• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Home Credit inquiry - Main party submission
 

Home Credit inquiry - Main party submission

on

  • 254 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
254
Views on SlideShare
254
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Home Credit inquiry - Main party submission Home Credit inquiry - Main party submission Document Transcript

    • S & U PLC REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COMPETITION COMMISSION RE: INVESTIGATION INTO THE HOME CREDIT INDUSTRY S&U PLC makes this submission to the Competition Commission following the reference to it by the OFT of the Home Credit Industry for investigation under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002. This follows a complaint against the industry by the National Consumer Council under the same Act last year. As we made clear to the OFT, we argue that there are in reality no factors, or combination of factors, of the market for home credit in the UK which restrict, prevent or distort competition so as to harm the interests of our customers. We therefore feel that the OFT reference to you was misguided, disproportionate and unnecessary. Indeed we regard it as highly unsatisfactory that, in contrast to its position on merger references to the Competition Commission, the OFT has not published until well after the opening of this investigation by the Commission, its reasons justifying the reference. In any event, upon reading the OFT's reasons, it emerges that they consist in large measure of a rehash of the allegations made to it by the NCC, in consequence of which the OFT assumes that there may be a case to answer without adducing any specific evidence for this, particularly in the field of product price and profitability. We are therefore somewhat sceptical as to the extent to which the OFT actually took consultation with the home credit industry into account when making this reference. We therefore contend that the OFT has wrongly based its conclusions on • a mis-understanding of the relationship between customers and lenders; • ignorance of the principal aspects of the home credit service (including price) which customers take into account when selecting a lender; • a failure to understand how industry practices, such as step-up and roll-over loans actually protect and in many cases are initiated by customers; • a failure to acknowledge that customer satisfaction derives not from ignorance or dependence upon lenders but from a rational and careful comparison of competing products and levels of service; • a failure accurately to interpret the structure of the market and the movement of lenders in and out of it in response to competition; and • an artificial constraint on the definition of the relevant market in which home collected companies operate so as to discount significant competitive pressures from outside the sector. We deal as succinctly as possible with these six areas below. They broadly reflect topics raised by the OFT in its December 2004 document “The OFT Reasons for Making a Reference to the Competition Commission”. We were advised at our preliminary meeting on the 17 January, to respond comprehensively to the OFT’s main contentions on anti-competitive practices whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication of earlier submissions to the OFT. We therefore decided that this 1
    • submission would specifically take account of our response to the OFT of the 18 October during the previous pre-reference consultation. This accompanies the submission as Appendix 1. In addition we have, at Appendix 2, enclosed a copy of a briefer response we made to the OFT in July last year when we met them during the original consultations on the NCC complaint. We have not included our original response to the OFT’s questionnaire of last summer although we can do so if this would be helpful. Neither have we provided the Competition Commission with significant primary evidence at this stage since no doubt the Commission will be making further inquiries regarding this, both from S & U PLC and the industry more widely. Finally, since this submission responds to the OFT’s reasons for the reference paper we have indicated the relevant paragraphs in brackets throughout our text. Background The home credit finance industry has operated in almost exactly the same way for the past 30 years at least. Prior to this, as the CCA have explained to you, many companies including S&U offered goods on credit paid for by a weekly collected visit. This business has operated nationally for over a 100 years; S&U itself opened for business in 1938. Whilst IT systems have become more sophisticated and allowed better customer analysis and, to a limited extent, faster reporting from agents, loan products themselves have changed remarkably little. Equally important, the type of average customer, the real value of balances owed by customers and the basic relationship between home collected agents and their customers have remained stable over three decades. It is true that many traditional home collected customers have migrated, both geographically and to more “sophisticated” (meaning generally longer term and more remote) loan products. It is also true that certain methods of payment, particularly by cheque and to a lesser extent by debit card, have become more widespread. Nevertheless, the basic relationship between home credit customers and lenders which even the National Consumer Council and the OFT have acknowledged as flexible, forgiving, informal and convenient has remained. Home collected companies still provide a weekly, customised, collection service for each customer. They still operate on a fixed charge basis irrespective of how long the customer actually takes to repay their loan, without adding any additional loan