VERANTWORTLICHE KREDITVERGABE - Ausschluss aus dem Banksystem, hochpreisige Kredite und Wuchergrenzen –unappetitlichen Kreditpraktiken in Großbritannien (Report DOOD) (Report in englisch) Handelt es sich in Großbritannien bei den unappetitlichen Kreditpraktiken gegenüber ärmeren Verbrauchern bei Provident nur um ein Outsourcing von Großbanken? Neuer Report von DOOD erschienen. England hat keine Wuchergrenzen. Zinssätze über 200% sind keine Seltenheit. Statt des Überziehungskredites gibt es dort sog. Lohnzahlungskredite (Payday Loans), die kurzfristige Engpässe hochpreisig überbrücken. Ein anderes Mittel sind die sehr teuren Kreditkartenkredite, wo zudem ein Kredit den anderen ablöst und der Überblick verloren geht. Die Banken haben sich aus dem Geschäft scheinbar zurückgezogen. Die Regierung argumentiert, dass solche nach deutschen Maßstäben wucherischen Kredite notwendig seien, weil die Armen sonst keinen Kredit mehr bekämen. Die EU-Kommission will dies europaweit so haben, weil Wuchergrenzen den freien Markt einengten. Eine Untersuchung der englischen Initiative „Schulden an der Haustür“, die von über 300 Organisationen u.a. z.B. OXFAM gebildet wird, legt die Vermutung nahe, dass die großen Finanzdienstleister durchaus in diesem Segment präsent sind, ihr Geld dort verwertet wird und sie sogar noch an den Erträgen direkt partizipieren. Damit stellt sich die Frage, ob es überhaupt um die Frage geht, wer die Ausgeschlossenen bedient sondern ob es nicht nur darum geht, wie sie bedient werden sollen, weil die Akteure letztlich doch in allen Ländern dieselben sind. Mehr dazu in dem englischen Report von DOOD. The English non-bank Provident is lending to low income people credit at rates above 100% APR. Such credit would not be allowed in most continental European states who have usury ceilings at about 18% p.A. maximum. The English government argues that usury ceilings would lead to the exclusion of the poor. This opinion is shared by the EU DG Market. In its attempt to liberalize the European consumer credit market it supports the idea that usury ceilings are an obstacle to free trade and should be removed on the continent. It has therefore sued Italy for protectionist rate ceilings. Empirical data (in so far not correctly cited in the reports for the English government) assume that countries with strict usury ceilings have the lowest exclusion rate while those without the highest. While in the UK and the USA poor people who need credit to bridge the relatively short time to the next payments of their employer or welfare office have to refer to so-called “payday loans” who accordingly to a Canadian survey can only be profitable at rate above 200% p.A. or who use credit card credit at rates close to 29% p.A. on the European continent overdraft credit on bank accounts secure the supply of these people at rates around 10% p.A. still including them into their system and prohibiting that one debtor gets lost in the number of creditors he or she has to serve. Member states of the EU therefore tend to keep poor consumers within the official banking system. While France and Belgium have an obligation to open bank accounts for everyone German banks have passed a selfbinding rule. As these rules are seemingly not sufficient the German government announced that this rules will be made binding as it is already the case for half of the market where public savings banks are extending credit. Besides the Netherlands has just lowered its usury rates, Poland has introduced such a rate thus following Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and the Scandinavian states. DOOD who critically comments the enormous cost burden on poor borrowers in the UK has now revealed that the assumption big banks do not serve the poor seems to be wrong. Their data assume that high price lenders are somehow outsourced business where major banks still profit but do not want to be connected to it. Here is the report In 2004, Provident made payments totalling £87 million to their shareholders. The largest shareholders were identified in the Annual Report as detailed in the table below. We have calculated the % of the £87 million received by each shareholder according to their stake in the company. This assumes that each shareholder maintained the level of shareholding in the company at the same level throughout the year. SHAREHOLDER % shares £m Prudential plc 10,77 9,3699 Fidelity International 8,18 7,1166 Capital Group 5,05 4,3935 Schroder Investment Mgt 3,84 3,3408 Newton Investment Mgt 3,70 3,219 Marathin Asset Mgt 3,64 3,1668 Bailie Gifford & Co. 3,17 2,7579 JP Morgan Fleming A.M 3,04 2,6448 Further analysis of Capital Group As at 16th Feb 2006, the shareholdings in Capital Group were increased to 11.25% providing for payments of £9.78 million in shareholder dividends based on 2004 payouts. Capital Group is an investment company in which several major banks hold shares as follows; HSBC (incl. Midland) 6.98% RBS/Natwest 5.74% DeutscheBank 4.1% Assuming the share dividend of 9.78 million is split according to current holdings in Capital Group then HSBC are set to benefit by £683,534 and RBS Natwest by £561,752. Holdings in Fidelity Investments on the same basis would net a further £212,000 for RBS and £82,000 for HSBC. ID: 36907 Autor(en): iff Erscheinungsdatum: 27.02.06

World Partner       EU-Partner

Erzeugt: 27.02.06. Letzte Änderung: 18.04.06.
Information zum Urheberrecht der angezeigten Inhalte kann beim Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen erfragt werden. Aus fehlenden Angaben kann kein Recht zur freien Nutzung der Inhalte abgeleitet werden.