The Financial Inclusion Centre

The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre (FIMC) submitted evidence to The Committee of Public Accounts – often referred to as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – Inquiry into the Government’s use of private finance for infrastructure. The PAC has now published its report Government’s use of private finance for infrastructure

In our submission, we focused on the potential risks and harms for consumers and citizens of using various forms of private finance to fund core physical, green, and social infrastructure. Given our remit, we also focused on the funding of core infrastructure, not the delivery or building of infrastructure. The FIMC submission can be found here: FIMC submission to Public Accounts Committee Inquiry Private Finance Infrastructure final 0425

We argued that it is important to learn the lessons from the failure of the previous PFI regime. The UK economy, public sector, and citizens are still paying the price for that.

The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre (FIMC)* has submitted a response to HM Treasury’s Phase 1 consultation on the reform of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The submission can be found here: HMT CCA phase 1 FIMC submission 0725

This is a very important consultation. Even though consumer credit is now regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the primary legislation still contains some very important consumer protection measures which are at risk of being lost as a result of the reforms. We are very concerned that the Government has sided with the consumer credit industry on removing the sanctions in the CCA.

The current growth and competitiveness agenda means there is a real risk that the FCA will come under pressure to adopt a weaker approach to consumer protection based on the misguided view that this will promote the growth and competitiveness of consumer credit markets and, in turn, help promote economic growth. In this new pro-growth environment, the removal of sanctions as a disciplining force on the consumer credit market is risky.

The Government should also take the opportunity provided by the reforms to improve the responsiveness of the legislative and regulatory system to emerging harm caused by financial innovation. The length of time taken to bring buy now, pay later (BNPL) within the FCA’s remit is a case in point. It is also a good opportunity to address issues relating to county court judgments (CCJs) held on the public Register especially to protect victim-survivors of economic abuse and coerced debt.

*The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre is a new unit of the Financial Inclusion Centre created to focus on: financial services policy and regulation; financial market reform; evaluating the economic, environmental, and social utility of finance; and understanding the implications of the intersection between finance and technology including developments in AI, big data, and other technologies. The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre | The Financial Inclusion Centre

The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre (FIMC) has published a set of proposals to contribute to the Government’s National Financial Inclusion Strategy. The proposals are designed to protect vulnerable consumers and promote financial inclusion and resilience. The proposals can be found here: NFIS strategy FIMC proposals 0425

While we have made progress on some areas of financial inclusion, we have made little or no progress in other key areas. A total of 14 million people have less than £100 in savings.[1] Millions struggle with debt, and can’t afford to purchase or are denied access to the financial products and services they need. Others face adverse pricing practices when using commercial financial services.

The key data on exclusion summarised in the paper suggests that what we are seeing goes beyond market exclusion and is arguably systemic market discrimination.[2]

The lack of progress has left millions vulnerable to financial shocks and unfair market practices. We cannot miss the opportunity provided by the Financial Inclusion Strategy. We cannot afford to wait for the wheels of policymaking to turn slowly. There is no time to lose. We know who is excluded and vulnerable to financial shocks and markets practices, and why.

It is time to fix broken markets so they work better for consumers, not expect consumers to conform to the demands of the market. The sooner policymakers and regulators accept there are millions of consumers the market cannot or will not serve, the better. Alternative solutions and greater support for non-profit providers are needed. Time to turn ideas into action.

The Financial Inclusion and Markets Centre (FIMC) has submitted a response to the FCA’s consultation on the advice/guidance boundary review. We fully support the FCA’s goals outlined in CP24/27 to ensure more consumers get the support they need to produce better financial outcomes. But, we have serious concerns about the FCA’s approach.

The FCA should be congratulated for the significant improvements it has driven through in conduct of business standards in the provision of financial advice. The FCA’s proposals in CP24/27 amount to a weakening of consumer protection and risk reversing the very real progress made. These proposals, if implemented as envisaged, also risk undermining the FCA’s flagship Consumer Duty reforms.

We do appreciate the pressure the FCA is under from government and industry lobbies to redraw the regulatory boundary and to be seen to be delivering on the growth and competitiveness objective. We are concerned that these proposals will undermine the FCA’s primary consumer protection objective without contributing to the objective of helping currently underserved consumers with modest financial assets to receive advice. We urge the FCA to rethink its approach. There are more effective, safer ways to address the challenges identified and deliver better consumer outcomes.

The response can be found here: FCA Advice/Guidance Boundary Review CP24/27

Financial Inclusion Centre has submitted a response to HM Treasury’s consultation on the regulation of buy now, pay later (BNPL) products. We very much welcome the Government’s decision to regulate BNPL and the determination to act quickly.

