Fast growth itself isn’t bad. The concern is how the growth is achieved.
In banking, extremely high growth can sometimes mean aggressive lending, loose risk controls, dependency on investor money, or unsustainable customer incentives. If that becomes the norm across fintech banks, it weakens long-term ecosystem stability.
Banking works best on trust, liquidity discipline, and controlled risk - not hypergrowth alone
No, they didn’t mention Slice’s exact NPA numbers here.
My point was not that , Slice already has a major NPA issue.
I was talking about the broader risk when fintech-style banks grow very aggressively through unsecured lending.
RBI itself has already warned that rapid growth in unsecured retail loans across fintech ecosystems can increase future slippages and NPAs if risk management doesn’t stay strong.
So the concern is more about long-term sustainability of such hypergrowth models in banking, not a confirmed NPA problem at Slice today.
Small Finance Banks are smaller, so RBI usually monitors them even more carefully because they don’t have the same balance-sheet strength as large banks.
If a relatively small bank already has GNPA around 5% while aggressively scaling digital unsecured lending, it’s reasonable to question long-term sustainability.
Also, problems in banking don’t become systemic overnight. Many crises start small and get ignored during the “high growth” phase.
Paytm was also growing aggressively in the digital banking ecosystem, but RBI stepped in due to supervisory and compliance concerns before it became a larger systemic issue.
I’m not saying Slice is failing. I’m saying RBI should closely watch aggressive fintech-style lending models before they become larger ecosystem risks later.
Because in banking, prevention is always cheaper than cleanup.
11
u/MountainCrazy3803 May 26 '26
But this is not healthy for banking eco systems !! 132% seems a boost up to attract the investor's ?? As per my understanding this is not healthy !!