Ramesh S Arunachalam
My travels through Eastern UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh have taught me several things and I have written them up below:
a) The
seriously flawed MFI operational model
is in full flow in these areas and is being implemented by many MFIs including those that have
a banking license. Let us make no mistake about that! And having seen things
for myself on the ground at close quarters, I am unwilling to buy arguments provided by my
friends sitting, mostly in Delhi or Mumbai or Hyderabad...
b) The
centre leader/group leader/equivalent is the most common type of agent, who
plays a very pivotal role in the entire credit disbursement and recovery
process. As a result, KYC is provided by these agents is and will be as good as
these agents deem it fit.A detailed post on the agent will be provided separately!
c) In
overall terms, the same DISRUPTIVE MFI practices that were prevalent in (erstwhile)
Andhra Pradesh in terms of multiple lending, ghost lending, proxy lending,
staff loans, frauds by staff and so on are prevalent as also strong arm tactics
for recovery, which, in my opinion appears even more serious than it was in
Andhra Pradesh.
d) In
fact, a TRULY independent VALIDATION of the credit bureau data with ground
level data should be immediately conducted in an EXHAUSTIVE manner across the
three states. Sample studies will not help and an exhaustive enumeration and
validation of the credit bureau data by a completely independent team of people
will close the debate, once and for all, on whether what happens on the ground
is indeed reflected in what is there in the credit bureau. In my humble
opinion, there is a lot that the credit bureau’s are missing in terms of actual
action on the ground...
e) We need to understand what are the causative factors that have led to the stupendous growth in loan volumes in these areas and on what basis these increases in loans have occurred? We also need to understand why and how multiple, ghost, proxy lending have increased? Likewise, the burgeoning use of agents and increase in coercive recovery practices in the MFI model will also have to be better understood!
f) With all due respect, so
much for the tiered regulation and supervision that came from the Malegam
Committee Report (MCR)...As I told the regulators/supervisors then, written about it later and also communicated to the Hon Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, the MCR proposed a regulatory/supervisory structure that SIMPLY cannot work on the
ground. I have not seen any serious regulatory activity/supervision on the ground either by the regulator/supervisor
and/or by others including the banks/SROs. As I
have always mentioned, self-regulation is an OXY MORON. Period. If people want
to satisfy their conscience with the presence of SRO’s, so be it but SROs by
virtue of being member associations have an innate conflict of interest. We
need to recognise that, deal with this issue and make appropriate alternative arrangements!
g) My
observation of the KYC practices in these areas is that it is extremely poor
and primarily so because agents provide whatever KYC they can lay their hands
on...I have dead peoples’ KYC details that were given for some proxy loans taken...and there is much more on KYC which I will post separately on...MFIs
are captives with these NOTORIOUS agents who, as they did in (esrtwhile) Andhra Pradesh,
can move clients around from one MFI to another and also get clients to just
disappear from an MFI’s radar...at the blink of an eye lid!
h) Digital
financial inclusion is at best limited to remittances/payments and the infrastructure
for the same is very, very poor as we travel the real rural interiors in
Eastern UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. This is also true of much of rural India. I would be very worried in using digital
financial inclusion for SAVINGS - especially, given the nature of the lower level intermediaries
involved and the (lack of) controls prevalent therein - both of these constitute a huge risk to peoples’ money including public deposits. At best, digital
financial inclusion can be an urban/peri-urban phenomenon and work among the younger
mobile/internet savvy population, where ever they exist. Pilots of course can
showcase DIGITAL FINANCIAL INCLUSION in great measure among any population/context but
the ability to scale up these (in a commercial manner) will be limited to younger mobile/internet savvy population,
where ever they exist. This is especially true in India, where the DIGITAL
divide is still huge, especially when you travel to remote rural areas, both
due to poor infrastructure as well as ability of clients to use these. A
separate FULL post on DIGITAL FINANCIAL INCLUSION will be put up soon but
let us not make the mistake and think that branchless banking and digital financial inclusion
will help bring “lasting and sustainable financial inclusion” to the excluded
and poor clients in these areas. For this, we need to be clear on the facts...as
enumerated below
So long friends! Stay tuned for more updates!
No comments:
Post a Comment