After years of indulgence by policymakers — including the Reserve Bank and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority — the buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) sector in Australia is finally facing regulation after the penny dropped that a credit service pretending not to be one was a deeply flawed business model and highly damaging to consumers and small retailers.
Yesterday Treasury released an options paper for the sector in response to a directive from the government, which has abandoned the reckless indulgence of buy-now-pay-later that characterised the Morrison government in favour of trying to address its harms.
This is a case of regulation playing a great deal of catch-up to a sector that markets have already worked out is at worst a scam and at best a credit product that takes advantage of credit law loopholes to offer money with very poor lending standards — and we know where that leads.
That’s why Block, owner of Afterpay, is worth half what it was in March. That’s why Klarna, European owner of the other big BNPL service, announced a dramatically higher loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in August. The Commonwealth Bank suffered a paper loss of A$2.4 billion on its 5.5% stake in Klarna — it invested early in the European model in preparation of being the Klarna-in-chief in this country. That’s why the owner of Zip Pay was worth over $5 a share at the start of the year and 78 cents now.
This saga of a dizzying surge in the value of BNPL companies before 2022 brought a multibillion-dollar reckoning has been played out to the prattle of inane cheerleading of “disruption” and “game-changing” from outlets like The Australian Financial Review and politicians looking to differentiate their political product.
But the Treasury paper outlines a long list of harms inflicted by the sector:
- The lack of lending standards means people who shouldn’t be borrowing face financial stress and hardship — in many cases when other more traditional forms of credit, that come with higher lending standards, have been exhausted
- The sector has poor complaints-handling processes and they provide little or no hardship assistance for consumers
- Lenders charge excessive fees for the size of loans
- Their product disclosure standards are poor and there are few warnings
- They rely on unsolicited selling and advertising to drive borrowing
- They fail to provide reverse-charging provisions when goods are returned
- They raise maximum credit limits unsolicited, to encourage borrowers.
But the harms of the BNPL sector go beyond those inflicted on consumers. We all subsidise the sector, courtesy of the Reserve Bank’s refusal to prevent it from imposing a prohibition on merchants using the service from charging the costs of BNPL to those using it. That means we all pay for it instead — as Treasury puts it:
There are also concerns that merchant fees are being built into the prices of goods and services in general — even when they are purchased by persons not using BNPL. What this means is that some of the cost of using a BNPL product may be transferred to non-BNPL consumers who are partially absorbing a merchant’s additional costs for participating in BNPL.
Which means that in addition to enabling people to borrow to spend who would not otherwise have been able to borrow, the BNPL sector has been doing its own little bit to add to inflation for all of us.
Treasury suggests three alternatives for regulation — more of the kind of light-touch regulation that the sector has been exploiting for years, but with a requirement for checking creditworthiness, or a requirement for BNPL companies to hold an Australian credit licence, which would subject them to some of the requirements of other credit providers, or changing the Credit Act to bring BNPL services fully into the credit regulatory regime, meaning BNPL services would be regulated similarly to other credit providers.
The final option is the only credible one. BNPL is credit — poorly regulated, with bad lending standards, but it is credit, no matter what furphies or loopholes the sector exploits, and it should be regulated like other forms of credit. In reality it is little better than the parasitic payday-lending sector. Markets have worked out what this sector really is. When will governments?
Is buy-now-pay-later a convenience or a con? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
What should be investigated more forensically is the role played in the staving off of regulation for so long by option-incentivised, and thus highly dubious, ‘lobbyists’ with deep historical connections to both sides of politics. To take just the egregious Afterpay case…your David Gazards, Jon Epsteins, Sharon McCrohans, Sue Catos, Brett Cleggs…a bunch of these types made a lot of money out of what was essentially a whopping great pump n’ dump financial Ponzi, really.
At what point does contracted lobbying become self-interested, bad faith grifting? (I say this as an occasional minor league lobbyist.)
PS: Your own Stephen Mayne, OTOH, was re: Afterpay mefinx less grifter, more simple duped rube. Hope he didn’t buy in at $160!
chortle 🙂
Good thing. How come its taken till now? Have the pollies lifted the cost of their bribes? Grifters refusing to pay the new rates?
Wish I knew what the secret, behind the scenes shenanigans are.
Please add gambling to the list of find what is going on behind the scenes shenanigans. Can we be the highest Gambling country by chance, or is it pure form?
Regulation will, thankfully, be the death of the industry.
Compliance with the requirements of holding an Australian Credit License will erase whatever tiny profit margins are left: having dedicated Internal and External Dispute Resolution staff and policies, which have to comply with various Acts, including the Nat’l Consumer Credit Protection Act, The Corporations Act, all the ASIC Regulatory Guides….
Then there’s the costs involved in being a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) – which a firm must have as part of its ACL… AFCA is a free service to the consumer, paid for by its members, on the basis of how many disputes they generate.
BNPLs are just debt buyers – they pay 95% of the purchase price of an item, then have to recover 100%. that’s not a profit – debt buyers typically buy bad debts for 60 cents in the dollar, sometimes less, and they still go out of business every year… several BNPLs’ main source of income was exorbitant fees for late payment and “account management”…
it must die, it must die.