

Can Equity Markets Fail to Perform When Bond Yields Are Rising? How to Revive Equity Investment.....

Introduction

It is entirely possible for an equity market to perform poorly when bond yields are rising, even when economic growth remains reasonably strong. The relationship is not mechanical, but rising bond yields can change the relative attractiveness of equities, increase the cost of capital, reduce valuations and make investors demand a higher return for taking equity risk. The crucial issue is not simply whether yields are high, but why they are rising and what investors expect them to do next. If yields rise because inflation expectations are increasing, investors may fear that central banks will maintain restrictive monetary policy for longer. If yields rise because real economic growth and productivity are improving, the effect on equities can be much less negative. Thus, a rising-yield environment can coexist with a rising stock market, but persistent increases in yields without corresponding improvements in earnings expectations can create a powerful headwind for equity investment.

 

Why Rising Bond Yields Can Hurt Equities

The most direct mechanism is the opportunity cost of capital. Government bonds are generally viewed as relatively safer assets than equities. When a 10-year government bond yields 6%, an investor may demand a substantially higher expected return from equities to justify taking additional risk. If the bond yield rises to 7%, the required return on equities may also increase. This can reduce the price investors are willing to pay for a given level of corporate earnings. The effect is particularly important for companies whose profits are expected far into the future. Higher discount rates reduce the present value of those future cash flows, putting pressure on technology, growth and other high-valuation companies. Therefore, an equity market can experience falling price-to-earnings ratios even when corporate profits are still growing.

 

The Expectations Channel Is More Important Than the Yield Alone

The most important distinction is between the level of bond yields and expectations about future yields. If investors believe that a 7% yield is temporary and that inflation and interest rates will eventually decline, equity investment may remain strong. Conversely, if investors believe that today's 7% yield will become the new normal, equity valuations can remain depressed for a prolonged period. Expectations influence investment decisions before actual monetary-policy changes occur. A company deciding whether to build a factory, a household deciding whether to invest savings in mutual funds and an institutional investor allocating capital between bonds and equities are all responding partly to expected future returns. Consequently, an economy can have adequate liquidity today while equity investment remains weak because investors anticipate higher financing costs tomorrow.

 

When Rising Yields Do Not Necessarily Mean a Weak Stock Market

Rising yields are not automatically bad news for equities. Suppose nominal GDP is accelerating because productivity, employment and real incomes are improving. Corporate revenues and profits may rise sufficiently to offset the increase in financing costs. In that environment, bond yields can rise because investors expect stronger growth rather than because they fear persistent inflation. Historically, some of the strongest equity-market periods have occurred alongside increasing interest rates because earnings growth was even stronger. The problem arises when yields rise faster than earnings expectations. If a company's expected earnings increase by 5% but its required return rises sharply, its valuation may fall despite higher profits. Thus, the relevant relationship is between earnings growth, expected returns and the risk-free rate, rather than between equity prices and bond yields alone.

 

The Indian Problem: Financial Savings and Corporate Investment

For India, the issue is particularly important because the country needs large amounts of domestic financial savings to finance private investment. Household savings can flow into bank deposits, government securities, insurance, mutual funds, equities, gold and property. If safe fixed-income instruments begin offering attractive real returns, households may become less willing to accept equity-market volatility. This can reduce the flow of incremental savings into equities. At the same time, if bond yields rise because inflation expectations are becoming entrenched, companies face higher borrowing costs. That can discourage new factories, expansion and employment. The result can become self-reinforcing: higher yields reduce valuations, weaker equity valuations reduce risk appetite, weaker risk appetite reduces equity financing, and weaker investment eventually constrains future growth.

 

Why Equity Investment Matters Beyond the Stock Market

Equity investment should not be viewed merely as a mechanism for increasing stock-market indices. Equity capital is especially important for financing entrepreneurial activity and productive capacity. Unlike debt, equity does not require fixed interest payments and therefore allows companies to undertake riskier long-term projects. New businesses, manufacturing enterprises, technology companies and infrastructure-related ventures often require patient capital before they generate stable cash flows. A healthy equity market therefore supports the real economy by transferring household and institutional savings toward productive enterprises. If investors become excessively attracted to bonds, gold or real estate, the economy may lose an important source of risk-bearing capital.

