Credit-Reporting Institutional Arrangements

Institutional forms for credit-reporting arrangements around the world include both public credit registries administered by central banks and private credit-reporting firms of varied ownership structure. A survey conducted by the World Bank between 1999 and 2001 covers both private firms that specialize in credit data from banks and other financial intermediaries as well as firms that specialize in trade credit, which is typically the most important source of external finance for small businesses. The survey reveals that public and private credit registers are present in a large number of developed and emerging market economies throughout the world (see Miller 2003). Forty-one countries have public credit registers, 44 countries have private credit bureaus, and many have both types. Table 10.1 summarizes the pros and cons of different types of private credit registries and public registries. Подпись: 10Quality of the Data Collected and Distributed

The quality and scope of the credit data collected and used is critical to establishing a sound credit-reporting system. The heart of a credit report is the record of the payment history of a consumer or a firm, which summarizes types of loans, current and past, from different creditors and their amounts, including past due amounts and past due history. The following summarizes the key recommendations with respect to the credit-reporting system, drawing on country practices:

Table 10.1. Institutional Arrangements for Private Credit Registries

Institutional Type



Private firm with no bank ownership

• All types of data

• Independence

• No automatic access to data

Private firm with bank ownership

• All types of data

• Special access to specific bank data

• Independence may be questioned

Bank association

• Access to bank data

• Integrity

• Only bank data and bank access

Chamber of Commerce

• Retail and nonbank data

• Broad cover

• Historical record

• No bank data

• Limited funds for modernization

Commercial and credit insurance firms

• In-depth data on commercial sector

• Limited coverage

• High cost per entry

Industry-specific databases

• In-depth data on single sector

• Limited scope—cannot cross-check data

Public ownership such as a central bank

• Automatic access to credit data

• Only bank data

Source: Miller (2003).

• The credit information database should be an open system rather than a closed network. Majority ownership by a limited group of lenders will discourage a broader database.

• It is advisable to collect both positive and negative information instead of nega­tive information only. In this way, responsible borrowers can document good credit histories and can build their “reputation collateral.” A borrower’s good name or reputation collateral provides an incentive to meet commitments much the same way as does a pledge of physical collateral, also reducing moral hazard.

• Credit data should be properly maintained for a reasonable time frame, at a mini­mum, 5 years. And negative data should not be deleted, even when a debt is repaid. Negative data encourage borrowers to honor obligations.

Подпись: 10Data should be inaccessible after a certain amount of time. Time limits may vary by size of loan and type of inquiry. International best practice is to establish time limits on the length of the credit history record available to a lender. Economic research shows that the recent credit payment record is most relevant for predicting future default. Moreover, the fact that, after a certain period of time, information, espe­cially with respect to defaults, will not be distributed to lenders creates additional incentives for the borrower to improve credit repayment behavior and to “clean up” the record. For example, records are available only for 5 years in Australia, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Peru, and Spain and for 7 years in the United States and Mexico. It is essential that all information in the file is kept for this set period. For example, if a debt is paid, then information on it should stay in the registry for the period prescribed. Deleting either full records or parts of records significantly low­ers predictive power of the data in the registry and weakens any stimulating effect that the bureau has with respect to repayment incentive.

• Credit reports should not include highly sensitive information such as political or religious affiliation. Other identifying information such as gender should be care­fully evaluated.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>