Differences in how banks classify new borrowers, known as 'new fileers,' have made it difficult to objectively compare loan performance. Financial authorities have not established common reporting standards, leading to varying definitions and scopes for new fileers across banks.
According to data submitted by major banks to Kim Hyun-jung, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party, the number of new fileer loans at key banks has generally increased over the past year.
KB Kookmin Bank reported an increase in new fileer loans from 13,718 in June 2022 to 14,182 in June 2023. Similarly, NH Nonghyup Bank's new fileer loans rose from 594,385 to 596,053 during the same period. K-Bank saw an increase from 14,339 to 17,208, while Toss Bank's loans grew from 7,722 to 10,691.
The issue lies in the differing criteria banks use to classify new fileers. Without a common standard from financial authorities, each bank determines its own criteria for identifying eligible customers and reporting results.
KB Kookmin Bank and NH Nonghyup Bank classify borrowers with no credit card usage in the past two years and no new loan history in the last three years as new fileers. In contrast, K-Bank considers customers who have held a credit card for less than a year as new fileers. Toss Bank uses a criterion of no card or loan activity in the past year or customers who have just started using these services within the last six months. Woori Bank classifies young individuals with low credit scores and no income history as new fileers.
These differences in classification are reflected in the loan numbers. While NH Nonghyup Bank reported over 590,000 new fileer loans, KB Kookmin Bank and online banks reported around 10,000 each. Although differences in operational scale and customer demographics play a role, the varying definitions of new fileers among banks significantly impact these figures.
As a result, it is challenging to determine which bank is more actively providing loans to customers with limited financial histories based solely on current statistics. Comparing loan numbers is not meaningful when the reporting criteria differ.
Not all individuals with limited financial histories fall into vulnerable categories. Young professionals and individuals with sufficient income and assets who have not recently used credit or loans may also be classified as new fileers based on bank criteria. This complicates the assessment of new fileer loan numbers as indicators of support for financially vulnerable groups.
While the financial sector argues that uniformity in credit evaluation and product management is not necessary, they emphasize the need for at least minimal common standards for performance comparison. Basic classification criteria, such as the duration of card and loan usage, credit information, age, and income, should be aligned to some extent.
Without common standards, banks may broadly classify customers who are easier to lend to as new fileers or, conversely, may set overly narrow criteria. This could lead to an increase in loan numbers without clarity on which customers are actually receiving funds.
The financial sector has been requesting that authorities establish a common definition and reporting standards for new fileers. However, financial authorities have been cautious, fearing that setting detailed criteria could infringe on banks' credit evaluation and operational autonomy or be perceived as another form of government intervention.
A financial sector representative stated, “The differing definitions of new fileers among banks make it difficult to compare support performance based on current statistics. While credit evaluation and product management should remain with the banks, at a minimum, the same criteria should be applied when publicly disclosing performance.”
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.