Dvara Research BlogDvara Research Blog
Dvara Research Blog
Doorway to Financial Access
  • Home
  • Our Work
  • Themes
  • Subscribe
    • Email Subscription
    • Feed
  • Contact Us
Menu back  

Guidelines for Suitability in Lending to Low-Income Households

January 19, 20172 CommentsHousehold Research Viewed : 4670

By Vaishnavi Prathap, IFMR Finance Foundation

Img_1In December 2014, the Reserve Bank of India published the Charter of Customer Rights as a commitment to protecting the interests of consumers of financial services. The charter includes the Right to Suitability, defined as the principle that “products offered should be appropriate to the needs of the customer and based on an assessment of the customer’s financial circumstances and understanding”. The MFIN and Sa-Dhan, in a joint Code of Conduct, also enshrine a similar principle but specific to the context of lending: “We, as part of the Microfinance Industry promise the customers that we will […] conduct proper due diligence to assess the need and repayment capacity of customer before making a loan and must only make loans commensurate with the client’s ability to repay”. Both the RBI and the SROs directed financial institutions to understand the parameters of suitability within the context of their respective product offerings and to formalize policies to prevent unsuitable sales to customers.

In a new research paper published as part of our Working Paper series, we focus on biggest barrier that financial institutions might face in complying with this directive – a lack of clarity on what may be deemed suitable and how this is to be determined for each client. Towards this end, our new research investigates the nature and incidence of unsuitability in a competitive lending market and the variety of ways in which low-income borrowers may experience or cope with loan-related financial distress. Our findings are both a reality-check on the effectiveness of the current approach to customer protection (particularly the efforts to prevent borrower over-indebtedness) as well as a guide to how, going forward, lenders can institute formal processes to prevent unsuitability.

In our previous writing on this topic, we have acknowledged that successful suitability practices must be iterative and that even at-best, they can in no way guarantee positive outcomes for clients. The focus of both compliance and supervisory efforts must rest instead on understanding patterns in product-client interactions – especially when such interactions result in substantial hardship to clients – and meaningfully improving sales processes to prevent unsuitable sales.

Key Findings

The primary data for this study was collected in a year-long panel survey of 400 low-income households in Krishnagiri district, Tamil Nadu; the full sample included clients of 7+ MFIs and 20+ formal financial institutions. The survey adopted a financial diaries approach and a detailed socioeconomic survey was administered every 4-6 weeks to capture the dynamics of households’ cashflows. The resulting dataset has a primary focus on the details of borrowing and loan servicing but also rich detail on the volatility of occupational income, the frequent incidence of small and large shocks to household budgets and the use of other income sources, resources from social networks and a variety of financial instruments to smoothen consumption, repayment obligations and other expenses.

From the survey, we were able to create a full picture of borrower indebtedness across multiple institution types – perhaps more completely than the credit bureaus for microfinance clients. Comparing the sum of monthly repayment obligations to borrowers’ average monthly incomes, we found that one of every five borrower households in the sample held an unaffordable level of formal debt. If we included informal loans or factored in the volatility of incomes, an even higher proportion held unaffordable levels of debt for a few or all months of the loan tenure. However, the incidence of repayment delays or the proportion of delinquent borrowers was much lower, and only weakly correlated with households’ debt levels. Even at very high levels of unaffordability, borrowers were prioritizing repayments on formal loans over essential expenses, and willing to take on even further unmanageable debt to get through a difficult period.

Further, the average households’ incomes varied month-on-month by as much as 45% and as a result, even borrowers with sufficient year-end surplus were observed experiencing periods of distress and using harmful coping mechanisms comparable to those whose incomes were much lower.

Implications for Suitability Practices

These patterns in borrower behaviour are perhaps not new to experienced practitioners of microfinance and further, may only be a reflection of practices designed to achieve repayment discipline. What is alarming however, is the relative ease with which some over-extended borrowers remained undetected, and were able to continuously receive new formal loans on the same terms as others.

NBFC-MFIs are subject to regulatory directives that restrict the level of indebtedness per client and additionally, a large part of the non-NBFC microfinance lending is also required to be reported to credit bureaus so that it may be available at the time of loan appraisal. Notwithstanding, we find that critical faultlines in the preparation and use of credit reports placed as many as 33% MFI clients in the sample at risk of being mis-sold an unaffordable loan.

