- Good prudential practice dictates that Saccos secure every loan taken out by its members, which means the decision on loan security is a business or operational decision more than it is a legal one.
- There have been several policy developments in the credit market in Kenya, enabling lenders, including Saccos, to use additional collateral besides guarantors.
Isn’t this script familiar? You and your colleague belong to Sacco X. Your colleague is in dire need of a loan, but he needs a few of his ‘friends’ to guarantee this loan for him. You as ‘a friend’ are approached to sign off the guarantor documents or form and you gladly do so.
A few monthly repayments later, your colleague is laid off and as a result, he defaults. You find yourself saddled with a new, debilitating liability, as you now must repay the residual loan on behalf of your colleague based on debt or loan recovery procedures provided for by the Sacco.
The above scenario is a common occurrence in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which according to data from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), has put over 740,000 million Kenyans out of work.
The situation has been exacerbated by the many salaried workers who have had to endure pay cuts and furloughs. Worse still, very few jobs are being created in the current context to accommodate those rendered jobless in the Covid-19 aftermath.
Traditionally, the deployment of guarantors has been popular among Saccos as a tool for providing security for their various loans. Good prudential practice dictates that Saccos secure every loan taken out by its members, which means the decision on loan security is a business or operational decision more than it is a legal one.
The law only requires Saccos to put in place mechanisms for loan loss although we are seeing an upsurge of other forms of collateral being used as security for the members of the loan take from their Saccos.
Based on the principle of the “common bond,” a key principle of the cooperative movement, it has always been easy for members to guarantee each other, as colleagues, as a way of providing security for the loan borrowed. Since a majority of the employees know one another, there is always a way of influencing each other to pay through moral persuasion or peer pressure at the workplace.
But this Sacco and member ecosystem is fast changing. For starters, the wall of exclusivity has been brought down following the opening of the “common bond” by most Saccos, thereby opening the membership beyond one employer or even ministry, in the case of most employee-based Saccos.
Inevitably, the concept of collegiality and knowledge of one another is gradually being eroded. Secondly, with a few Saccos adopting the banking-like FOSA (front office service activity) model, they now have, not just improved organisational capability and diversified product and service portfolios, but access to additional options for loan security, including incomes received through the FOSA and immovable assets.
Thirdly, there have been several policy developments in the credit market in Kenya, enabling lenders, including Saccos, to use additional collateral besides guarantors. Notable is the legal framework for the sharing of credit information and the Immovable Assets Collateral Registry, all of which provides Saccos with new ways to put in place securities while underwriting loans to their members.
The fifth factor is the evolution of digital loans, which are on-demand products created because of partnerships between Saccos and fin-techs. Through these partnerships, which are already happening in our market, Saccos can collect, collate, and analyse mobile financial transaction data as a basis for assessing the creditworthiness of borrowers.
The x3, x4 or x5 deposit-based lending model that is popular with Saccos in Kenya almost gives the member a sense of entitlement to a loan. Unfortunately, some members save with the sole purpose of borrowing, regardless of the potential risk of the possibility of changed financial circumstances in future, and if they can raise the required number of guarantors.
On the other hand, Saccos will lend, taking comfort in the debt recovery policy which among other measures has the list of guarantors as an option for this recovery process. At times loan processing and disbursement is done without proper due diligence on the borrower’s repayment capacity.
In other cases, members’ verification isn’t done, and signatures are used without their consent, making the guarantor system subject to abuse by both the borrower-member and the Sacco.
How do we make guarantorship efficient so that it works better for the Sacco, the member, the guarantor, and the entire credit market? Adequate education of members of their rights and obligations and putting in place adequate redress mechanisms is inevitable.
Guarantors should not be used as a substitute for thorough credit risk assessment of a borrower, but as a supplement to and after the latter. It should also be applied together with other formal collateral, especially in Saccos where the “common bond” has been opened. Many Saccos limit the number of loans one can guarantee, which is a good practice.
Guarantors would be more empowered if they had access to the repayment history of the borrower, including credit reference bureau (CRB) reports before they put pen to paper.
This means the onus is members during their annual general meetings to make it mandatory for members to gain access to their credit history prior to signing off loan application forms as their guarantors. There is a huge opportunity for Saccos in the deployment of data and credit referencing reports to evaluate the creditworthiness of a borrower, both positive and negative elements.
The future of the credit market lies in risk-based lending and Saccos must adapt to this reality. Saccos must also embrace the use of CRBs and credit information sharing mechanisms as an additional tool for assessment aside from their existing approved policies.
Njuguna is the chief executive officer, Sacco Societies Regulatory Authority (Sasra)