Showing posts with label lending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lending. Show all posts

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Cash for Bags!

****

I just love this:

In a city driven by consumers' voracious appetite for the newest and latest luxury products, handbag-driven loans are a lucrative business. Yes Lady takes a purse and lends clients 80% of the bag's value. Customers get the bag back by repaying the same loan with 4% monthly interest, within four months. Classic purses and special-edition handbags often retain much of their retail price.

One wonders what Stella Creasey might think of it!

...

Friday, 26 July 2013

Sorry Archbishop but you're wrong...you won't beat Wonga by having moneylenders in church halls

****

The new Archbishop is off at a gallop gleefully sticking his neb into all and sundry including the iniquities of the down-market credit business and it's Arch-Demon, Wonga. To give the Primate his due however he didn't promise to force the government to change the law - a welcome break from the seemingly eternal lobbying that has plagued the church since 'Faith in the City':

“We’re not in the business of trying to legislate you out of existence; we’re trying to compete you out of existence”. 

And the boss of Wonga - good capitalist chap that he is - responded by welcoming the competition and the extension of choice in the consumer credit market. All this has been a little spoiled by the silly business of the Church having invested some of its billions in the evil that is Wonga.

Let's be clear, I think the Archbishop is wrong. Not in wanting to encourage credit unions as an 'ethical' alternative to payday lenders, nor in seeing that the solution lies in extending choice rather than in the more usual regulation and restriction. No, the Archbishop is wrong because he doesn't appreciate the realities of the market he intends to enter (well sort of enter - more support of encourage really).

The interest rates (leaving aside all the macroeconomics for a minute) that lenders charge are made up of three things: the more or less fixed cost of setting up a loan, the lenders margin and what we can call a guess at the risks involved (i.e. how many borrowers will default and owing how much). Now we can do a little about the first two things but not much so, if we are to reduce the amount charged we have to reduce the risk of financial loss.

Assuming there is no government subsidy or underwriting of the risk (and guessing that the Archbishop doesn't intend to stick the Church's assets on the table) and no realistic surety, the effect of reducing risk is to reduce the number of people who can borrow. Or, to put it another way, to exclude the very people who are most at risk from loan sharks and other assorted folk peddling loans.

So credit unions with limited assets have to focus on low risk lending - not at all the market in which the Archbishop wants them to operate. If the Church is to compete with the payday lenders it must canonise one of them - we would need St Wonga.

This little headline grabbing initiative is great PR, brilliant politics and poor business. If the church wants to do something to reduce the need for lenders like Wonga the way to do this is to help reduce the reasons why vulnerable people use them. And to do this the Church should build on the work already being done out there by organisations such as Christians Against Poverty - working in local neighbourhoods to advise people on how to avoid debt, how to budget and how to get out of the mess once you're in it. And, while credit unions have a role in all this, they really aren't the solution.

If every church had a debt advisor or two plus a little relief fund, the chances are that thousands of people might be guided away from the risks of short-term borrowing. Rather than compete, the Church should simply remove Wonga's market.

....

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

A good day for organised crime...

Over in the secret hideaways of the organised crime bosses, cognac glasses are chinking, cigars are being lit - the toast is; "David Cameron and the Coalition Government".

Never before has there been a government that cared so much for the interests of the organised criminal. And today was a red letter day for those Dons, drug lords and criminal masterminds:

...minimum unit pricing, ensuring for the first time that alcohol can only be sold at a sensible and appropriate price

Sold at those prices by the legitimate trader. But sold at way below those prices by the smuggler or the moonshine merchant. The man with the van is rubbing his hand with profitable glee as he eyes up the chance to sell cheap booze to kids. The drug smugglers are looking at vodka as a kinder, less judged import. And the big crime lords are grinning from ear to ear and ordering the new yacht.

And then:

The government is to change the law to allow restrictions to be imposed on the interest rates charged for so-called "payday loans".

