The loanable funds market is where savings are channelled to firms, households and governments through banks, bond markets and other financial intermediaries. In theory, the supply of savings meets the demand for borrowing at an equilibrium interest rate. In India in 2026, that balance is under pressure.
RBI data for the fortnight ended January 31, 2026 showed bank credit rising 14.6% year-on-year, while deposits grew 12.5%. Scheduled commercial bank credit stood at ₹204.75 trillion and deposits at ₹248.81 trillion. The gap is not dramatic enough to signal stress. But it is persistent enough to show that banks are lending faster than they are mobilising stable deposits.
READ | MSME credit boom bypasses India’s smallest firms
This matters because banks remain the main conduit between household savings and credit demand. When credit growth outpaces deposit growth, banks must rely more on certificates of deposit, wholesale funding, market borrowings and other non-deposit sources. These instruments are useful, but they are usually costlier and less stable than retail deposits. The issue, therefore, is not a shortage of credit. It is the changing structure of the savings that finance credit.
Credit growth outpaces bank deposits
The clearest signal of imbalance in India’s loanable funds market is the recurring gap between credit and deposit growth. In FY25, bank credit expanded faster than deposits. The pattern continued into FY26, with credit growth accelerating in January 2026 while deposit growth remained lower. According to CareEdge’s assessment of the January 31, 2026 fortnight, aggregate bank deposits were ₹248.8 lakh crore, up 12.4% year-on-year, while time deposits accounted for 87.4% of total deposits.
This is not merely a cyclical issue. Banks have been competing harder for deposits as households place more savings in mutual funds, equities, insurance and other market-linked instruments. The Economic Survey 2025–26 noted that the share of equity and mutual funds in annual household financial savings rose from about 2% in FY12 to more than 15.2% in FY25.
That is a welcome sign of financial deepening. It reduces overdependence on bank deposits and broadens household participation in capital markets. But it also changes the funding model of banks. Deposit growth cannot be assumed to keep pace with credit demand merely because nominal incomes are rising.
The pattern is visible across loan categories. Retail credit, vehicle loans, gold loans, services credit and corporate borrowing have all remained active. Deposit mobilisation, particularly low-cost current and savings account balances, has not grown with the same force. Banks can still lend, but the marginal cost of funds rises when deposits lag.
READ | Microfinance crisis: Structural flaws beyond credit guarantees
Government borrowing adds to pressure on savings
The second source of pressure is public borrowing. The Union Budget 2026–27 estimated gross market borrowings at ₹17.2 lakh crore and net market borrowings through dated securities at ₹11.7 lakh crore. The Centre also proposed public capital expenditure of ₹12.2 lakh crore.
The spending push has a clear developmental rationale. India needs infrastructure investment. But large government borrowing competes for the same pool of financial savings that also supports corporate borrowing and bank lending. Reuters reported that the planned ₹17.2 trillion borrowing for FY27 was 17% higher than the previous year and could keep bond yields elevated despite RBI liquidity support.
This is the familiar crowding-out risk. When banks, insurers, pension funds and other institutional investors allocate more funds to government securities, less risk appetite may be left for corporate debt, project finance and private investment. The effect is rarely abrupt. It works through yields, balance-sheet choices and the price of long-term money.
In a growing economy, public borrowing and private investment can rise together. But that requires sufficient financial savings, deep bond markets and a stable deposit base. Without these, the government’s call on savings can tighten financing conditions for the private sector.
Household savings are changing shape
A structural shift in household saving behaviour lies behind the credit-deposit gap. Indian households are no longer placing incremental savings only in bank deposits, provident funds or small savings schemes. They are moving steadily into mutual funds, equities, insurance and pension products.
This is not a problem in itself. It is a sign of maturity. But the migration has consequences for bank funding. A rupee invested in a mutual fund does not automatically become a bank deposit. It may flow into equities, corporate bonds, government securities or money-market instruments. The financial system becomes deeper, but bank balance sheets become less deposit-led.
The draft claim that deposits financed about 83% of credit in 2025 is better stated as a credit-deposit ratio issue. By early 2026, reports showed the banking system’s credit-deposit ratio moving above 82%, with later data indicating that the ratio crossed 83% in March as deposit growth continued to trail advances.
A high credit-deposit ratio does not automatically mean danger. It can reflect strong demand and better financial intermediation. But if it keeps rising because deposits lag, banks face tighter liquidity management. They must either raise deposit rates, slow credit growth, sell down assets, or depend more on market funding.
Non-bank finance is filling the gap
India’s loanable funds market is no longer dominated by banks alone. The Economic Survey 2025–26 noted that financial flows from non-bank sources to the commercial sector recorded a CAGR of 17.32% during FY20–FY25. Other summaries of the Survey placed overall financial resource flows to the commercial sector at a 20.9% CAGR during FY20–FY25, supported by both bank and non-bank sources.
RBI-linked data also showed total credit flow to the commercial sector rising 15% year-on-year to ₹298 lakh crore by end-December 2025. Non-bank sources accounted for about 47% of total credit flow. Outstanding NBFC loans, net of bank credit, reached ₹35.8 lakh crore, while non-financial corporations raised ₹22.9 lakh crore through corporate bonds.
This diversification is healthy. It reduces pressure on banks and gives firms more financing options. But it also means regulators must watch risks outside the banking system. NBFCs, bond markets and foreign borrowings can transmit shocks quickly when global yields rise or domestic liquidity tightens.
International conditions matter as well. Higher global yields can pull capital away from emerging markets or make foreign borrowing costlier. Banks then have to compete harder for domestic deposits. Firms with weaker credit profiles may face a sharper rise in borrowing costs.
READ | Lead Bank Scheme reform must match India’s credit reality
Policy must restore balance without choking credit
The policy response should not be to suppress credit. India needs investment, working capital, housing finance and infrastructure lending. The objective should be to improve the supply of stable savings and reduce avoidable pressure on the loanable funds market.
First, household financial saving needs a stronger deposit base. Long-term deposits can be encouraged through better product design, moderate tax incentives and simpler disclosure. Small savings schemes should remain predictable, not politically reactive. Financial literacy must explain risk, liquidity and return, not merely promote one asset class over another.
Second, fiscal management must remain credible. The Centre’s capital expenditure programme is necessary, but borrowing must be aligned with medium-term debt sustainability. Higher tax buoyancy, asset recycling and better project selection can reduce the pressure on market borrowings without cutting productive public investment.
Third, the corporate bond market must deepen. Faster issuance, better market-making, wider participation by pension and insurance funds, and stronger credit enhancement mechanisms can help viable firms raise long-term finance without depending only on banks.
Fourth, credit must move toward productive uses. Targeted guarantees, better risk appraisal and stronger project monitoring can improve the quality of credit. The answer is not indiscriminate lending. It is better lending.
Fifth, RBI must continue active liquidity management through open market operations, variable rate repos and other instruments. But liquidity support cannot substitute for structural deposit mobilisation or fiscal discipline. Regulators must also monitor credit-deposit ratios, wholesale funding dependence and maturity mismatches across banks and NBFCs.
India’s loanable funds market is not in crisis. It is in transition. Credit demand is strong, household savings are diversifying, non-bank finance is expanding, and government borrowing remains large. The challenge is to ensure that this transition does not raise funding costs, crowd out private investment, or make banks too dependent on short-term money.
The policy task is clear: deepen financial markets, rebuild stable savings, preserve fiscal credibility and improve credit allocation. If India can do that, the loanable funds market will support growth rather than constrain it.
Saloni Shah is a 3rd year student and Dr Savitha KL is Assistant Professor in Economics at Christ University Bangalore Yeshwanthpur Campus.