interest or other charges. This stability has elicited very high levels of customer satisfaction. Indeed Professor Elaine Kempson, the distinguished consumer credit expert from Bristol University, found precisely these “high levels of [customer] satisfaction with the quality of service” in her survey of home credit for the DTI in 2002 as she had in 1989. What has undoubtedly changed is the economic and political climate in which the home credit industry has to operate. The growth in other consumer credit products, though not in home credit, has been exponential. Mortgage backed and credit card debt has rocketed, boosted recently by post tax incomes that have risen nationally from £488 billion to £700 billion in real terms between 1989 and 2002. As a result consumer debt generally has risen to £1 trillion for the first time, a fact which has attracted unfavourable comment in the media. Yet, as Professor Kempson points out in 2002, the more mundane reality is that the vast majority of households actually use credit wisely, are unburdened by it and find that it can substantially enhance their standard of living. Moreover, it is plain that this is a boom which has passed the home credit sector, as opposed to other forms of consumer credit, emphatically by. Evidence of this is provided by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in their 2003 Report “ In too Deep” and by Datamonitor research carried out during the same period. This showed that home credit only accounts for 4% of total consumer debt and that it has grown between 1978–2002 at less than half the rate of unsecured personal 2
    • loans generally and only at a quarter of the rate of credit cards. Indeed evidence since 1992 shows that this relatively slow growth has become contraction. Provident Financial recently announced that they anticipated that the UK home credit sector was likely to contract by 1.7% a year for the next 10 years. The number of members of the Consumer Credit Association has been declining for the past decade. Previously large players like Morses (swallowed by London & Scottish last year), Cattles, for whom home credit now only accounts for 12% of its business and London & Scottish themselves have all exited or significantly reduced their reliance on the home credit sector. The regulatory climate surrounding the industry has changed too. An understandable emphasis on "financial inclusion" and consumer protection, which S&U supports, has led to a more detailed intervention in the sector. Yet for the vast majority o consumers, the expansion of credit has led to significant improvements in their standard of living. Unfortunately, certain lobby groups, like the NCC, have placed undue and disproportionate emphasis on the problems of a very small proportion of consumers as justification for even more regulation. Yet in recent years there has been significant regulation and investigation into this segment of which the current inquiry is the latest manifestation. For example: • the reform of the Consumer Credit Act; • new Advertising and Early Settlement Regulations; • a proposal for a new European Consumer Credit Directive; • the "Overindebtedness Task Force"; • Treasury Reviews on Interest Rate Ceilings; and • Consumer Credit Education Initiatives. These have all impacted upon consumer credit generally and hence upon home credit. Yet it is precisely the home credit sector that has not been responsible for, or indeed profited from, the credit boom which appears to have a significant motivating factor for these investigations. Far from being oppressive of its customers, home collected credit sector enjoys almost unique levels of customer satisfaction within the finance industry. MORI conducted surveys for both the OFT and the industry on this point and found levels of satisfaction which were above 80% for all customers and indeed showed 66% approval rating for value for money. Professor Kempson confirmed this very high level of satisfaction and indeed the OFT themselves were forced to admit “high levels of satisfaction with the quality of the [home collected] service”. S&U is proud of the weekly service its, often female, agents provide to customers. Although it appears to be an expensive method of managing credit accounts, our experience is that customers both enjoy and value the personal contact that this brings. We understand that the Consumer Credit Association have used the Freedom of Information Act to ask the OFT how many complaints they have received about the sector in the last 10 years. We anticipate that the level of complaints regarding home credit will be very low. This is partly confirmed by CAB statistics recently studied by the Department of Trade & Industry 3
    • as part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Consumer Credit Bill. CAB statistics on consumer credit enquiries was overstated. A further proportion of this reduced number of enquiries related to balance enquiries or access to credit rather than complaints about it. In a rational world therefore it would be reasonable to assume that the industry would be allowed to continue to offer the same high value of service to its customers as it always has. The fact that it lacks this luxury is almost entirely due to activities of a very small, inter- connected and determined group of politically motivated campaigners whose basic aim is to achieve the demise of the industry. As the Director of the CCA, John Lamidey, pointed out to you recently, a small number of activists use organisations such as Church Action on Poverty, Money Advice Centres, positions as Trading Standards Officers, campaign organisations such as Debt on the Doorstep and academic ones like the new Economics Foundation, to influence semi- statutory bodies like the National Consumer Council. In this context, it is extremely