Honest Joe has got his baseball bat out from the cupboard and it treating it with linseed oil. All those poor folk refused loans by Wonga or Provident present a renewed sales opportunity. These legal lenders had killed his business but no more - now he can go back to lending cash and demanding repayment with menaces! And smashing the occasional kneecap - well it goes with the game.

A good day for organised crime - soon to be followed by plain packs for fags and a new smuggling and counterfeiting cash windfall!

Well done Dave!

....

Sunday, 14 October 2012

It isn't social justice to encourage people to take out loans they can't afford. So why is it Labour Policy?

****

You know the housing bubble that was a big factor in creating the mess we're in?

Let's remind ourselves what Clinton and Bush did:

The meltdown was the consequence of a combination of the easy money and low interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve and the easy housing engineered by a variety of government agencies and policies. Those agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and two nominally private “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The agencies — along with laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970s, then fortified in the Clinton years), which required banks to make loans to people with poor and nonexistent credit histories — made widespread homeownership a national goal. This all led to a home-buying frenzy and an explosion of subprime and other non-prime mortgages, which banks and GSEs bundled into dubious securities and peddled to investors worldwide. Hovering in the background was the knowledge that the federal government would bail out troubled “too-big-to-fail” financial corporations, including Fannie and Freddie.

And let's remember something about this - it was the political greed of American politicians not the greed of bankers that did the damage. Here's what the Village Voice said back in 2008 about Clinton and Andrew Cuomo, then Housing & Urban development Secretary:

Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that — in combination with many other factors — helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded ‘kickbacks’ to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.

Put simply, forcing banks to lend to people with high risk of default is a really stupid idea. And all the wiffle about social justice doesn't change the facts. Nor does forcing the banks to use "social lenders" make any difference. Yet the Labour Party are proposing just such a policy:

Labour has published proposals for a policy that it says would force banks to lend more in deprived communities and encourage lending through third sector financial institutions.

In an interview with Third Sector, shadow charities minister Gareth Thomas said that proposals in Open Banking: Building a Transparent Banking System, written by him and Chris Leslie, the shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, would require banks to reveal what they lent in each community and to lend a minimum amount in every community.

He said that where banks did not want to do it themselves, there would be an opportunity for them to lend through credit unions or community development finance institutions.

It all sound so lovely. Let's force the evil banks to cough up for regeneration. They can be forced to lend to poor folk in deprived places and everything will be better!

This isn't social justice, it's not redistribution, it's not reinvestment. It's a morally questionable lottery and anyone who thinks giving soft loans to poor people makes any sense needs his head examining.

....

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Letting politicians and the well-meaning run banks is a daft (and dangerous) idea

****



The other day Vince Cable announced his new small business bank:


"We need a new British business bank with a clean balance sheet and an ability to expand lending rapidly to the manufacturers, exporters and high-growth companies that power our economy. Today I can announce we will have one. I am working with the chancellor to develop a state-backed institution that will combine up to a billion pounds of new government capital with a larger private contribution."


So there you have it – a super new bank run by politicians that will gallop to the rescue of all those dynamic little businesses that can borrow money from the nasty private banks (or indeed the nasty public-owned banks for that matter). For all that this looks and sounds like just another back-door bank bailout, Vince has his headline and a shiny new state bank to play with!

Now while this sounds like yet another rehashing of 1970s policies – picking winners, national investment banks and doubtless the white heat of technology – it is matched in its lunacy by the latest wheeze from Labour. This is the idea of making banks lend money to poor people:


Labour has published proposals for a policy that it says would force banks to lend more in deprived communities and encourage lending through third sector financial institutions.


The alarm bells are ringing loudly at this policy! Apparently the intention is to force banks to lend in poor places (on what basis is unclear) or else hand over dollops of cash to social lenders – charities, credit unions and so forth. The approach would:


...require banks to reveal what they lent in each community and to lend a minimum amount in every community.