 

How to Boost Equity Investment

The first requirement is to restore confidence in long-term returns rather than artificially suppress bond yields. Attempts to force investors into equities by keeping interest rates artificially low can create inflation and financial instability. A better strategy is to maintain credible macroeconomic conditions in which inflation expectations remain anchored and long-term interest rates are predictable. Investors are more willing to commit equity capital when they believe that monetary policy, taxation, regulation and exchange-rate conditions will remain reasonably stable.

The second requirement is to increase the profitability and productivity of Indian companies. Equity investment ultimately follows expected earnings. Tax incentives alone cannot permanently create a bull market. Higher labour productivity, better infrastructure, cheaper logistics, reliable electricity, easier business conditions, technological innovation and skilled workers can raise corporate profitability and therefore justify higher equity valuations. The strongest way to support the stock market is consequently to strengthen the underlying productive economy.

The third requirement is to broaden household participation in financial assets. India has enormous household savings, but a substantial proportion remains outside equities and formal financial markets. Greater financial literacy, simple investment products, transparent mutual funds, low-cost pension products and systematic investment mechanisms can gradually shift savings toward productive financial assets. However, this must be accompanied by proper risk disclosure. Encouraging households to buy equities without explaining market risk would merely transfer losses to inexperienced investors.

 

Making Equities More Attractive Than Speculation

Equity investment also becomes stronger when investors believe that companies will use capital productively. Corporate governance, transparent accounting, predictable taxation and protection of minority shareholders are therefore not peripheral issues. They directly influence the equity risk premium. If investors believe that corporate governance risks are high, they demand a larger return before purchasing shares. Better governance can reduce that risk premium and increase valuations without requiring lower bond yields. Similarly, deeper corporate-bond markets can help companies diversify financing and reduce excessive dependence on bank credit, allowing equity markets to perform their proper risk-sharing function.

 

The Role of Government and the RBI

The government and RBI should therefore focus on stability of expectations rather than attempting to control asset prices directly. If long-term inflation expectations are stable, real interest rates are reasonable, the rupee is not subject to disorderly depreciation and fiscal borrowing remains credible, bond yields can rise without necessarily destroying equity investment. The objective should be to create a situation in which investors believe that long-term economic growth will generate corporate earnings faster than the increase in the cost of capital. Monetary policy should avoid both excessive financial repression and unnecessary monetary tightening. Fiscal policy should prioritize productive public investment that raises private-sector productivity rather than merely increasing demand.

 

Conclusion

A stock market can certainly fail to perform while bond yields are rising. The critical question is whether rising yields reflect stronger growth or worsening inflation and risk expectations. If yields rise because investors expect persistent inflation, tighter monetary policy and higher future financing costs, equity valuations can suffer even when headline GDP growth remains strong. But rising yields need not be the enemy of equities when they accompany stronger productivity, earnings and real incomes. The sustainable solution is therefore not simply to push bond yields lower. It is to make equity returns more credible by improving the economy that generates those returns. Stable inflation expectations, productive investment, stronger corporate earnings, deeper financial markets, better governance and broader household participation can redirect savings toward equities. Ultimately, the best way to make the equity market perform is to make investors believe that India's future productive capacity—and consequently corporate profits—will grow faster than the cost of capital.

When Weak US Jobs Data Can Lower Inflation Expectations: How Much Evidence Does the Fed Need to Halt Rate Hikes and Reopen the Door to Cuts?

