Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Neither borrower nor a lender be?'

I was in Basel earlier this week for the ICTF Conference. It's always a good opportunity to catch up with credit professionals from around Europe and beyond, and great to hear some of the issues being faced and how they're being addressed.

 

Flights and travel gave me the opportunity to read the FCA's recently published consultation: 'Detailed proposals for the FCA regime for consumer credit'. We'll be providing the opportunity for members to submit comments through our November ‘In Brief’, and I won't go into any detail on the 193 pages, nor the 387 pages of the Appendices here. I do though want to make just one comment about the FCA's stated intention to focus on the Payday Loans sector.

 

I've written several blogs over recent months arguing that the OFT should, in its final year, take action over the absence of evidence that affordability tests are being adequately carried out by payday lenders. I've consistently asserted that this is the key failure of the market and should be addressed with vigour. It should, after all, be the determinant in all credit decisions regardless of sector, size or nature.

I've given up hoping that the OFT is going to take any serious action on this in its final days but I was encouraged to read these words in the consultation: "Our proposals.........are based on the principle that money should only be lent to a consumer if the consumer has the ability to repay and in a sustainable way." And in his foreword, FCA Chief Executive Martin Wheatley says: "The OFT affordability guidance is good, but the OFT’s own research shows too few firms implement it. We will put it into our rules and guidance, and enforce this."

 

Martin's last two words are the most important - let's hold the FCA to account and ensure it delivers.

 

 

Weekly blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'The price of success'

I've written several blogs about the payday loan industry in recent months saying, in summary, that I don't believe the concept of short term loans is fundamentally wrong and that emotion sometimes over-rides objectivity. But that does not mean that poor practice is ever acceptable. In particular I've ranted about the absence of evidence that affordability tests were being carried out and said the OFT should, in its final year, focus on this particular element.

Wonga's announcement that its pre-tax profits were up by 35% and bad debts were up by 89% has brought the sector back into sharp focus and - reading reports and commentaries - two things have struck me.

The first is Ian King, the Times Business Editor, observing that Wonga is one of the good guys in an industry that has appalling practices; by way of example he cites that it will not allow its customers to "roll" their loans more than three times and observes that the interest rates they charge are, for example, far lower than those incurred by running up an unauthorised bank overdraft. In my view, being cheaper than someone else isn't necessarily justification but it's certainly true and mitigates against some of the more emotional headlines we see. Indeed, elsewhere in the paper it's reported that loans cannot be rolled over more than twice and that Wonga stops racking up interest after 60 days to prevent debts spiralling too far out of control.

More worrying though is the quote from Wonga's Chief Executive, Errol Damelin, who is reported as saying Wonga loans were too small to be a significant problem and "it's very unlikely that a £200 or a £400 loan is what gets people into a financial mess". Perhaps by itself such a loan value won't, but as part of a vulnerable financial situation it can play a key role especially if it's taken out in desperation and as a last resort. I'd like to think Wonga is an exemplar in carrying out adequate and effective affordability checks but come on, Mr Damelin, get real - £400 MIGHT NOT be a problem for you but it could well be for some of your customers and potential customers!

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Reading, writing and credit management'

Back in February the government announced a new draft National Curriculum for England that would see financial education embedded in both mathematics and in citizenship education, making financial capability a statutory part of the curriculum for the first time. The draft programme of study for citizenship would include the functions and uses of money, the importance of personal budgeting, money management and a range of financial products and services in Key Stage 3, and wages, taxes, credit, debt, financial risk and a range of more sophisticated financial products and services in Key Stage 4.

 

This week, following a period of consultation, Michael Gove published the revised Curriculum and the financial education has been further strengthened by the inclusion of 'risk management' into Key Stage 3 and 'income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings, pensions' at Key Stage 4. Recognition is due to pfeg for its work in pushing for this enhanced content.

 

Providing education that allows children to leave school with financial literacy can only bode well for the credit profession in the years ahead if it means consumers are more financially aware. None of us wants to see people in financial difficulty through ignorance because they weren't sufficiently aware or informed.