Apparently this was a huge success in the USA where the Community Reinvestment Act was a factor in (although probably not the cause of) the housing-bubble that helped precipitate the financial meltdown we all enjoy today. So Labour in the UK is proposing a lending scheme targeted at people who won’t find it easy to repay the loans. To say this is irresponsible does not quite capture the whole picture. Assuming that the government’s moral suasion makes banks use credit unions and the like to do the lending, we face the added problem of banks run by politicians and the well-meaning lending to poor folk.



Leeds City Credit Union (LCCU) will be hoping yesterday’s sentencing of former manager Beverley Johnson for fraud will mark the end of the most traumatic chapter in its 25-year history.

Over the past five years, England’s biggest credit union has endured the fallout from chronic mismanagement which resulted in near complete financial collapse, two police inquiries, the former chief executive being forced to resign and finally an embarrassing court case thanks to a manager helping herself to the contents of members’ accounts.

LCCU’s mismanagement has been the subject of a long-running Yorkshire Post investigation which first revealed serious concerns as far back as 2007.


Imagine millions of – in effect – free cash landing into these organisations. Take a glimpse over the Atlantic again and look at how politicians and political favours nearly destroyed savings & loan institutions. And consider whether this sort of story might happen again here:


LCCU was shown to (be) rife with cronyism and nepotism, including major breaches of financial rules through favourable loans provided to staff and their relatives.

In one instance, the son of then chief executive Sue Davenport had received a loan for £14,205 when he was only entitled to £1,200. In another, Davenport’s daughter-in-law had been able to take part in processing a loan for herself at a preferential rate.

Criticisms from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) were also highlighted, in particular Davenport’s ability to exert an inordinate amount of control over the books. A letter written by the FSA to LCCU as far back as 2003 specifically referred to “the risk of intentional manipulation” – a risk subsequently shown to be one Davenport was willing to take.


Perhaps we shouldn’t take the risk of letting a coalition of the well-meaning and politics runs banks – it will end it scandal and crisis. And won’t help poor people – folk who need advising not to borrow rather than encouraging into taking out loans they can’t afford.

....





Tuesday, 21 August 2012

"International evidence proves..." ....that you're probably making it up!

****

How often do we here this or one of its variants: "European research shows..." or "Evidence from Australia indicates..." or "Studies in America reveal.."  Often these sweeping statements are made without any referencing - I had this on twitter recently in an exchange with Stella Creasy MP who claimed that evidence from Europe supported her contention that capping lending costs leads to lower (rather than higher) incidence of illegal lending. I did ask Ms Creasy to point me to this evidence but, to date, she has failed to do this preferring instead to prattle about a legal lender sponsoring a prime time ITV game show.

However, I'm not here to have a go at Stella Creasy despite believing that her campaign against Wonga and other down market lenders is well meant but mistaken. What I'm asking is that 'campaigners' stop using evidence from foreign places without letting us doubting folk have the chance to see that evidence.

Dick Puddlecote presents a wonderful example from the Scottish government today:

"International evidence shows minimum pricing will reduce consumption and reduce alcohol-related harm"

As has been the case throughout the minimum pricing debate, the campaigners - and now the government - fail to present evidence to support their contentions about the effects of the policy. This is mostly because there isn't much of this 'international evidence' and it is mostly inconclusive or equivocal on the subject (mind you there at least is some evidence unlike in the case of  plain packs for cigarettes).

The problem, it seems to me, is that those who report on these matters - the newspapers, the broadcasters - fail time and time again to challenge, to say to Stella Creasy; "show us the evidence you speak of, where were the studies conducted, what did they show, have the been replicated". The so-called journalists never say to the spokesman of the Scottish Government; "come on laddie, you can do better than that, let's be having confirmation of that international evidence".

Perhaps (indeed I think this a likelihood) the 'campaigners' know that us doubters, faced with their confident assertion about 'international evidence' or 'studies in Europe', struggle to locate the studies. Look at the evidence from Europe says Stella. We do that, we find studies (they show German illegal lending at three times the levels in the UK - Germany has lending cost controls in the form of interest rate restrictions) and the Stella Creasys of this world say; "not that evidence, studies you know, from Europe."