Introduction

A disappointing employment report can influence monetary policy through a channel that is often more important than the immediate change in payrolls: expectations. The September 2026 US jobs report provided a particularly clear example. Nonfarm payrolls increased by only 29,000, far below the roughly 90,000 expected, while July and August employment was revised down by a combined 60,000. The unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2%, labour-force participation increased to 61.8%, and average hourly earnings rose only 0.1% in September, bringing annual wage growth down to 3.0%.  This combination does not establish that the US economy is entering recession; indeed, layoffs remain relatively limited and unemployment has remained within a narrow 4.1–4.3% range since March. But it does change the balance of risks. The important question for the Federal Reserve is therefore not simply whether one employment report was weak, but whether the accumulation of labour-market weakness is sufficient to alter inflation expectations, wage expectations, household spending expectations and ultimately expectations about the future path of interest rates.

 

Why Disappointing Jobs Numbers Can Lower Inflation Expectations

Employment matters for inflation because the labour market connects incomes, demand, wages and business pricing decisions. When companies stop hiring aggressively, households become less confident about future income, workers have less bargaining power, firms face less wage pressure and businesses may become more cautious about raising prices. A weak employment report can therefore produce an expectations chain: weaker hiring → slower expected income growth → softer expected consumption → weaker pricing power → slower expected wage growth → lower expected inflation → lower expected policy rates. The September report contains several elements supporting that mechanism. Payroll growth of 29,000 was extremely modest compared with the expected 90,000, unemployment increased to 4.2%, and annual hourly earnings growth slowed to 3.0%.  At the same time, August CPI inflation was still 3.4%, while core CPI was 2.4%, demonstrating why the Fed cannot simply treat weak employment as proof that inflation has already been defeated. The significance of the jobs report therefore lies less in its direct effect on today's prices and more in whether it changes what households, firms and financial markets believe tomorrow's inflation will look like.

 

The Expectations Channel Can Move Faster Than Actual Inflation

Inflation expectations can change before measured inflation does. A company deciding whether to raise prices today does not know next year's CPI; it forms an expectation about future wages, demand, energy costs, financing costs and competitors' pricing. Similarly, a household deciding whether to buy a house, automobile or durable good considers expected borrowing costs and expected income. Consequently, a credible weakening in labour demand can reduce inflation pressure even before the official inflation rate falls substantially. This is particularly important when inflation has become partly supply-driven. If energy prices, tariffs or other supply shocks are pushing prices higher, a central bank may not be able to eliminate the initial price increase through interest rates. But it can prevent that shock from becoming embedded in wages and broader inflation expectations. The September employment report helps on that front because wage growth has moderated to 3.0%, while the unemployment rate has moved modestly higher. The Fed's September projections nevertheless showed PCE inflation at 3.7% for 2026 and core PCE inflation at 3.4%, both still materially above the 2% objective. Thus, the jobs data may reduce the risk of an overheating labour market without yet providing proof of a return to 2% inflation.

 

How Much Data Is Enough to Halt Rate Hikes?

There is an important distinction between enough data to stop hiking and enough data to start cutting. The threshold for halting rate increases should generally be lower because continuing to raise rates when labour-market conditions are weakening creates a risk of unnecessarily damaging employment. A single weak payroll report can therefore justify waiting, especially when inflation is no longer accelerating rapidly. The September report has already substantially weakened the immediate case for another increase because payroll growth was only 29,000, unemployment moved to 4.2%, wage growth slowed and previous employment estimates were revised downward. But one report is not enough to establish a persistent trend. Seasonal adjustment issues, temporary strikes, weather, government employment changes and statistical revisions can distort monthly figures. The appropriate standard is therefore not “one bad report means rate cuts,” but rather “one bad report can be sufficient to pause while policymakers wait for confirmation.”

 

What Confirmation Would Make a Pause More Durable?

A convincing case for ending the hiking cycle would probably require several pieces of evidence moving in the same direction. First, payroll growth would need to remain subdued over several months rather than rebound immediately. Second, unemployment would need to remain elevated or rise gradually rather than return quickly toward earlier lows. Third, wage growth would need to remain compatible with declining inflation rather than accelerate again. Fourth, job openings, hiring intentions and hours worked would need to show weakening labour demand. Fifth, inflation measures would need to demonstrate that the labour-market cooling is actually transmitting into prices. The September report already supplies several pieces: payrolls rose just 29,000, prior months were revised lower, unemployment reached 4.2%, participation increased and annual wage growth fell to 3.0%.  But the absence of widespread layoffs means the evidence is better interpreted as cooling than as a clear labour-market collapse.

