Bangladesh Bank's net profit rose 15% in FY26, to 26,023 crore taka. Gross profit was 35,016 crore taka, expenditure was 8,993 crore taka, and the central bank handed over 25,977 crore taka to the government.
This sounds like good news. A profitable central bank, a healthy transfer to the exchequer, a rewarded workforce. But a central bank is not a company, and its profit does not mean what profit means anywhere else. What actually drove this number, and what questions should it raise rather than answer?
A central bank earns income the same basic way any lender does: interest on what it holds, minus interest and costs on what it owes. On the asset side, that means interest on government securities, interest on loans to commercial banks, and returns on foreign exchange reserves invested abroad.
On the liability side, it is mostly the cost of running the institution and interest paid on certain deposits. The gap between the two is the profit.
Bangladesh Bank's own officials were candid about where this year's number came from: a large share came from lending to commercial banks and from returns on the investment of foreign exchange reserves. As the economy slowed, both the government and commercial banks borrowed more from the central bank, which pushed up its interest income.
Bank officials themselves said Bangladesh Bank tends to earn lower profits when the economy is doing well, and higher profits during downturns. That is not a coincidence. A downturn pushes banks and the government to borrow more from the central bank, and it is this borrowing that generates the interest income behind the profit.
A rising central bank profit, in this setting, is not a sign of a healthy economy. It can be a sign of a stressed one.
This is not unique to Bangladesh, though the direction can flip depending on a central bank's own balance sheet. When the Fed and the ECB raised rates aggressively in 2022 and 2023, both booked large losses because they were paying more interest on reserves than they were earning on the lower-yielding bonds bought years earlier.
Same principle, opposite outcome. Central bank profit is a function of balance sheet size, composition, and the spread between assets and liabilities at a point in time. It is not a report card.
Bangladesh Bank's core mandate is price stability and financial stability, not profit. That is true of essentially every central bank. Profit is a byproduct of doing its job, not the job itself.
This distinction matters because profit-seeking and mandate-following can pull in different directions. A central bank chasing income has a reason to keep policy rates higher for longer, since it earns more on its lending.
It has a reason to be reluctant about writing down bad exposures, since that reduces reported profit. Neither instinct serves price stability or financial stability. It is not wise for a central bank to treat profit as an objective, even informally, because the moment it starts to, some of its policy choices will bend toward protecting the number rather than protecting the economy.
A central bank posting a loss is not automatically a failure, and a central bank posting a large profit is not automatically a success. The test is whether inflation and the financial system are being managed well. This year's profit, driven substantially by lending to banks under stress, is a case in point.
Bangladesh Bank handed over 25,977 crore taka of its 26,023 crore taka net profit to the government, close to the entire amount. This is standard practice in many countries. The Fed remits profit to the US Treasury.
Most central banks pass on the bulk of their earnings to the state, since currency issuance is ultimately a public function and the profit belongs to the public purse.
But most central banks also retain a portion first, building statutory reserves or capital buffers before anything is distributed, so they are not caught short if a future year brings losses instead of profits. Given that Bangladesh Bank is carrying substantial exposure to a banking sector working through a solvency crisis, retaining a larger buffer, rather than handing over almost the entire amount, could have been considered (if the law permits). This is related to the final point in the next segment.
This is the question the FY26 profit figure raises most directly, and it has already been raised by the IMF. Since 2022, Bangladesh Bank has extended emergency liquidity support to close to ten financially weak banks under its lender-of-last-resort facility, in several cases accepting only promissory notes as collateral, which is close to unsecured lending in practice.
Total support to distressed banks had crossed 75,900 crore taka by mid-2026. In some cases, this pushed borrowing banks' current accounts with the central bank into negative territory, an unprecedented situation in the country's banking history.
The IMF has explicitly cautioned Bangladesh against this kind of unsecured support to weak banks, warning it could undermine financial stability without credible reforms behind it.
A normal lender facing this exposure would be required to hold provisions against expected credit losses. There is no principled reason a central bank should be exempt from that discipline when it is lending, effectively unsecured, to banks that may not be viable.
If some of that 26,023 crore taka in profit is interest income accruing on loans to banks that cannot realistically repay in full, then the profit is overstated, and the risk sitting on Bangladesh Bank's own balance sheet is understated. If commercial banks need to make provisions against loans that are at risk of default, the same principle should apply to the entity governing them.
—
Asif Khan, CFA is a Trustee at Panam Institute and Chairman of EDGE AMC Limited