 

In my blog last week I called for the OFT to ensure that affordability tests were genuinely being carried out by payday lenders to avoid the vulnerable being caught in a vortex of indebtedness. An interesting discussion has unfolded in response on the ICM Credit Community LinkedIn group (you can find it here) I don't agree with all the comments - simply outlawing payday lending could carry serious unintended consequences involving a growth in back street loan sharks, for example - but action in the short term is needed and, for the longer term, education will also play its part. Now we need to make sure teachers are provided with adequate tools to deliver the proposed curriculum content.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Painting a grim picture of Payday lenders'

I've been inundated with government papers over the past few weeks such as the Insolvency Practitioners Fees Review, the Review of Pre-Pack Administrations, the Simpler Reporting proposals for Micro Businesses, the Money Advice Service proposals to improve the quality of Debt Advice, HMRC and DWP debt management strategies, the Treasury and FSA consultations on the transfer of consumer credit regulation from the OFT to the FCA, the proposed EU Data Protection changes, and a host more.  As a result, I've been a bit tardy in getting to read in detail the OFT's Payday Lending Compliance Review.  Its contents are shocking.

 

Let me make it clear from the outset that I am not in the 'outlaw all payday lenders' camp; I believe that such products have their place and when offered, and used, sensibly can be useful to a good many people.  But that doesn't excuse the findings in this review.  Among the highlights, or perhaps I should call them lowlights, the review reports that 28% of loans issued in 2011/12 were rolled over at least once, with at least a third of lenders actively promoting rollover at the point of sale and a number agreeing to rollover loans even after a borrower has missed a repayment.  By way of example, staff in two large high-street firms were told that rollovers were regarded as 'key profit drivers' and that staff were encouraged to promote them. In one case, this was even written into the training manual!

 

Equally worrying to me though is the absence of affordability checks.  Most lenders asserted that they undertook affordability assessments at the initial loan stage yet the vast majority were unable to provide satisfactory proof that they had applied such assessments in practice.  Only six of the 50 lenders visited were able to provide documentary evidence that they assessed consumers' likely disposable income as part of their affordability assessments.

 

The basic premise of credit management, whether the customer is a multi-national business, a small trader, or an individual, is to determine whether the customer is 'good' for the amount of credit being extended and whether it can afford to repay in accordance with the agreed terms. Furthermore, in the case of consumers, assessing creditworthiness is a requirement of the Consumer Credit Act and OFT guidelines.

I know the majority of the inspections were carried out before revised industry codes of practice and the sector-wide Good Practice Customer Charter came into force but the revelations of the report paint a wholly unacceptable picture.  The enforcement action already started and the 12 week deadline to address all areas of non-compliance is welcome, the proposed investigation by the Competition Commission makes sense, and the expectation that the FCA will take a more rigorous approach when it takes over consumer credit regulation next April is encouraging.

 

In the meantime I hope the OFT will live up to its promise that it will not gradually fade away but will continue to act vigorously in the period until it is replaced by the FCA.  A year is a long time in the consumer credit market.

 

I'll be welcoming a couple of guest blog writers over the next two weeks. Charles Wilson, Managing Director of Lovetts Solicitors, an ICM Fellow, and a member of our Technical Committee will be writing next week, and our own Debbie Tuckwood, ICM Director of Learning & Development, the week after.  I'll be decorating over Easter so will be looking forward to returning to normality thereafter!

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - A journey of discovery'

My contribution this week is going to be short and sweet, or perhaps not quite so sweet, and it's about a payday loans company. But I'm not adding to the many column inches and hours of airtime devoted to the subject in recent weeks. Indeed, the OFT's announcement a couple of weeks ago that it has launched a review of the sector makes me think it's best to wait until the outcome of that review is known - and the dust has settled from the publication of the BIS Select Committee's report this week - before adding my two pennyworth to the debate.

My comments relate instead to a story in The Times on 17 February after Cash Converters UK had issued its results for the six months ended 31 December 2011. It said that 'it's nascent lending business had shown a big rise in bad debts' rising from 9% to 11% between 30 June and 31 December. The company said: 'The UK business reviewed its lending criteria in November 2011 and as a result has made certain adjustments to their procedures. This action, combined with the appointment of a new collections manager, should reduce the bad debt percentage going forward. Over time, as the new business matures and our customer information database improves, we would be targeting a significant decrease in the level of UK bad debts.

'Cash Converters appears to have discovered what many of us already know: that tightening lending criteria, having better customer information, and appointing a new collections manager reduces bad debts. While it seems to be stating the obvious, I'm pleased it reinforces my view that professionalism is vital and adds real value. When good practice is applied to policy and process, and good credit professionals are employed, then businesses can only benefit. This is the message at the heart of everything the ICM stands for and drives.