Why do I think that quite often these 'campaigners' are simply making these sweeping claims knowing that no-one's going to look (other than the industry attacked who can easily be deflected with "they would say that wouldn't they"). And that there's probably some evidence somewhere that, in that equivocal academic way, can be cited in support of the campaign.

Or maybe they're just making stuff up?

....

Monday, 12 March 2012

...add sub-prime loans to business! Hey, that's a thought Vince!

****

Sometimes I could cry. Vince Cable wants cheap loans to business from a state investment bank:

"It would almost certainly be necessary to lengthen the period in public ownership. It may well mean state-controlled banks being able to lend at cheaper rates than new commercial banks, thereby affecting the development of more diverse finance"

So fix the market, offer loans to people who can't pay them back at cheaper rates and all in the name of "growth". Are these people actually living on the same planet as me? Is their memory so short that they don't recall that it was cheap, government-sponsored loan-making that got us into the mess in the first place?

...

Thursday, 9 February 2012

Can we reduce the "poverty premium" without repeating those sub-prime mistakes?

****


Niall Cooper from Church Action on Poverty has written a piece of what he calls “fair pricing”:

And secondly, fair prices.  Much of the ‘logic’ of the way markets have developed in recent years is to move towards ‘risk (or cost) pricing’ and away from shared risk.  Some of the assumptions behind this are extremely dodgy:  The majority of high cost lenders claim that their premium prices are based on the ‘risk’ of lending to low income customers… any yet, when customers pay week after week, year after year, the cost doesn’t go down.  But fundamentally, is it socially (or morally) acceptable to operate ‘cost’ pricing models which force the poorest to pay most?  How can companies square all their talk in recent years of corporate social responsibility, with charging their poorest customers the most?

It has become a mantra of anti-poverty campaigners that poor people pay something they call the “poverty premium”:

Lack of access to the best online prices, bank accounts and managing their budget via cash all adds together to give the poorest families the worst deals around. The result is a poverty premium that costs the poorest families more for the same energy, cookers and household items, credit and insurance than their wealthier peers.

The two prime culprits for this premium are energy and financial services especially lending. In the case of energy this is mostly about methods of payment – the understandable reluctance of people on low incomes to use direct debit as a means of payment. So, in reality, the whole problem is – as Niall Cooper implies – down to financial services. Especially since the ‘food desert’ argument turns out to be a bit of a myth.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as a low-income census tract where a large number of residents are more than a mile from a grocery store…. [L]ess than 4.5 percent of the U.S. population [falls into that category].

The question then is how to make is easier for poor people to access affordable financial services given that those poor people are less likely to repay loans, more likely to over draw and live in places where car crime and burglary heighten insurance risks. For this Niall Cooper suggests intervening in the market:

And if individual businesses are unwilling to offer products to low income consumers at fair prices (not least by claiming they can’t do so if their competitors don’t), then is there not a role for market intervention?

The problem is that – certainly where lending is concerned – we have been down this route before. After all mandating lending to high risk borrowers was a central driver in creating sub-prime problems especially in the USA. And if you introduce price caps (as Stella Creasy wants) without mandating lending to poor people then you kill the market entirely. The consequence of this is to create an even bigger problem for which the only solution is unregulated and illegal lending.

Rather than looking at forcing price cuts on suppliers, we should instead consider whether block buying is an option. Social landlords could, for example, purchase energy more cheaply than tenants and have the systems to collect payments in place already. And, certainly for contents insurance, the same should apply. It would be interesting too to look at whether local councils or social landlords could broker other insurances such as third party car insurance helping to spread risks and reduce costs.