disappointing that the OFT seems uncritically to have accepted the assertions made by the NCC in its (similarly worded) January 2005 reasons paper. A Competitive Market When it investigates whether the UK home credit sector has features which prevent or distort competition, the Competition Commission will no doubt consider how a competitive market might properly be defined. We have reservations about the OFT’s definition of the size of such a product market which we set out below. In our view, a competitive market is one where customers are able to choose between products or services offered by suppliers who vie for their custom at different levels of service and price and who are forced to take account of such competition when designing their products or setting their prices. An effective process depends upon customers being able to purchase from alternative suppliers (even though they may not always do so) and that the structure of the market is such as to allow new products and new suppliers to enter it in response to customer demand. We contend that the home credit market fully reflects these criteria. Contrary to the OFT's assertion, there is ample evidence of both demand and supply-side substitution in the home collected credit sector. Below we answer the specific arguments put forward by the OFT to allege restricted competition within the sector. 1. The Real Bargaining Position of Customers Home collected lenders are extremely benign and supportive of their customers. Flexibility is the basis of their offering. We do not impose penalties for late payment thus giving customers security, certainty and stability as to their total commitments. [Confidential]. Customers are allowed extended payment periods without any penalty and, provided recent repayment history confirms their ability to make future repayments, customers are still allowed further loans. Customers develop close relationships with our agents. Such relationships only properly develop over the long term and therefore it is in the agent’s interest to ensure that his collection of home credit repayments is sufficiently flexible to accommodate any temporary financial difficulties that our typical C2,D,E customers inevitably encounter. This is plainly a matter of common sense for the lender but also results from the customers increasingly strong bargaining position. 4
    • For very small loans the costs of court action to recover debt nearly always outweigh the benefits. Courts are reluctant to order any more than nominal repayments, especially given the information presented to them by customers which often varies substantially with that they volunteered when contracting the loan. As a result court judgements for debt have generally fallen from 2.2 million actions in 1991 to less than a million by 2000 and much further since. In the unsecured small loans market they are rarer still. [Confidential]. Customers are aware of this. They regularly avail themselves of the advice of CABs, money advisors and, increasingly, commercial debt consolidators all of whom offer the prospect of repayments very well below terms and usually well below the customer’s real capacity. Moreover, customers are aware that agents know that, in a majority of houses, lenders face competition from other home collected firms. From S&U’s own experience, we found the OFT’s conclusion that home collected companies did not face such competition totally inexplicable. [Confidential] In short, customers do not need to “switch” lenders to take advantage of competition [Confidential]. Lack of switching is not evidence of lack of competition. The OFT dismissed this very important feature of the home collected sector in just one paragraph (77). They cited a lender who offered this argument as “not, however, providing evidence to support this assertion”. But such evidence is inevitably difficult to provide. First a lender would require access to a competitor’s books to see the extent to which the customer took advantage of alternative loan offers. Second, the threat from the customer is often enough – the agent allows lower repayments or has to grant a further loan. Although possibly designed as an attack on the home collected industry, the recent BBC 2 programme “Drowning in Debt” actually emphasised the bargaining power of customers, particularly in relation to home collected lenders. It was very significant that the couple’s only home collected lender, Provident Financial, was not only taking reduced terms on the loan that they had provided, but on both occasions when they called during the programme meekly accepted a refusal to pay. This is hardly evidence (57) for the OFT’s argument that “the nature of the relationship between collectors and customers creates a feeling of obligation on the part of customers to those who collect repayments from them”. [Confidential] 2. Price and Price Comparisons Although framed by the OFT (17) as being concerned that customers have difficulty in comparing loans between lenders, the reality of their complaint (made explicit by the NCC) is apparently high price. The inference is that since APRs are high, customers cannot be getting good value. This is either because they are not making comparisons with “better value products” (both within and outside the HCC sector) or because they are in a poor bargaining position. We have just responded to the last point; the earlier ones are covered in Appendix 1 but we add the following. The APR is a totally misleading measurement of price for short-term loans. It is even more so for short term collected loans, since all direct collected costs must be included in the APR. This contrasts with the AER quotable by clearing banks who are allowed to exclude their servicing costs from this figure. At a recent Institute of Economic Affairs Conference, the Chief Executive of Provident Financial, Robin Ashton, argued that clearing banks charge as much for a short-term £300 unsecured loan as do home credit companies who actually provide an additional weekly collection service. They do so yet only have to quote an AER around a tenth of the home collected companies’ APR! 5
