Bitesize: How much did PPI subsidise personal loan rates pre-crisis?
The Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) mis-selling scandal has rumbled on for years. But how did PPI impact loan margins pre-crisis?
This post argues
that income from cross-selling PPI substantially offset lenders’ margins on
personal loans between 2004 and 2009, and compares the pre-crisis PPI-adjusted
margin to loan spreads today.
PPI is insurance attached to loans to protect consumers if they are unable to earn income to make repayments. But PPI was commonly mis-sold. It was used by lenders to reduce risk of non-repayment, but also as an additional source of loan-related income.
meant banks could charge lower interest rates on loans with PPI. So personal loan
spreads (the headline rate charged to the customer less the rate at which the
lender accesses funds) appear artificially low until lenders effectively
stopped cross-selling PPI in 2010.
Estimates from a Competition Commission report and FCA data suggest that half of personal loans had PPI in 2004. The report suggests that the addition of PPI was roughly equivalent to doubling the interest rate on these loans. Most of this additional premium was profit to the lender (after costs of providing the policy). So if lenders had not offered PPI, personal loan spreads would have had to be significantly higher to make the same margin.
If we adjust loan spreads to incorporate this additional PPI income, then it suggests an uplift of about 60% pre-crisis. Abstracting from potential differences in risk, personal loan spreads today are similar to pre-crisis PPI-adjusted levels.
Chart: Personal loan spreads – difference between effective personal loan rate and two-year swap rate (also seen here)
David Seaward works in the Bank’s Macro-financial risk Division.
If you want to get in touch, please email us at email@example.com or leave a comment below.
Comments will only appear once approved by a moderator, and are only published where a full name is supplied. Bank Underground is a blog for Bank of England staff to share views that challenge – or support – prevailing policy orthodoxies. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and are not necessarily those of the Bank of England, or its policy committees.