If we look to new generation mutuals such as credit unions there are perhaps similar opportunities to reduce costs and spread risks. What we can’t do is wholly eliminate those risks (something the world is finding out very painfully right this minute) meaning that poor people will continue to have problems with access and pricing in financial services. In using co-operative solutions we can ameliorate these considerably and, in market terms, safely. Mandating prices simply takes us back into the financial disaster of sub-prime lending.

...

Friday, 18 November 2011

In which I defend the indefensible...


I’ve rather held off from writing this post. Partly because right now lending is a touchy subject and partly because I don’t want people to see me as an advocate of rapacious down-market lenders.

But here it is...

Stella Creasy, Labour MP for Walthamstow has been campaigning loudly and effectively for new regulations around doorstep and payday lending:

A cross-party group of MPs has secured a vote on the principle of introducing caps on the total costs of credit for British consumers, following good practice across the Americas and Europe. We have the backing of a wide range of consumer groups, charities, trade unions and religious groups, who recognise that every day these rates go unchallenged, debt and poverty get worse. We also have the support of many Tory and Liberal Democrat backbenchers.

All good stuff. But there’s a problem – not just the impact that hobbling Provident Financial would have on the economy of Bradford (where it is headquartered and where it will employ approaching 1000 people) but a problem for the very people Ms Creasy wishes to help.

What Ms Creasy proposes is a cap on interest rates and associated fees. Seems straightforward until you consider what the effect of such a cap will be. By capping interest rates you will reduce the supply of credit to riskier groups (which tend to be poorer groups) – the area the doorstep lenders won’t touch will get bigger and the credit checking will get tougher. People who can get a short term loan now would not be able to get a short term loan if Ms Creasy’s bill became law.

Again this is fine. Truth is that many of these people shouldn’t be borrowing money given their financial status. But what we know is that they do want to borrow money, which leaves them with two routes – pawn shops or the bloke in the nice suit who’ll agree to help “just this once”.  You know him – he’s the illegal loan shark who has been forced right to the margins by the liberalised credit regime we enjoy. Right now, these loan sharks aren’t that common (although they’re on every estate) because Wonga and other down market lenders have taken their market.

And the likes of Wonga are licensed, regulated and subject to the law – let me tell you that the bloke in the nice suit isn’t and he will use force to get his money.

The effect of an interest cap will be to increase illegal loan sharking – it really is as simple as that. I know it sounds good to reduce those shocking interest rates we see on ads, to control this “legal loansharking” as the campaigners have dubbed it, but it will have negative consequences for too many people – the very people Stella Creasy wants to help.

...

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Mick and Gerard discuss the banking crisis...

****
Mick is a gardener – a fictional gardener to be sure but he could be real. Mick cuts grass, trims bushes, digs over and plants up flower beds and, for doing this, gets paid by grateful customers. Being an honest citizen, Mick tots up all he earns in a little book and subtracts from that the amount he spends – on diesel, maintenance and insurance for the pick-up, on gardening gloves, on the fuel for the mowers, on sharpening the tools (and replacing them when they’re broken or worn) and on a host of other bits and bobs he buys to do the job.


When he buys stuff for customers, maybe bedding plants or some compost, Mick adds a little margin for his trouble. Not a lot or else folk would stop asking him to buy things. And this is carefully recorded in his little book.

Once a year Mick gives the book (and a shoebox filled with receipts and so forth) to Gerard, his accountant, so the tax can be done. Gerard checks Mick’s adding up and subtracting, adds in a little advice (‘you do know you can claim for that, don’t you’) to justify the £300 he’s charging Mick (who will, of course, dutifully write that amount into his little book). Once all the form filling is done, Mick has a bill for taxes which he pays since, being sensible and organised, he’s set aside a little each week in anticipation of this tax bill.

With this done, and by way of thanks, Mick takes Gerard down to the pub for a celebratory (if the paying of taxes can ever be a celebration) pint or two. And they get to talking like you do when you’ve had a beer.

