responsible credit
HOME   IMPRINT - ECRC   PRIVACY POLICY   SITEMAP   | ECRC IN THE MEDIA |
Search OK

 
Home
USURY – The term “credit snob” used by The Economist to falsely describe those that observe excessive charging of interest to vulnerable individuals beyond the calculated risk being taken. A link to the recent report from the CGD (aiming to bring high scientific standards to the study of microfinance) refered to in their article, shows that The Economist misinterpreted the findings which actually said that lenders with no social targeting objectives, had no incentive to cut rates although this could under certain circumstances lead to greater revenue.
IN PRAISE OF USURY
(Aug 2nd 2007- From The Economist print edition)

IGNORE CREDIT SNOBS. IT IS NO SIN TO PROFIT FROM LENDING TO THE POOR

IN DANTE'S “Divine Comedy”, usurers are consigned to a flaming desert of sand within the seventh circle of hell. Attitudes have since softened a bit. Microcreditors, who offer small loans to self-employed poor people, enjoy hallowed reputations. One has even ascended to the rank of a Nobel laureate. But lending to the poor is still considered distasteful whenever it is pricey, short-term and profitable. In America, for example, many activists are quick to damn “payday” lenders, who may charge high fees for offering cash advances on a worker's next pay cheque.

Why this hostility? To profit from lending to the poor, critics say, is to prey on the most vulnerable, at their most vulnerable moment. Faced with desperate customers, loan sharks can charge well over the odds, even when the risk of default is slight. The money they proffer is often squandered on spurious consumption, critics say, rather than productive investments that would help the borrower repay his debts. Easy credit thus tempts people into a damaging spiral of indebtedness.

That may be enough for Dante. But economists take a bit more convincing. If loans hurt the poor, why do they take them? Surely they are capable of looking after their own interests. Alex Tabarrok, an influential economics blogger, thinks the anti-usury lobby are “credit snobs”, who think that credit is something only the rich can handle.

Some critics of usury appeal to psychology not snobbery, however. The “behavioural” economists have shown that people's decisions often conflict with the plans they had laid for themselves. When planning for the future, people are willing to defer gratification, forgoing smaller, earlier rewards in favour of bigger, later ones. But when choosing in the present, they give up huge future benefits for immediate gratification. If they anticipate their own weakness, people may quite rationally chop up their credit cards, or tie money up in illiquid assets. It is the financial equivalent of avoiding restaurants with irresistible desserts.

Some governments have concluded that by denying expensive credit to the poor, they would be doing them a favour. In America, many states have crimped payday lending by imposing anti-usury laws or restrictions on lending terms. In Japan, interest-rate caps have, in effect, wiped out much of the formal consumer-lending industry.

In poorer countries, governments are ambivalent. On the one hand, they are anxious to subsidise microfinance, extending small-business loans further than the market allows. But they take the opposite attitude towards consumer credit, imposing interest-rate caps that stop lenders reaching as many people as they otherwise might. South Africa this year tightened curbs on reckless lending and overborrowing.

Widening the circle

Is the South African government right to think that credit has gone too far? Rather than relying on theology or theory to answer this question, a recent working paper offers some rare evidence. Dean Karlan, a Yale economist who is co-director of the Financial Access Initiative, and Jonathan Zinman, of Dartmouth College, studied a profit-seeking lender that served some of South Africa's poorer neighbourhoods. Suspecting that its credit standards were too strict, the lender was willing to experiment with a looser provision of credit. It asked its loan officers in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban to reconsider 325 out of 787 applicants who had narrowly missed out on approval for a loan. The lucky 325 were chosen at random—nothing distinguished them from the remaining 462, except the luck of the draw. This allowed the researchers to establish a causal link between the loan and changes in the lives of the applicants.

Most of the new customers took a four-month loan at an annual interest rate of about 200%: a 1,000-rand loan, for example, would be repaid in four monthly instalments of 367.50 rand. For the bank, the study proved the wisdom of stretching its lending limits. The new clients were profitable, if not as profitable as the borrowers already on their books. The authors reckon the bank made a gain of at least 201 rand per loan.