Our submission can be found here: HMT BNPL Condoc FIC submission 1124 final

As a non-profit organisation which focuses on financially vulnerable consumers and those poorly served by financial services, we have been concerned that these consumers have been left for too long without meaningful consumer protection when using BNPL.

Access to fair, affordable, and sustainable credit that is socially useful and enhances consumer welfare is a critical element of financial inclusion and resilience. We emphasise social utility and enhancing consumer welfare as genuine financial inclusion is more than just about the numbers of consumers potentially having access to credit, or with credit. The fact that consumers can have easy access to certain forms of credit – or, more accurately, can be targeted with certain forms of credit as retail finance is supply side driven not demand led – is not necessarily welfare enhancing. Payday lending was a case in point.

Unregulated or poorly regulated consumer credit can create overconsumption of credit which can undermine consumers’ propensity to save and build financial resilience. If it is too easy to borrow, it can make it hard to save. Overconsumption of credit can result in overindebtedness, leave consumers financially struggling, and exacerbate existing financial vulnerabilities. FCA research has found that adults with characteristics of vulnerability were more likely to report using BNPL, and that 44% of the
most frequent users of BNPL were over-indebted. 1

BNPL is a form of  ‘embedded finance’. Embedded finance exploits the fact that the focus of the consumer is on obtaining the necessary or desired goods and services, not on the utility of the credit which facilitates access to those goods and services. BNPL providers have been very successful at removing any transactional friction that can cause consumers to consider carefully the decisions and choices they make.

It can also have negative impacts on consumer focused competition. It allows well-resourced commercial for-profit credit providers operating to lower regulatory standards to crowd out non-profit community lenders such as credit unions and CDFIs who may be better placed to offer more appropriate credit.

However, we are concerned that the regulation will only cover third party providers of BNPL. We argue the new regime should apply to BNPL generally not limited to third-party lenders. Increasingly, there is a blurring of the lines between finance and technology, and finance, technology, and retail consumer markets (‘embedded finance’ – see above). Yet, the intersection between these markets is poorly regulated. Including only third-party lenders would create an obvious risk that big tech or e-commerce platforms would move into this market and exploit the fact that they did not have to operate to the same standards as regulated providers.

We also argue that, given the risks with embedded finance, the FCA will have to find a way to inject some ‘friction’ into the customer journey to prompt consumers to think carefully about using BNPL before committing to the transaction.

1 Research Note: Deferred Payment Credit

The main financial regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), is reviewing its Handbook of rules and guidance following the introduction of the flagship Consumer Duty initiative. The FCA invited comments on issues including:
• which detailed rules or guidance could be simplified to rely on high-level rules, or
have interactions with other rules which could be clarified
• how any steps to simplify the rules and guidance affect its statutory objectives
• the appropriate balance between high-level and more detailed rules
• the potential benefits and costs from simplifying the rules

Financial Inclusion Centre supports efforts to restructure the FCA Handbook and streamline rules that produce no benefits for consumers and business, as long as consumer protection standards are maintained. But, we are very concerned about the potential risks with this initiative especially as it is happening at the same time as the Advice/ Guidance Boundary and Consumer Credit Act reviews.

Financial services lobby groups are using ‘Trojan Horse’ arguments that current consumer protection standards stifle financial innovation and competition, hinder financial inclusion, and hold back the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector and wider economy.

There is no evidence that current consumer protection standards have these effects. Yet, Government and financial regulators appear sympathetic to industry arguments. Government is pressuring the FCA to do more to support the growth and competitiveness of the UK financial sector.[1] The FCA uses unfortunate phrases such as ‘regulatory burden on business’,[2] which implies the FCA has already decided there is too much regulation even before the Call for Input or other reviews are completed. We are concerned the FCA will come under further pressure during this review to reduce consumer protection standards. We hope the regulator resists this pressure.

[1] Reeves to tell UK financial watchdog to prove it will support growth

[2] Financial regulator seeks to reduce burdens on firms and support growth | FCA

FIC response to this Call for Input can be found here: FCA Streamlining Rules FIC submission October 2024 Final

The Financial Inclusion Centre has submitted a response to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) consultation CP24/16, The Value for Money Framework which has just closed. The summary of our response and full submission can be found here:  FCA consultation on a pensions Value for Money Framework

The overall intention is to enable better scrutiny of value for money in workplace pensions which come under the FCA’s remit. There is a similar initiative for pension schemes which come under The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

Pension arrangements will assessed using this new VFM framework and rated red, amber, or green (RAG). We fully support the intention to ensure people saving for a pension get the best value for money possible. But, we have some serious reservations about the FCA’s approach. The proposed framework could encourage competition on spurious grounds. It threatens to reverse the progress made on reducing investment management costs and as a result risks reducing pension values.