More critically, the types of client assessments that inform loan-making are largely unregulated and often do not triangulate borrowers’ actual repayment capacity (relying instead on unverified or indicative measures, peer selection and group enforcement). Our results show that in a mature and competitive market, clients with similar incomes and livelihoods may in fact have very different borrowing portfolios and vice versa. In this scenario, universal lending limits— such as those currently in effect— poorly safeguard customers’ interests.

Instead, determined efforts should be directed towards building market capacity to conduct thorough client assessments and to respond meaningfully to clients’ financial situation. Credit reports urgently need to be strengthened to reflect a comprehensive view of all formal borrowing, without exception. On the lenders’ side, the use of comprehensive “combo” credit reports will still fall short if not also complemented by a robust understanding of what portion of household income can be made available for repayments. Further, clients with unique liquidity constraints or cashflow risks must receive adequate insurance either through appropriate products or through modified terms of service.

This research highlights not only how critical these measures are for borrower well-being, but also the challenges involved in suitably serving low-income households’ financial needs. As a step in this direction, this research outlines two minimum components for suitability assessments –

  1. All lenders should ensure that loan amounts are appropriate and the agreed repayment terms are affordable for every borrower given their income flows, outstanding loan repayments (including self-reported informal loans) and critical payment obligations.
  2. Lenders must also evaluate the harms of selling standardized products to those borrowers with highly volatile cashflows or those with unique liquidity or flexibility constraints. Uninsured cashflow risks must be provisioned for in the assessment, product design or terms of repayment.

The paper also outlines recommendations for coordinated regulatory, practitioner and research effort that can enable successful implementation. 

The working paper is available online here and we welcome both questions and comments.

Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
Household FinancelendingmicrofinanceSuitabilityunsuitable creditWorking papers
2 Comments
  1. Reply
    January 20, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    Pras

    Compliments to the team for the working paper. It must have been a challenge deciphering a lot of unrecorded data, as part of the efforts. A couple of points for your consideration. The data is precipitated on existing loan practices, i e, a large incidence of below 24 month loans. CLearly low income groups with high income volatility will struggle to meet higher repayments on a monthly basis. If, for instance, the practice changes for 36 month or 48 month loans, the monthly/weekly/whatever repayment burden is lowered in cash terms. Such an amount would be sufficient to meet interest payments, plus a smaller amount of principal. The success of the “Jewel loans”, footnoted in your paper, suggests this as an option. Jewel loans are rolled over provided the interest payments are met (and I’m sure a small proportion of principal). While JL require collateral, the normal loans are credit-verified by SHGs/JL members – many of whom would constitute the “informal source” lender when the borrower is being hammered on cash flow for repayments. With the raw data you have available, maybe you should run the DSC if loans were say averaged over 36/48/54 months etc. Borrowers cutting back on essential consumption (normally would mean food or health care) directly affects their earning ability as well. Rather have them with slightly easier monthly burdens that would reduce this aspect. (all these features have been well captured in your report).

    • Reply
      January 20, 2017 at 5:29 pm
      Vaishnavi Prathap

      Thanks Pras, that’s an excellent suggestion and very much in-line with the spirit of recommendations to ensure that contract features are suitable. We do hope to continue working with the raw data, and look for insights on how modified terms or products could mitigate distress (and put these insights out for further consideration by practitioners). Will keep this space updated 🙂

Leave Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

4 × two =

clear formSubmit

Related posts
Blog Competition on Suitable Finance for Agricultural Households
October 4, 2019
Bridging Gaps in Household Finance Through Research Evidence and Data
July 15, 2019
The Dvara Open Online Repository for Household Finance
March 30, 2019
A 100 Papers, 200 + Points of Evidence, 1 Financial Well-being Evidence Gap Map
March 18, 2019
Process innovations in Microfinance aimed at avoiding over-indebtedness
January 8, 2019
Household Over-indebtedness in Europe: Definitions, Indicators and Influencing factors
January 2, 2019
Search
Recent Comments
  • Prasanna Srinivasan on Care through competition: The case of the Netherlands: “This made interesting and informative reading. Thank you. Inevitably, the mind ran a comparison with the Indian context even while…”
  • Misha Sharma on Direct Benefit Transfers in Assam, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh: Introducing the Dvara-Haqdarshak Study on Exclusion in Government to Person Payments: “Great post, Aarushi. It will also be interesting to document the challenges faced in accessing these transfers and experiences with…”
  • Misha Sharma on What is Social Protection?: “Thanks for writing this, Anupama. A much needed piece and looking forward to the second post in this series. It…”
Subscribe and Follow Us

