Irresponsible Lending?: A Case Study of a U.K. Credit Industry Reform Initiative

There are major concerns about the level of personal borrowing, particularly sourced from credit cards. This paper charts the progress of an initiative to create a Responsible Lending Index (RLI) for the credit industry. The RLI proposed to voluntarily benchmark lending standards and promote best practice within the credit industry by involving suppliers of credit, customer representatives and regulators. However, despite initial support from some banks, consumer bodies and the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, it failed to gain sufficient support from financial institutions in its original format. The primary reasons for this were related to the complexity of building such a robust index and the banks trade body’s fear of exposing its members to public scrutiny. A revised alternative, the Responsible Lending Initiative, was proposed which took into account these concerns. However, the Association of Payment Clearing Service (APACS), the trade body of the credit industry, then effectively destroyed the proposal. This article describes an attempt to address the challenges in the credit card industry with the initiation of the RLI, reflected in stakeholder discourse and in the context of a wider concern expressed by the involved stakeholders in terms of the need for greater responsibility in the banking industry’s lending practices.

Consumer protection in the banking sector : reviewing the Code of Banking Practice

This article explains the relevance of the Code and its place in the regulatory framework, discusses some of the key issues arising in the recent review (as identified by consumer advocates1), and explains the relationship between the Code and the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Phase two of the National Credit Reforms : examining the regulation of payday lenders

This study seeks to analyse the adequacy of the current regulation of the payday lending industry in Australia, and consider whether there is a need for additional regulation to protect consumers of these services. The report examines the different regulatory approaches adopted in comparable OECD countries, and reviews alternative models for payday regulation, in particular, the role played by responsible lending. The study also examines the consumer protection mechanisms now in existence in Australia in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (NCCP) and the National Credit Code (NCC) contained in Schedule 1 of that Act and in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

Regulating the cost of small loans : overdue or overkill?

Small-amount short-term lending began in 1994 in response to the initial exemption of such loans from consumer credit regulation. Growing demand for such loans now produces industry turnover of approximately $800 million each year. Regulators recognised early the need for consumer protection due to the vulnerability of borrowers and the emergence of various predatory practices. This led to reforms designed to regulate these loans, prevent particular misconduct and provide remedies against injustice. Some were enacted as part of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), which also imposed licensing and responsible lending requirements on lenders and increased consumer access to remedies. The Government has now introduced the Consumer Credit and Corporations Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 which limits the price that can be charged for credit and restricts access to small loans. This article examines the extensive reforms which have taken place in this sector, and compares these regulatory approaches with the “bright line approach” of the Enhancements Bill. The article argues that the repercussions of this step will require careful monitoring to ensure that further harm is not suffered by those least able to bear it, and that the government will also need to facilitate other, more sustainable, solutions to the problem that small loans are currently used to solve. After we wrote this article, the Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services and the Report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on the Enhancements Bill were released. These are referred to in a postscript.

Towards Better Use of Credit Reporting in Europe. CEPS-ECRI Task Force Report, September 2013

This report discusses how the current EU credit reporting systems meet the demands of the different stakeholders in the credit granting and management process, and what is needed to improve these systems. As credit reporting is a tool for responsible lending and for ensuring financial inclusion of consumers, it argues that the needs of EU credit markets and consumers should be the basis for assessing the current regulation and its functionality. How a creditor assesses the risk and the creditworthiness of a customer is at the core of successful and safe crediting. Facilitating this assessment process, within the boundaries of data protection laws, is a key building block for making well-informed credit decisions.

Is providing micro-credit social responsible?

Micro-finance, which includes micro-credit as one it its services, has become big business with a range of models – from those that operate on a strictly business basis to those who come from a philanthropic base, through Non Government organisations (NGOs). Success is often measured by the numbers involved and the repayment rates – which are very high, largely because of the lending models used. The purpose of this paper is to identify whether the means used to deliver micro-credit services to the poor are socially responsible. This paper will explore the range of models currently used and propose a model that addresses some of the social responsibility issues that appear to plague delivery. The model is being developed in Beira, the second largest city in Mozambique. Mozambique exhibits many of the characteristics found in other African countries, so the model, if successful, may have implications for other poor African nations.

Comparing "socially responsible" and "sustainable" commercial property investment

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set out to explore the similarities and differences between jargon used to describe future-focussed commercial building product. This is not so much an exercise in semantics as an attempt to demonstrate that responses to challenges facing the construction and property sectors may have more to do with language than is generally appreciated. Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual analysis which draws upon relevant literature. Findings – Social responsibility and sustainability are often held to be much the same thing, with each term presupposing the existence of the other. Clearly, however, there are incidences where sustainable commercial property investment (SCPI) may not be particularly socially responsible, despite being understood as an environmentally friendly initiative. By contrast, socially responsible assets, at least in theory, should always be more sustainable than mainstream non-ethically based investment. Put simply, the expression of social responsibility in the built environment may evoke, and thereby deliver, a more sustainable product, as defined by wider socially inclusive parameters. Practical implications – The findings show that promoting an ethic of social responsibility may well result in more SCPI. Thus, the further articulation and celebration of social responsibility concepts may well help to further advance a sustainable property investment agenda, which is arguably more concerned about demonstrability of efficiency than wider public good outcomes. Originality/value – The idea that jargon affects outcomes is not new. However, this idea has rarely, if ever, been applied to the distinctions between social responsibility and sustainability. Even a moderate re-emphasis on social responsibility in preference to sustainability may well provide significant future benefits with respect to the investment, building and refurbishment of commercial property.

Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian Contexts

This article surveys literature bearing on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders, with a particular focus on comparing different approaches to dealing with the issue in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about the “punitive turn” in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. Our findings suggest that there are significant differences in the manner and extent to which Australia and Canada have invoked parental responsibility laws and policies as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. We conclude by speculating on some of the reasons for these differences and establishing an agenda for additional needed cross-jurisdictional research. In particular, we argue that it would be fruitful to undertake a cross-jurisdictional study that examines the development and effects of parental responsibility laws across a larger number of different Western countries as well as across individual states and provinces within these national jurisdictions.

Preventing consumer credit over-commitment and irresponsible lending in Australia

Mirroring the trends in other developed countries, levels of household debt in Australia have risen markedly in recent years. As one example, the total amount lent by banks to individuals has risen from $175.5 billion in August 1995 to $590.5 billion in August 2005.1 Consumer groups an~ media commentators here have long raised concerns about the risks of increasing levels of household debt and over-commitment, linking these issues at least in part to irresponsible lending practices. And more recently, the Reserve Bank Governor has also expressed concerns about the ability 'of some households to manage if personal or economic circumstances change.2

“Show me a bad kid and I’ll show you a lousy parent” : making parents responsible for youth crime in Australian and Canadian contexts

In this article we survey relevant international literature on the issue of parental liability and responsibility for the crimes of young offenders. In addition, as a starting point for needed cross-jurisdictional research, we focus on different approaches that have been taken to making parents responsible for youth crime in Australia and Canada. This comparative analysis of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches is situated within a broader discussion of arguments about parental responsibility, the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. One unexpected finding of our literature survey is the relatively sparse attention given to the issue of parental responsibility for youth crime in legal and criminological literature compared to the attention it receives in the media and popular-public culture. In Part I we examine the different views that have been articulated in the social science literature for and against parental responsibility laws, along with arguments that have been made about why such laws have been enacted in an increasing number of Western countries in recent years. In Part II, we situate our comparative study of Australian and Canadian legislative and policy approaches within a broader discussion of arguments about the ‘punitive turn’ in youth justice, responsibilisation, and cross-jurisdictional criminal justice policy transfer and convergence. In Part III, we identify and examine the scope of different parental responsibility laws that have been enacted in Australia and Canada; noting significant differences in the manner and extent to which parental responsibility laws and policies have been invoked as part of the solution to dealing with youth crime. In our concluding discussion, in Part IV, we try to speculate on some of the reasons for these differences and set an agenda for needed future research on the topic.

The aesthetico-ethical subject : another narrative about being ethically responsible

This paper builds on work I presented at the PESA conference in 2007, which moved through both aesthetic and ethical theory to generate a new theory of creative integrity around the issues of autonomy, agency and authenticity. This preliminary theorizing had its origins in my undergraduate ethics classroom where I was confronted with advertising students who resisted the idea of being taught ethics, along with all the philosophical ethical theories traditionally used to do this.

Socially responsible investment in market downturns : implications for the fiduciary responsibilities of investment fund trustees

This paper investigates whether Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is more or less sensitive to market downturns than conventional investment, and examines the legal implications for fund managers and trustees. Using a market model methodology, we find that over the past 15 years, the beta risk of SRI, both in Australia and internationally, increased more than that of conventional investment during economic downturns. This implies that companies acting as fund trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers risk breaching their fiduciary or statutory duties if they go long - or remain long - in SRI funds during market downturns, unless perhaps relevant legislation is reformed. If reform is viewed as desirable, possible reforms could include explicitly overriding the common law to allow all traditional funds to invest in SRI; granting immunity to directors of trustee companies from potential personal liability under sections 197 or 588G et seq of the Corporations Act; allowing companies acting as trustees, managed investment schemes and traditional institutional fund managers and trustees to invest in SRI without triggering a substantial capital gains tax liability through trust resettlement; tax concessions for SRI (eg. introducing a 150% tax deduction or investment allowance for SRI); and allowing SRI sub-funds to obtain “deductible gift recipient” status or the equivalent from relevant taxation authorities. The research is important and original insofar as the assessment of risk in SRIs during market downturns is an area which has hitherto not been subjected to rigorous empirical investigation, despite its serious legal implications.