    • Included in our pack to the Competition Commission is a paper by Hardiman which attempts to show the effective APR for home credit when administrative and collection costs together with the real rate of repayment is calculated. This is a powerful argument against the notion, put forward by the OFT, that prices for home collected products are unjustifiably high. S&U now understands that the Competition Commission are to receive a delegation from the CCA specifically to discuss how the APR calculation distorts and exaggerates the cost of borrowing over shorter term. The Government themselves have recognised the limitations of APR as a measure but appear to have been unable to devise an alternative method when framing their Consumer Credit Bill. APRs are an even more misleading measurement of comparative value when applied in the home collected industry. The OFT (41 and 42) insist that competition is evidenced (a) by price comparisons and (b) by customer switching. We deal with the latter further on. The OFT do concede (45) that price may not be the only way in which customers choose between different lenders. Other factors affecting the service the customers get from their agent include friendliness, reliability, understanding on repayment terms, convenience etc. But the OFT persist that because these factors are difficult to measure; working class customers cannot be making rational decisions on price and service; this, it is alleged, reduces the incentive for loan providers to compete. We dispute this. It is totally condescending to assume that home collected customers cannot make buying decisions based upon price and service, just as middle class customers decide when comparing the value of holidays, cars or insurance policies. The fact that home collected customers may so value the service that they are prepared to countenance high nominal APRs, artificially inflated by collection costs and disproportionately influenced by short-term repayment periods, is not evidence of either their ignorance, or of a “weak bargaining position” or of lack of competition. The OFT speculates and expresses (48) a general concern “about the extent of customers’ difficulties” in comparing different home collected lenders. They offer three unsupported theories. • First, that because APR’s (48) are neither a good comparator between home collected finance and bank loans nor a ”good measure in the home collected market”, customers must be misled about them and therefore be unable to compare different home collected loans. The remedy is surely to construct a measure that is a good comparator rather than arbitrarily assume its absence means an uncompetitive or restricted home collected sector. • Second, even ignoring APR the OFT (47) alleges that customers find it difficult to compare different home collected loans (on total cost, loan terms and size of weekly payment) because there is “no standardisation of loan terms between lenders”. Yet the home credit industry is almost unique in the plain presentation of its loan advertising material, as amended and made plainer still by the new Advertising Regulations which took effect in October last year. You have a copy of our own loan advertising. Further in what field does the OFT argue that there is such standardisation of terms? Is the unit trust or life assurance market automatically assumed non-competitive merely because it offers varied, flexible and even customer specific products? Are BMW and Mercedes only to be assumed as competing if they provide vehicles of identical specifications? 6
    • • Third, the OFT insist (like the NCC) that high APRs mean high prices. High prices must be a sign of high margins, “substantial profits” and therefore a lack of competition. Nowhere do they attempt to justify any of these claims. High APRs, they admit, result primarily from the method of calculation for short-term loans not from high interest charges. Indeed, the paper by Hardiman mentioned above argues that interest rates in the home collected field are comparable to or less than those of credit cards (and other relatively high risk unsecured credit products) if real repayment periods and collecting costs are taken into account. Nor, in terms of gross margin or company profits, can home collected prices be regarded as high. Whilst the OFT (80) lamely state that “the limited analysis of profitability which you have carried out indicates, that at least some lenders appear to be making substantial profits” [our italics], the more recent Lexecon Survey produced by the industry in 2003/2004 (a copy of which is attached at Appendix 3) produced different findings. Gross margins were not high particularly compared to the retail market. Return on capital for the industry was not excessive particularly since it represented many years of accumulated investment. Charges for credit granted, at around one half the principal over a 6 month term were remarkably similar throughout the world. If home collected yields “substantial” profits which derive from restricted competition, then the OFT fails to explain why leading players like Cattles, Morses and London & Scottish are gradually exiting a supposedly hugely lucrative and exploitative industry. 