Capital thirsty firms need answers

illustration photo

The lending rate most banks offer to small- and medium-sized enterprises fetches around 14-15 per cent, per year at present, while that of personal loans is from 16-16.5 per cent, per year.

With some credit packages, firms may enjoy preferential interest rates in the initial period but in fact, lending rates are almost double the current ceiling mobilising rate of 7.5 per cent, per year.

Senior financial expert Dr. Nguyen Dai Lai attributed the wide interest margin gap to banks’ low credit growth.

Though the lending rate to priority areas is now capped at 11 per cent, per year, most firms operating in these areas said they still had to borrow at higher levels.

For instance, the director at a Central Highlands coffee firm said the firm had to borrow at 15.6 per cent, per year albeit coffee was a priority area. Similarly, firms in another priority area - tra fish farming - have to take loans with minimal lending rate reaching 13 per cent, per year.

The executive at a joint stock commercial bank argued actual mobilising rates at many banks ranged from 10-12 per cent, per year against current ceiling mobilising rate at 7.5 per cent, per year which was why they still could not relax the lending rate.

In reality, the interest margin at scores of banks ranged from 3.5-4.5 per cent, depending on borrowers’ health. Besides, interest margin levels are usually set based on banks’ average capital costs, but not on the current ceiling mobilising rate.

In this context, former State Bank governor Dr. Cao Sy Kiem suggested abolishing the ceiling deposit rate, paving the way for the  lending rate to slide while stimulating a healthy competition among banks.

National Financial Supervisory Commission chairman Vu Viet Ngoan assumed since the inflation has trended downward, the mobilising rate should further go down to 6-7 per cent and the maximum lending rate to priority areas fetch at most 10 per cent, per year.

From the part of banks, BIDV deputy director Can Van Luc assumed setting lending cap would not be wise since by principle good customers could enjoy softer lending rates while risky ones must accept higher rates.

The State Bank’s general approach is reportedly not applying lending cap to all areas to avert the capital sources from flowing into non-priority areas.