Now Mick knows that Gerard – unlike him – is an educated bloke, been to university and accountant school, knows some long words about money. And Mick, who as a good citizen, makes sure he watches the news most days, asks Gerard about the banking crisis. After all, not only is Gerard an educated bloke, but he’s an accountant. And that means money. Gerard must be able to explain what all went wrong.

However, Gerard isn’t at all sure. For him, the bank is just a place through which money flows – mostly away from him and his clients. For sure, Gerard knows about borrowing – paying a price for having something now rather than waiting until we can afford it was the way Gerard’s shopkeeper dad always described it. And he knows that the banking crisis is something to do with borrowing. Or rather, the consequence of borrowing – debt. So he tells Mick this.

Now Mick, too, understands borrowing and debt. He’s got a mortgage – not a big one – and he had to take out a loan to buy the pick-up he uses for work. Mick appreciates how borrowing means that – at a price – he can have something now, like the pick-up or somewhere to live that he would otherwise be unable to afford. But he has another question for Gerard: “where does the borrowing come from,” asks Mick?

Gerard takes a long sup of his pint – he would have sucked on the stem of his pipe but they banned that in pubs – and thinks. “Did you ever watch Jimmy Stewart in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life”, asks Gerard?

“Oh yes,” said Mick, “one of my favourite films – a Christmas classic!”

“Good,” replied Gerard, “then you’ll remember the scene with the run on the bank when all the Savings & Loan customers crowd in to get their money out?”

“Absolutely, and at the end Jimmy Stewart and the others dance round the room with Papa Dollar and Mama Dollar in a wire paper tray!”

“Well during that scene, George Bailey – he’s the Jimmy Stewart character – explains to the crowd that the money isn’t in the bank, it’s in other people’s houses and businesses. It’s been lent out and these folk are paying it back with a little added as the price of having the money before you’re earned it.”

“Oh yes,” smiled Mick, “and George used his wedding cash to pay out on the run and the Savings & Loan stayed open.”

“Correct, correct,” Gerard leant back on his chair beginning to relish the explanation, “the problem is that modern banks – unlike that in the film – have made a really big bet. They’ve bet that everyone won’t arrive at once asking for their deposits back and have lent £10 for every £1 they have on deposit. In effect they’ve magicked 90% of the money we use from out of thin air.”

“But people still pay back,” Mick was fascinated by this exposition, “so the new money isn’t a problem until that stops?”

“Yes, or until people want to take more money out. You need another pint?”

“I think so,” Mick’s mind was spinning a little – he could see how his little business worked. And even how the bank’s role in lending money worked – but how could they lend so much?

Gerard returned from the bar and Mick was straight in, “but how could the bank take such a big risk, make such a massive bet?”

“I think,” said Gerard, “that it’s to do with deposit protection. In the film, the deposits were at risk, people stood to lose their savings if the bank closed. Today, the Government guarantees the deposits in banks – your and my money simply isn’t at risk so the bank can take whatever big bet it wants with the money.”

“So it wasn’t just the banks, it was government too,” spluttered Mick.

“And there’s more,” explained Gerard, “not only did government guarantee the deposits so banks could lend £10 for every £1 they had on deposit, most of that extra money wasn’t lent to folk like you to buy pick-ups and houses but was lent to the government. The same government who set the rules that made the lending possible.”

“Now you’re losing me,” Mick frowned, “the government gets all those taxes from people like me, why does it need to borrow?”

“You know you keep that little book, the one you give to me once a year so I can prepare your accounts and your tax return?”

“Yes.”

“You know how you’re very careful to make sure that what you take in exceeds what you spend?”

“Absolutely, I’d go bust otherwise.”

“Well the government doesn’t think it has to do that..."

"You what?"

"...most years in recent times governments, here in Britain, in the US and in Europe, have spent more than they raised in taxes. I know that’s hard to comprehend given how much we pay in tax – nearly half of all we earn – but governments didn’t think they had to worry because they’d set the rules so those nice banks would provide the cash. Government simply borrowed more and more each year.”