3. Misunderstandings on Switching We earlier argued that a perceived “lack of switching” as a feature of customer conduct was not evidence of a lack of competition. Customers, if satisfied, value a combination of service and price which makes the uncertainties inherent in switching, even to apparently lower cost products, a powerful disincentive. This does not mean that customers are unaware of prices elsewhere in the home collected sector, or further afield. Few would argue that middle class savers or borrowers would be acting rationally in continuously juggling between clearing banks or building societies dependent upon their weekly savings or mortgage rates. [Confidential] Yet the OFT dismisses (72) the notion that lenders therefore have to compete on both price and service by citing lack of “sufficient evidence to enable us to test lenders assertion that they compete on the service elements”. If the Competition Commission study lenders’ books this will be confirmed. Of course, longer serving Representatives do have larger books: their reputation for good and flexible service does give them new and recommended customers. Representatives who respond sensibly to the financial difficulties of their customers generally gain better payments in the long term as a result. The OFT might perversely try to characterise this as “customer capture”; customers on the other hand would argue that staying with their Representatives (a lack of switching) is a rational judgement based on service as well as price. The features of customer judgement do not imply, as the OFT argues (74 and 75) that lenders make no attempt to persuade customers to switch away from competitors. Lenders do attempt to identify good potential customers; they know that the previous payment record, as opposed to socio-economic classification, is invariably the best guide to a customer’s future reliability. Knowledge of such prior payment, often gained through the defection of a competitor’s agent is a crucial tool home lenders use (within the statutory constraints on loan canvassing) to persuade customers to “switch” to them. 7
    • Obviously the most significant “switch” would involve a new lender so consolidating the customer’s entire debts as to become its exclusive new source of finance. [Confidential]. Needless to say, as with any market entry, such a strategy does involve commercial risks, which may be why (74) the OFT thought it not widespread throughout the sector. Consolidating debts generally involves large sums increasing potential loss. Neither can there be any guarantee that new customers actually pay off previous lenders or that they might be invited by the customer to return. Thus it is not surprising that some lenders state that they do actually see the risk of their customers switching elsewhere as a significant competitive constraint. This is confirmed by the contracts most insist upon to prevent Representatives using knowledge of customers to defect and switch their accounts to other lenders. Far from regarding this as anti-competitive the courts have generally upheld, for a limited period of up to [Confidential] the ability of lenders to thereby protect the confidentiality and goodwill associated with our relationship with customers, in exactly the same way as other industries protect marketing or technical information. This recognises that “switching” is a threat and that home credit companies are entitled to temporary relief from it. It does not imply the customers are not fully entitled to take their payment records to new lenders to obtain better terms for a loan. It simply restricts Representatives from using their knowledge of such records to steer customers to new lenders irrespective of the value inherent in doing so. 4. Roll-over and Step-up Loans Step-up loans are regarded by the OFT as “tending to tie customers into their existing lender” (53). To the extent that responsible and sustainable lending, particularly in home credit, is based upon relationships of trust, both lenders and customers will wish to limit their initial involvement with each other until such trust evolves. Thus, within limits, existing lenders do enjoy a non price advantage because switching even to apparently lower price products at higher loans levels, does risk uncertainty, misunderstanding and possible unanticipated changes to price and conditions. Therefore smaller initial loans, irrespective of previous payment record with other lenders, is simply a responsible reflection of this. It is ironic that the OFT seems reluctant to accept this phenomenon in the home credit field, whilst it criticises credit card lenders for precisely the opposite – i.e. offering high value “low price” but limited period cards to encourage switching by new customers! This kind of “non step-up loan” can rightly be criticised because it encourages new borrowing (often on a “net” rather than replacement basis) without an adequate investigation of whether a customer is able to repay a larger loan often over a longer term. Step-up loans in home credit on the other hand are designed precisely so that a customer’s ability to repay can be gradually confirmed, thus safeguarding both their interest and that of the lender. Roll-over loans are a feature of home credit because they increase the frequency with which customers can access finance without either increasing the level of their weekly payment (through extra loans) nor by imposing upon them longer term or higher levels of debt. [Confidential] Nevertheless roll-over loans do tend to limit loan account numbers and thus enable better management of debt. Second, as we argued earlier, they are often the result of customer expectation and not Representative suggestion. This is why refinancing through roll-over loans reaches a peak period of demand at Christmas, Easter and during the summer holiday season. 5. Market Structure, Definition and Barriers to Entry 8