Did these profits come at the expense of the poor? On the contrary. Despite the demanding terms on offer, those reconsidered for a loan seemed to prosper. Six to twelve months later, they were less likely to go hungry, and their chances of being in poverty fell by 19%. Not coincidentally, they were also more likely to have kept their jobs, perhaps because the credit helped them to overcome emergencies that might otherwise have forced them to abandon their posts. About a fifth of them, for example, spent their loan on transport, such as buying or repairing a car that they might have needed to get to work.

The results were not all as happy: the authors found some evidence of higher stress, especially among female borrowers. But people also reported more control over their lives and a more positive outlook. Perhaps the easier access to credit allowed them to take a longer-term perspective, even if “longer term” is measured in months or weeks rather than the more conventional notion of decades.

Contrary to the fears of the credit snobs, the readier access to credit did not tempt the new customers into a debt trap. Over 15-27 months, those reconsidered for a loan were more likely to have a formal credit score. And this score suffered no harm as a result of their easier borrowing.

Overall, the study suggests that profit-seeking lenders do not deserve the fate Dante reserved for them. Far from tempting the poor into unpayable debt, they help them keep their jobs, put food on the table, and build up a credit history. The authors show that poor people can make good use of borrowed money, even if they sometimes struggle to demonstrate this creditworthiness to lenders. If not hell, that is a kind of purgatory.

-----------
CREDIT ELASTICITIES IN LESS-DEVELOPED ECONOMIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR MICROCREDIT - WORKING PAPER 110 (by Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman)

ABSTRACT:

Policymakers often urge microfinance institutions to increase interest rates to eliminate reliance on subsidies. However, existing research provides little evidence on interest rate sensitivities in MFI target markets as well as little guidance on how to derive rates. MFI policymakers generally presume that the poor are largely insensitive to interest rates and recommend that MFIs increase interest rates without fear of diminishing access. In this working paper, CGD non-resident fellow and his co-author test the elasticity of demand for microcredit using field data from South Africa. A for-profit South African lender worked with the authors to randomize 50,000 individual interest rate direct mail offers and tracked gross revenue and repayment, allowing the authors to access the effects on the targeted access margin that interests policymakers. They also worked with the lender to explore a margin of loan contracting that has been largely ignored by academics, policy makers and practitioners: loan maturity. They found that price sensitivity increased sharply when individuals were offered a rate above their prior loan's rate. They also found that loan size is far more responsive to changes in loan maturity than to changes in interest rates. This paper is one in a series of six CGD working papers by Dean Karlan on various aspects of microfinance (Working Paper Nos. 106 –111).


EXTRACT FROM THE CONCLUSION:

“Policymakers increasingly prescribe that MFIs should raise rates. Our evidence shows that this would have been disastrous for our Lender. A small sample in our experiment shows that takeup elasticities of demand kinked sharply at the Lender’s standard rates, rising to well above unity. Raising rates would have decreased revenue and
the Lender’s client base. Our results also strongly suggest that raising rates would reduce repayments as well, by exacerbating information symmetries. In all we find that the Lender could not have increased profits by changing rates.”

“So we use our results to illustrate how an MFI can use randomized experiments to evaluate the tradeoff, if any, between expanding access (reaching new poor borrowers), and
profitability. In the Lender’s case it could have used loan pricing to expand access cheaply: rate cuts reduced profits, but only by tiny amounts.”

--------------

ID: 39999
Publication date: 06/08/07
   
URL(s):

Centre for Global Development: Credit Elasticities in Less-Developed Economies: Implications for Microcredit - Working Paper 110
 

Created: 06/08/07. Last changed: 06/08/07.
Information concerning property and copy right of the content will be given by the Institut For Financial Services (IFF) on demand. A lack of explicit information on this web site does not imply any right for free usage of any content.