“So the government fixed the banking system so the banks could lend more, then borrowed that money to fill in the hole in their budget? Sounds like a criminal enterprise to me! Why did it go wrong?”

“Just like in the film, people started wanting their money out. The banks all lent money backwards and forwards between them – like a carousel with dollars on. One day some of them decided to stop the carousel, to stop passing the money round.”

“And…?”

“The system seized up. Banks were threatened, for a minute the whole thing looked like it might collapse. But the governments had a plan, instead of getting the banks to create new money by lending £10 for every £1, they would simply make up some new money of their own, give it to the banks and then borrow it back.”

“Sorry, say that again,” Mick was amazed

“Yes,” said Gerard, “they called it ‘quantitative easing’ but all it did was provide cash for the banks so they didn’t have to stop lending. And the government needed that lending, not to help your business like they said, but because otherwise they’d need to make big cuts in public spending or have a huge increase in taxes.”

“So let me get this right, the government allowed banks to lend more money than they had on deposit by protecting those deposits, then when people wanted their money out, the government printed more money and put it into the banks so the same government could go on borrowing? Where do we live, fairy land?”

The mournful sound of the pub bell sounded as the landlord called time.

“Guess I’d better scoot,” said Gerard, “been great talking and thanks for the beer.”

“Cheers," said Mick, “I’m hoping for some afters so I’ll stick around. There’s a couple of people here I’d like a word with and the place needs all the cash it can earn to keep going. One last question.”

“OK.”

“So all this inventing of money by the banks and the government,” muses Mick, “at some point it has to be earned by someone doesn’t it?”

“I suppose so. Probably us. We’ll be paying a load of taxes just to pay the banks back for lending the government all that money the government gave to the banks to keep them lending.”

Gerard smiled wryly, stood up and left. Mick was left wondering. Maybe Gerard was wrong, perhaps the chatty bloke on the telly from the Bank of England was right and we’ve nothing to fret about, there’ll be some hard times but it will turn out OK. But maybe not, maybe if all the money goes on paying back yesterday's debts, if the government keeps on borrowing and even printing more cash, maybe we’ll never pay it back. And that would be wrong Mick thought. We have to pay our debts.

....

Monday, 19 July 2010

Banks, interest rates and the misuse of APR


An almighty outcry (at least on the BBC who want to plug their Panorama programme and Vince Cable who’d like someone to notice him) about the terrible, evil way in which banks insist on charging people high rates of interest for unauthorised overdrafts. Now this is either the result of there not being enough competition in the banking sector or because cunning and crafty bankers have a special magic that makes it impossible for customers to understand the terms of their relationship.

Now on the competition point, I rather agree. But it isn’t addressed by getting a desperate sound bite or by shouting at the banks. If you want more competition, you have to allow people to start new banks without the huge financial and regulatory barriers to entry (that are keenly supported by the evil “Big Banks” in their eagerness to protect the consumer from rapacious fly-by-night outfits). So, Vince, either do this or else shut up.

On the matter of evil bankers confusing us poor folk and thereby charging very high rates of interest (I think the official term is obscene), I see either a finely crafted straw man or else a degree of informed ignorance that only innumerate BBC journalists can achieve. Put simply, Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is a pretty lousy way of assessing the price of short term credit. And that is what we are talking about here – banks generally don’t offer rates in excess of 1,000% for general loans but for small amounts borrowed without prior clearance the fixed costs are such that very high rates are inevitable (just consider, for example, a whole floor filled with people just processing the results of our financial incompetence – and that’s just the start of it).

The banks could simply bounce your payment and, as is their right, charge you a few quid for doing this (such costs will be in the terms and conditions of your account that the bank sends you every year). But in their blessed wisdom they don’t do this but allow your water bill or whatever to pass unheeded – and then charge you a few quid for that kindness in the form of interest. It all amounts to the same cost in the end – you’re either going to borrow without permission for a few days or else the bank isn’t going to let you borrow in that way. In both cases the cost to you is the same – which would you prefer?
...