    • In our view the OFT has artificially confined its investigation to the home credit sector, by ignoring the evidence that consumers regard other related credit products as substitutes for home credit. These products include those detailed in paragraph 24 and in particular monthly paid direct debit personal loans, overdrafts and credit cards. By so restricting its market definition the OFT has given the false idea that the sector is oligopolistic, that prices can be charged above competitive levels, and that it is subject to barriers to entry which restrict competition and thereby cause customer detriment. On demand-side substitution the OFT (27) concluded that although home collected lenders profess to face competition since their home collected customers also had credit and store cards, they failed to establish that “customers substitute between those types of lending and home credit, rather than using them as a complimentary source of credit”. The OFT therefore appears to be arguing that, irrespective of the acknowledged spread of other financial products to home credit customers, so long as those customers remain, at least partly, in home credit, no effective competition with other non home credit lenders can be proved. Definition of the market can therefore be restricted purely to home credit. In our view, this argument is plainly incorrect. Together with the population as a whole, home credit customers have enjoyed access to a variety of financial products (as it appears the OFT now recognises) with which home credit must inevitably compete. The evidence for this is the fact, of which the OFT was aware, that this competition is already beginning to bite and that home credit has to an extent suffered from it. Our customers are continually solicited by mail with offers from credit card and personal loan companies. These offers often involve high and open-ended interest charges from which home credit customers are protected. Earlier we referred to the relative lack of growth of home credit compared to credit cards and other forms of lending. This is partly the result of a relatively slow pace of growth in home credit amongst its existing customer base compared to other products; it was also due to a significant migration of former home credit customers to other forms of borrowing. Such actual evidence of substitution is the most compelling possible illustration that the home credit sector forms part of a wider small finance market and that, contrary to the OFT's assertion, it is subject to strong competitive constraints. For example, Cattles and London & Scottish have based their recent corporate strategies on encouraging this trend; home credit customers are incentivised to become direct debit monthly collected customers with larger and longer term loans. If home credit was not susceptible to this kind of demand-side substitution then such a strategy would have been fruitless. Instead Cattles estimate that less than 15% of their business transacted in future will be carried out through home credit. Given the consequent decline in the size of the home credit sector in the UK it is not surprising that the OFT (35) should be aware of “at least 1 CCA member who has ceased weekly cash collections entirely”. But a contracting sector implies more rather than less competition. As lenders compete for a reduced number of customers both gross and net margins are likely to be under pressure. Even then new suppliers will be attracted into the market - often to take advantage of the gaps left by those leaving it. Park Credit, nationally, and Loans at Home, regionally, are recent examples. Contrary to the NCC’s original contention these new entrants have not faced significant barriers, a point which the OFT has now belatedly recognised. Barriers through regulation are low although this may change depending upon how the OFT administers the new licensing regime envisaged in the Consumer Credit Bill. The OFT states (68) that “entry on a 9
    • small scale is feasible” and that “barriers to entry are lower than in many other markets”. Yet despite this and recognising that the sector still boasts a large number of lenders, the OFT persists in its suspicion that “competition, and in particular price competition, is restricted by the [my italics] aspects of the market discussed above”. Yet the OFT failed to specify those aspects which they find responsible. As in much of the rest of the document they rely merely upon assertion. Conclusion As a result of the initiatives outlined earlier the home credit industry already faces significant changes in the way that it operates, and is overseen by regulators, over the next 10 years. The industry has an excellent record of customer satisfaction, receives a low level of complaints and is gently contracting. It provides a useful and flexible source of finance for a part of the population who increasingly see it as complementary to their other financial activities rather than their sole source of borrowing. Although these factors undoubtedly act as a constraint upon prices within home credit, they also force home credit lenders to compete by paying more attention to customer service.[Confidential]. This has made and continues to make home credit distinct from, and able to compete with, other forms of consumer finance. We therefore feel that it would be in the best interests of our customers, and not merely home credit lenders, if the Competition Commission concluded that the industry should be allowed to bed down the new regulatory initiatives under which it will operate for at least a year. During this period we will be prepared to discuss, if necessary, with the Competition Commission ideas for any lender conduct or features of the market which might restrict competition in the future but which we now cannot frankly envisage. Finally, it will be obvious that S&U looks forward to extending every co-operation to the Competition Commission in what we fully anticipate will be a rigorous and fair review of the Home Credit sector. 25th January 2005 10