Editorial

Dear Reader: The moral rot in unsecured lending


We rarely have occasion at Noseweek to borrow an editorial from another, competing publication. This is one such occasion: we cannot think of a better way of saying it than Patrick Cairns has done recently on Moneyweb:

Unsecured lending in South Africa has always had its detractors. Since 1992 when an exemption to the Usury Act was first granted to allow microlenders to operate legally, there have been people who are uncomfortable with the practice.

It doesn’t take much to argue that, ultimately, the business models practised by microlenders in South Africa are exploitative, degrading and profoundly negative in their impact on the economy. This is a sentiment that is not limited only to lenders like African Bank either. The unsecured lending industry also feeds another that is perhaps even more morally suspect – one that is most prominently represented by Cambist, a company that promises South Africans incredible returns of 19.5% per year.

How do they do that? By facilitating the sale of debt of unfortunate individuals who have failed to repay unsecured loans and have suffered the indignity of having garnishee orders granted against them. (These are court orders that allow creditors to attach a portion of someone’s salary. The employer is obliged to pay the creditor directly to ensure that the funds are received.)

Anyone with money on the Cambist platform is effectively collecting their 19.5% on the misfortunes of the poor. There is nothing economically uplifting about this. It is only making poor people even poorer.

It’s not enough to argue that the borrowers made their own bad decisions. By its own admission, African Bank has not been strict enough in its lending criteria. It has lent too much money to people who had little hope of ever paying it back.

What reason would it have for doing that, other than greed? There is a clear link between this reckless lending and what Cambist is doing, because the more risk lenders take in their writing of loans, the more likely borrowers are to default. And with garnishee orders being granted, that means more business on the Cambist and other similar platforms.

Whichever way you spin it, it is an appalling exploitation of the poor.

It is made even more unpalatable when you consider the way that Cambist markets itself.  A recent Twitter post from Cambist reads: “They say it’s better to cry in an expensive car than on a bicycle… what do you think?”

What solace is there in an expensive car bought with the 19.5% per annum earned off someone who can hardly afford a bicycle?

This sort of thing only highlights the ethical failure in the entire microlending cycle. It is not, and has never been, about uplifting the poor. It has been about how much money can be made off them.

Can we be proud of a country where the exploitation of the poor is sold as a means to buy yourself a nice car?

Cambist will argue that it is not doing anything illegal. It’s a matter of willing buyers and willing sellers. The assets in question, it will say, are debt contracts. Isn’t that what is traded on the bond market every day?

But that ignores what we are actually dealing with, because behind those debt contracts are human lives. There are people trying to make an honest living, feed their families and improve their lot in the world.

► Over the years Noseweek has highlighted the problem in various reports, see nose44 (Loan sharks or bankers); nose86 (Thieves dance the Limpopo polka) and nose100 (Juicy Saambou pickings for African Bank).

► Read the article on Moneyweb.

 

Share this article:

Reader's comments

Like to add your own comment ? Please click here to subscribe - OR -
 
Submitted by : Clive Varejes of GALLO MANOR on 2014-09-21 19:55:52
I would love to give noseweek a few facts about how the banks, auctioneers and repossession agents manipulate, screw and then suck the blood out of the all the poor individuals whose car have been repossessed.
They undervalue the cars by about 60% sell them on to, hmmm what shall we call them, let's just say "independent agents" who sell them on at about 3 times what they paid.
The banks then claim whatever was"outstanding" from their suckers , oops clients.
They could teach these " money lenders" a thing or two.

Disclaimer

While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither the authors nor the publishers of this website bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on the information contained therein.