19
Sep

The Nature of Financial Advice for Low-income Households

By Bindu Ananth

I was at an excellent behavioural finance conference organised by the Michigan University’s Centre on Finance, Law & Policy last week. One of the panels on investor protection debated issues including the impacts of disclosures, choice architecture and social norms marketing on investor behaviour. There was also an interesting discussion on role of advice and advisors in de-biasing investors or exacerbating weaknesses.

In the audience Q & A, in response to a question on the role of financial advice for low-income investors, one of the panelists responded that failures in the market for advice were less of an issue here since by and large, the right answer in most cases is just “save more for the future”. I found myself disagreeing with this notion strongly and one more reminder that the field of household finance has failed to examine the financial lives of low-income families in sufficient detail. In this post, I attempt to share from our KGFS work what are some of the other important aspects where advice seems to matter.

One, given that human capital (NPV of net lifetime earnings) dominates financial capital (wealth) for a low-income household, all of the issues around protecting that human capital is critical because that might make the difference between bankruptcy & resilience in the face of illness/accident/death. Most advice tends to focus on investments and the portfolio allocation question and surprisingly, pays little attention to insurance. Ibbotson et al (2007) provide a comprehensive framework to understand how human capital interacts with investment and insurance decisions. With limited resources, which members of the household should buy insurance? How much insurance should you buy? We find these are important aspects where households benefit from good advice. Specifically, insuring young, adult members of the household for the full value of their human capital is an important step. (One dilemma we faced was that a significant investment in increasing human capital that is made by households is higher education for children. The return to this investment depends greatly on the specific program and employability potential. We did not have the expertise to advise clients on this aspect but it feels like an area closely linked to the role of a financial advisor in this context)

Second, low-income households are typically saving and borrowing simultaneously despite a significant wedge between lending and savings rates (upwards of 20% most times). We don’t understand very well the determinants of this behaviour. Clearly, it is not always the right answer to save. High rates of return on micro-enterprises have been documented by Christopher Woodruff and others. Often it makes sense for households, particularly with surplus labour to borrow to put together the initial capital required to undertake such enterprises. Similarly, households with low but stable cash-flows (the village municipal worker for instance) may find it reasonable to borrow to build a house rather than wait to save up for the same. Working with the household to determine when to borrow and when to save and even combination strategies such as save for the down payment or borrow to save strategies could be very valuable interventions.

Third, the balance sheet of a low-income household has a combination of physical and financial assets. Physical assets such as land and gold dominate. On the liabilities side, there is a combination of formal and informal loans of different maturities. It requires serious skill to arrive at the APR of some informal loans! Which loans to refinance now that advances in financial inclusion are making formal credit more accessible? Which assets may be “dud assets” (ex: a piece of land that is not being cultivated) that could be sold to bring down debt burden? Which loans have a repayment structure that adds to the financial stress of the household? Working with the household to arrive at this comprehensive “balance sheet view” seems like an important role of an advisor.

Of course, there are significant challenges in converting advice into action and requires more careful work and business model experimentation. Equally, careful research and creating the building blocks for good advice for low-income households is also necessary and cannot be extensions of existing advice frameworks. The myth that these households have simple problems that require simple fixes & simple products needs to be challenged by researchers and pioneering providers.

31
Jan

All’s well that repays well? Not necessarily.

By Vaishnavi Prathap, IFMR Finance Foundation

The past year has seen many commentaries on the rapid expansion of microfinance in India warning of the imminent consequences of unbalanced growth. The most striking statistic in this context — that the average client’s dues more than doubled in just four years (between 2012 and 2016), far outpacing only moderate growth in numbers of branches, employees or clients, and surely clients’ incomes — was estimated from data that, at best, captures only a large proportion of the microfinance market. While this has triggered ruminations of an emergent repayment crisis, these fears have been tempered on two grounds. First, the enforcement of new regulations since 2012 limit the risk of client over-indebtedness. Second, delinquencies have consistently remained low over the expansionary period, and wherever reports of distress have surfaced, they seem mostly uncorrelated with the sector’s growth rate.

But do these arguments show us the full picture? Considered against primary evidence from the financial diaries of low-income households in India, we find that often they do not. The data, collected by IFMR Finance Foundation during a study supported by the CGAP Customers at the Center Financial Inclusion Research Fund, provides rich detail on the financial lives of borrowers in a competitive and mature microfinance market. It reveals that the indicators cited by both arguments above are poorly correlated with the incidence of over-indebtedness and with the ways in which borrowers experience and cope with repayment distress.