The Financial Inclusion Centre today (10th April 2024) publishes a new report Making an impact or making a return? which evaluates the burgeoning social impact and sustainable finance sector and finds a significant risk of ‘impact washing’.

The summary report can be found here: FIC social impact finance April 2024 summary report The full report can be found here: FIC social impact finance April 2024 full report

The new report sets out six tests (see below) and policy recommendations to address these risks. The tests allow stakeholders to distinguish between finance that prioritises making a positive social impact, sustainable finance that makes a positive impact while making returns, socially harmful finance, and potential impact washing.

The financial sector increasingly tells us it is no longer just about making profits or generating returns for owners and investors; it says it wants to make a positive social impact as well as making financial returns.

This new report concludes that it is too easy for conventional return-maximising finance to masquerade as social impact or sustainable finance and too easy for financial institutions to impact wash activities to bolster reputations. Social impact washing does not get the same attention as its twin, greenwashing.

The lack of robust standards and scrutiny applied to the sector undermines the efforts of those financial institutions that do want to make a real social impact and the integrity of the market generally. Worryingly, the Centre fears the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) flagship sustainable investment label[1] could actually enable impact washing.

The six tests cover: 

Forgoing market returns – To be classified as social impact finance, financial institutions should be willing to forgo market level returns.

The role of corporate welfare – To qualify as social impact or sustainable finance, there should be no corporate welfare involved.[2]

Standards of corporate behaviour – Financial institutions should drive the highest standards of corporate behaviours on social issues such as human rights, fair wages, diversity and inclusion, and working conditions in supply chains, not just meet minimum acceptable standards.

The Do No Harm Principle – Finance should follow the do no harm principle. Finance which produces a positive social impact in one area should not cause harm in another.

Social sector assets – Financing ‘social sector’ or ‘inclusion’ assets (e.g. social care, social housing, education, levelling up, and community lending) should not be automatically classified as social impact or sustainable finance unless the other conditions are met.

Development finance – Domestic or overseas ‘development finance’, such as investing in deprived areas of UK or Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), should not be automatically classified as social impact unless the other tests are met. This applies to catalytic and blended finance.

Malcolm Hurlston, Chairman of The Financial Inclusion Centre said: ‘Many investors want their money to make a difference as well as give them a return. The six tests set out in this report will help them invest with confidence.’

Mick McAteer, Co-Director of The Financial Inclusion Centre said: ‘If the history of finance tells us anything it is that harm follows the money. The growth of the sustainable finance market increases the risk of impact washing. With these new tests, impact washing can be spotted more easily by stakeholders.’

For further information please contact Mick McAteer on mick.mcateer@inclusioncentre.org.uk

Ends

Notes to editors

The policy recommendations are:

• The FCA should have a clear strategy for combatting social impact washing separate from greenwashing. Social impact should have its own specific sustainability label.
• The asset minimum to attract an FCA social sustainability label should be the 80% threshold used in other major financial jurisdictions.
• Robust social impact standards should be rapidly rolled out to other financial activities, not limited to investment funds.
• A comply or explain approach is not sufficient. Firms should be required to choose from an approved list of benchmarks when making claims about social impact or sustainability.
• The FCA’s labelling regime provides firms with too much leeway to mark their own homework on compliance. Civil society organisations should develop a ‘gold standard’ for financial and corporate behaviours on social issues. Compliance with this gold standard should be independently verified.
• UK policymakers should develop a regime to allow evaluation of offshore and overseas funds given the international nature of finance based in the UK.
• UK policymakers should consult with civil society organisations to develop a similar framework and tests for development finance, catalytic and blended finance targeted overseas.

[1]  Sustainability disclosure and labelling regime | FCA

[2] Corporate welfare includes financial commitments being deregulated, ‘de-risked’, or incentivised by governments and others such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

The FCA’s Financial Lives Survey is a great research resource for researchers and campaigners working on financial inclusion and economic and social justice issues. There are some incredibly worrying findings in the reports.

Financial Lives 2022: Key findings from the FCA’s Financial Lives May 2022 survey

We have seen real progress on reducing the number of people without access to a basic transactional bank account and increasing the numbers contributing to a pension. These successes were down to effective campaigns for legislation, not market based solutions. But, more generally, we have made little progress in building financial resilience and inclusion post the 2008 financial crisis.

This failure to build financial resilience has left millions of people very vulnerable when economic crises happen. We’ve seen this recently with the Covid-related economic crisis followed in short order by the cost of living crisis. Can we learn the lessons from previous failures to help people build financial resilience against future economic shocks, which will surely happen?

