Soon you may see recruitment advertisement of a public sector bank, which will look something likes this –

“Required ‘Astrologers’ having degree in astronomy, for a leading nationalized Bank.  The astrologer will be posted  in Head Office and Branches of the bank. Job profile of the astrologer will be to predict, if the business of a borrower will fail, if the borrower will default in future or if he will commit fraud in future. The astrologer will replace the exiting Credit Officers posted in branches and head office. The predictor shall conduct a detailed study of the of the borrower based on his horoscope, sun sign, etc. and applying the techniques of astrology and give his prediction report, which shall form part of the loan proposal.”

.

.

If the borrower divert or siphon funds or commit default or any type of fraud at any point of time in future, the Astrologer shall be held liable for the same.

Any person applying for loan will be required to submit copy of his horoscope to the bank. and following additional details will be included in loan application form:

• Sun sign of borrower, partner, director and guarantors etc.
• Alongwith Date of birth, include time and place of birth

Read: 5 Days working in Banks

Some banks may prepare a panel of astrologers and pandits for taking their services, similar to the way services of advocates and valuers are taken for title deed search and valuations.

There will be separate ‘Astrology Division’ in the banks, which will conduct research in this field for making accurate predictions.

Sounds strange?

But if the bankers will be witch-hunted even for defaults due to business failures. commercial decision, this could be one of the solution. Bankers are being held responsible (and even being arrested), if a borrower fails to pay or if he commits a fraud or divert funds. Bankers make a commercial decision while sanctioning loans. But is it possible for a banker to predict, if the borrower will fail in future, or will he divert funds? There should be punishment (infact there is) for gross negligence and connivance in fraud on part of bankers but not for taking a commercial decision based on the facts and circumstances available at the time of sanctioning loan.

Bankers say, If investigators begin questioning the processes that banks follow to sanction loans, decision-making at state-owned lenders — 70% of the market — will come to a halt.