 

When Could Rate-Cut Expectations Become Stronger?

For rate-cut expectations to rise materially, the evidence would have to become broader than employment weakness alone. Markets would need to see a combination of softer labour demand and declining inflation. August PCE inflation was 3.4% year-on-year and core PCE inflation was 3.0%, while real consumer spending increased 0.6% during the month. That combination shows why the Fed remains cautious: employment may be losing momentum while consumer demand and inflation remain sufficiently resilient to keep policymakers concerned. A convincing transition toward rate-cut expectations would therefore involve several months of weak or modest payroll growth, unemployment moving higher, wage growth remaining contained, consumer spending slowing, and core inflation continuing downward. The crucial point is that the Fed does not need inflation to reach 2% before cutting rates, but it does need confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward the target rather than temporarily declining before another acceleration.

 

The Debate: Two Jobs Reports, Three Inflation Reports, or Six Months?

There is no mechanical number of reports that automatically determines policy. Two consecutive weak employment reports could be enough to stop hikes if inflation is simultaneously falling. Conversely, six months of weak hiring might not justify cuts if inflation remains stuck around 3–4% because of energy prices, tariffs or other supply shocks. A useful way to think about the evidence is in layers. One weak report can change the immediate policy expectation. Two or three consecutive weak reports can establish a labour-market trend. Several months of declining inflation alongside that trend can create the conditions for a rate-cut cycle. The October 14 release of September CPI will therefore be particularly important because it will provide the first major inflation test following the September employment surprise. The Fed's September projections themselves already anticipated substantial disinflation over time, with PCE inflation projected at 2.3% in 2027 and 2.1% in 2028.

 

Why the Fed Should Watch Expectations, Not Just Backward-Looking Data

The central monetary-policy danger is asymmetric. If the Fed keeps raising rates because inflation remains above target while employment is weakening, it could eventually discover that the policy tightening arrived after the labour market had already turned. Monetary policy works with long and variable lags, so waiting for unemployment to rise sharply before recognizing weakness may be costly. Conversely, cutting too early while inflation expectations remain elevated could allow temporary supply shocks to become persistent inflation. This makes expectations crucial. If weak employment data causes households and firms to believe that wage growth, demand and inflation will moderate, then financial conditions can ease without requiring immediate policy action. Bond yields can decline, mortgage-rate expectations can fall, and businesses can begin adjusting prices and investment decisions based on a lower expected path of interest rates. In that sense, expectations can perform part of the work that additional rate increases would otherwise be expected to perform.

 

Conclusion — From “Pause” to “Cut” Requires a Different Standard of Evidence

The September 2026 jobs report is important because it changes the character of the US monetary-policy debate. Payroll growth of 29,000, unemployment of 4.2%, downward revisions of 60,000 jobs for July and August, and 3.0% annual wage growth collectively indicate considerably less labour-market pressure than earlier data suggested. That is sufficient to strengthen the argument for waiting for more information before another rate increase, but it is not by itself proof that the Fed should begin cutting. The distinction is fundamental: halting hikes requires evidence that additional tightening is becoming less necessary; cutting rates requires evidence that inflation is becoming sufficiently contained while employment risks are increasing. The next few inflation readings, employment reports, wage data, consumer spending and inflation expectations will therefore matter more collectively than any single headline number. If weak employment becomes persistent and is accompanied by falling wages, softer spending and declining core inflation, expectations of future inflation and future Fed rates can move lower together. If employment weakens but inflation remains near 3% or higher, the Fed may remain cautious. The most important signal, therefore, is not simply whether the next jobs report disappoints again, but whether a sustained sequence of weaker labour-market data begins to convince households, businesses and financial markets that the era of elevated inflation and elevated interest rates is gradually coming to an end.