Let’s look at some of the stand out findings.

• 9 million people had low financial resilience in May 2022-an increase of one million since February 2020.
• 9 million said they were not coping financially or were finding it difficult to cope.
• 9 million either had no disposable income or had seen their disposable income decrease.
• 44% of minority ethnic adults said the amount of debt they owed on credit products increased in the 6 months to January 2023, compared with 27% of adults not in minority ethnic groups.
• Minority ethnic group adults were over 1.5 times more likely in January 2023 (52%) to say they were not coping financially or finding it difficult to cope, compared with adults not in minority ethnic groups (33%).
• More Black adults (44%) had low financial resilience than the national average of 24%.
• Black adults were twice as likely as the national average to have high-cost credit or loans (20% vs. 10%).
• Black adults (16%) were over twice as likely to be in financial difficulty than White adults (7%).
• Fewer Black (53%) and Asian (52%) adults had a savings account than White adults (74%).
• 32% of minority ethnic group adults had no general insurance policies compared with just 13% of adults not in minority ethnic groups.

Those findings on the situation facing minority ethnic groups show us that this is more than an issue of financial inclusion – it is an economic and social justice issue.

Let’s face it, the main cause of low levels of financial resilience and high levels of financial exclusion is poverty. But, we have also just failed to implement policies/ interventions to build inclusion/ resilience. Why is that? There are several key reasons.

The scale of low levels of financial resilience, financial exclusion and discrimination is determined by three main factors = economic (poverty/ low or irregular incomes)+supply side factors (how the market operates)+demand side (eg. low levels of financial capability, lack of consumer confidence and trust and so on). For a fuller explanation see:

Essay – Rethinking consumer policy theory | The Financial Inclusion Centre

Tackling the primary cause, poverty, is a matter for governments. But, there is much that could be done through regulation to make markets more inclusive. However, our system of financial regulation isn’t geared up to tackle financial exclusion/ discrimination.

Policymakers take the view that it should be up to the market to decide whether consumers should be provided with products and services, and on what terms. The FCA is a market regulator, not a social policy regulator. It doesn’t have the mandate to require firms to serve consumers who are not economically viable. With the exception of people having a legal right of access to a basic bank account, we generally don’t have universal service obligations in financial services. Nor do we have anything like the US Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which imposes obligations on financial institutions to support inclusion initiatives.

But, despite the limitations placed on the FCA, the regulator could do more to tackle exclusion and discrimination. It could use effective interventions like product regulation to make financial services more efficient and bring down prices so making products more affordable. It could use the forthcoming Consumer Duty to ensure that firms treat people fairly and remove barriers to inclusion.

The FCA could do much more to expose the degree of financial exclusion and discrimination and hold firms to account. As mentioned, Financial Lives is a great resource. It provides useful data on how many people hold financial products. But, we don’t have anything like the levels of disclosure and transparency provided through the CRA. We argue that the FCA should:

• produce regular financial inclusion audits assessing the performance of the industry (and sectors) against financial inclusion metrics with a special focus on households with protected characteristics;
• report to Parliament and government on the extent to which commercial financial services is able to meet the needs of vulnerable and excluded groups (especially those with protected characteristics) and on the impact of policy decisions on financial inclusion – for example, changes to the Universal Credit system; and
• require firms to produce financial inclusion audits.

However, even if the FCA did make financial services as efficient as possible, there would still be a cohort of consumers that commercial for-profit financial providers cannot serve. We need alternative, non-profit solutions for the most excluded. Indeed, a thriving non-profit sector could benefit all consumers, not just excluded or marginalised consumers.

Civil society and the non-profit financial sector has had some success in providing alternatives to the for-profit commercial sector. Yet, this is nowhere near enough. Why is this the case? It is not as if we are short of good ideas. Ever since The Financial Inclusion Centre was set up in 2007, the same debates and ideas have come round time and time again. Even with the advent of fintech/ big data, the same basic ideas are promulgated.

But, what we have failed to do is bring these good ideas to underserved households. For example, credit union payroll savings schemes are clearly effective at helping low-medium income workers build financial resilience. Getting Workforces Savings-Payroll Savings with Credit Unions | The Financial Inclusion Centre We need to expand the number of employers offering payroll schemes.

Similarly, credit union deduction lending schemes (whether through payroll or social security) are effective at providing people with affordable loans. New research shows deduction lending adds up for low income borrowers and lenders | The Financial Inclusion Centre These need to be rolled out to meet the need for fair and affordable credit.

For the most part, exclusion is a question of distribution. Good products aren’t much help if they sit on the shelf and don’t reach those who need them. We need to turn ideas into action.