Popular Post

Popular Post
  • ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’: What is it, and how does it affect customer protection?
    May 5, 2022
  • Call for Papers: Field Workshop on Household Finance 25th June, 2022
    May 4, 2022
  • Care through competition: The case of the Netherlands
    April 28, 2022

Categories

Categories
  • Channels(88)
  • Consumer Protection(33)
  • Events(30)
  • Featured(42)
  • Field Reports(6)
  • From the field(9)
  • General(22)
  • Guest(30)
  • Household Research(75)
  • Long Term Debt Markets(9)
  • News(45)
  • Origination(30)
  • Products(42)
  • Regulation(112)
  • Research(254)
  • Risk Aggregation(26)
  • Risk transmission(63)
  • Small Cities(21)
  • Technology(25)
  • Uncategorized(105)
  • Unemployment Support(5)

Archives

Archives
  • May 2022 (2)
  • April 2022 (4)
  • March 2022 (2)
  • February 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • December 2021 (4)
  • November 2021 (6)
  • October 2021 (4)
  • September 2021 (4)
  • August 2021 (6)
  • July 2021 (6)
  • June 2021 (10)
  • May 2021 (7)
  • April 2021 (9)
  • March 2021 (10)
  • February 2021 (8)
  • January 2021 (4)
  • December 2020 (7)
  • November 2020 (7)
  • October 2020 (11)
  • September 2020 (10)
  • August 2020 (12)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (5)
  • May 2020 (8)
  • April 2020 (4)
  • March 2020 (8)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (9)
  • December 2019 (4)
  • November 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (7)
  • September 2019 (3)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (4)
  • June 2019 (4)
  • May 2019 (4)
  • April 2019 (7)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (3)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (5)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (5)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (5)
  • February 2018 (2)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • December 2017 (5)
  • November 2017 (4)
  • October 2017 (3)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (3)
  • May 2017 (4)
  • April 2017 (3)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (6)
  • December 2016 (5)
  • November 2016 (2)
  • October 2016 (3)
  • September 2016 (5)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (4)
  • June 2016 (8)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (5)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (3)
  • January 2016 (3)
  • December 2015 (3)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (2)
  • September 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (5)
  • July 2015 (3)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • May 2015 (3)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • March 2015 (3)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (5)
  • November 2014 (4)
  • October 2014 (3)
  • September 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (4)
  • July 2014 (4)
  • June 2014 (8)
  • May 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (4)
  • March 2014 (5)
  • February 2014 (6)
  • January 2014 (8)
  • December 2013 (7)
  • November 2013 (8)
  • October 2013 (7)
  • September 2013 (7)
  • August 2013 (5)
  • July 2013 (6)
  • June 2013 (7)
  • May 2013 (6)
  • April 2013 (8)
  • March 2013 (9)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (9)
  • December 2012 (8)
  • November 2012 (7)
  • October 2012 (5)
  • September 2012 (5)
  • August 2012 (5)
  • July 2012 (7)
  • June 2012 (4)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (7)
  • February 2012 (6)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (8)
  • November 2011 (7)
  • October 2011 (8)
  • September 2011 (7)
  • August 2011 (3)
  • July 2011 (6)
  • June 2011 (11)
  • May 2011 (8)
  • April 2011 (9)
  • March 2011 (13)
  • February 2011 (10)
  • January 2011 (8)
  • December 2010 (10)
  • November 2010 (10)
  • October 2010 (10)
  • September 2010 (7)
  • August 2010 (13)
  • July 2010 (10)
  • June 2010 (6)
  • May 2010 (13)
  • April 2010 (7)
  • March 2010 (10)
  • February 2010 (5)
  • January 2010 (4)
  • December 2009 (3)
  • November 2009 (1)
  • October 2009 (6)
  • August 2009 (1)
  • July 2009 (2)
  • June 2009 (1)
  • May 2009 (1)
  • April 2009 (1)
  • March 2009 (1)
Share Via :Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Email this to someone
email
Site Map

www.dvara.com