Timely repayments and borrower distress are not mutually exclusive

Aggregated data from lenders’ administrative records, such as delinquency estimates published by credit bureaus, have traditionally served to indicate portfolio quality. When delinquencies are low, it is interpreted as a signal of positive borrower outcomes. However, the repayment record may not fairly represent borrowers’ experiences if lending practices emphasize timely collection above all else.

The financial diaries of over-indebted borrowers illustrate this fact. Of the 400 households we studied, nearly one of every five borrowers reported repayment obligations higher than they could reasonably afford, given their incomes and minimum living expenses. Yet, as many as 85 percent of those over-indebted borrowers never missed a repayment on formal loans, arguably since they had strong incentives (both institutional and social) to do so.

Further, the records submitted to bureaus seldom distinguish between repayments made by the client and payments made by group members on her behalf. Thus, perhaps as an unintended consequence of the design of joint liability, the administrative data reveal few meaningful insights at a sector-level on borrowers’ distress or well-being.

Not consumption smoothing but repayment smoothing

How is it possible for so many borrowers to consistently avoid delinquency while carrying multiple, unaffordable loans? The data suggest they are using several coping mechanisms, such as lowering consumption or postponing essential expenses; raising resources from friends and social networks; and using large formal loans when available to settle old debts, including smaller informal ones accrued in past months. This use of coping mechanisms in the face of shocks is not unlike previously documented evidence. Low-income households use a variety of strategies to insulate their consumption and standard of living from the risk of volatile incomes; alternatively, they try to minimize the impact of income volatility by diversifying their occupations and resources. These strategies have a limited ability to protect households from poverty, and it has been shown that severe or persistent shocks are a major cause for chronic poverty.

The use of coping mechanisms by over-indebted borrowers differed from these practices in one regard — the incidence of coping behavior was highly correlated with the unaffordability of household debt and appeared to revolve around insulating repayments rather than consumption. Borrowers with more unaffordable debt used negative coping mechanisms more often and to a greater degree than others. Their financial behavior was not unlike the expected response to an income or health shock. But in this case, the shock came in the form of multiple non-negotiable loan repayments. Unlike a random occurrence, these “repayment shocks” persisted month after month.

Additionally, not only was the level of debt correlated with distress, but also with certain product features embedded in the loan contract. For example, a subset of borrowers experiencing highly volatile cash flows might have more trouble meeting repayments at certain times of the year. We found that these borrowers, for whom repayments were occasionally unaffordable (when calculated against a given month’s income instead of the average), experienced higher levels of distress, almost on par with those for whom the repayments were almost always unaffordable.

The implication for microlending is that poorly matched repayment schedules and other product features could be just as harmful as too much debt — and more harmful if combined with high levels of debt. This is a critical dimension of the experience of over-indebtedness, yet it is often overlooked.

New lending rules to prevent unsuitable loans

It is evident from the observed level of financial distress that current practices to prevent over-indebtedness are not effective. In fact, critical fault lines in their implementation have created an environment where unsuitable credit remains the primary coping mechanism even for over-indebted borrowers. It is also concerning that they focus heavily on limiting the amount of client debt while ignoring other aspects of borrowers’ cash flows that are significant in mediating financial distress. These include large seasonal or cyclical effects for specific lines of income or, even more generally, total income volatility (the median household in our sample experienced monthly income swings as high as plus or minus 45 percent) as well as large and significant uninsured (but insurable) risks.

Beyond better repayment assessments

Microfinance in India is no longer dominated by monopolistic or mono-product markets. With the licensing of several large lenders as small finance banks, the expectation is now that low-income households will have access to better financial services. This means not only easier access to a wider set of services, but services provided by institutions that are better equipped to respond to low-income households’ primary needs and vulnerabilities.

Many have argued that the continued success of lending to low-income households will require the evolution of robust mechanisms to assess clients’ capacity to deploy credit and manage repayments. By itself, this will not be enough to prevent borrower distress since repayments alone do not signal that a loan is suitable.

Lenders must also adequately detect clients’ cash-flow vulnerabilities and respond to them with appropriate design and service improvements, complementary savings and insurance products, flexible repayment schedules where appropriate, and best practices for delinquency management.

Read the latest version of the paper here. This article first appeared on the CGAP blog.

19
Jan

Guidelines for Suitability in Lending to Low-Income Households

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.