Perspectives on the South African Responsible Lending Regime and the Duty to Conduct Pre‐agreement Assessment as a Responsible Lending Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the 2001 INSOL International Consumer Debt Report: Report of Findings and Recommendations, the view was held that the solution to overspending and over‐indebtedness is inter alia to be found in the idea that prevention is better than cure. Ex ante responsible lending practices as preventative measures to avoid reckless credit granting and over‐indebtedness are arguably more important tools in establishing a healthy credit market than ex post measures. The focus of this contribution, is therefore, to provide a detailed overview of the South African reckless credit regime as a debt‐ prevention measure aimed at promoting responsible lending, with specific focus on the aspect of pre‐agreement assessment as a core mechanism to avoid reckless credit granting and over‐indebtedness. The main features of the reckless credit regime are highlighted, and afterwards, a detailed exposition of the evolution and extensive recent development of the pre‐agreement assessment component in South Africa is undertaken. Finally, observations are made regarding the South African reckless regime in general and with regard to affordability assessment specifically and its ability, benchmarked against the essential features of a responsible lending regime as advocated by Wilson in the book ‘International responses to issues of credit and over‐indebtedness in the wake of crisis’, to promote responsible lending. The conclusion is reached that benchmarked against the four characteristics of an effective responsible lending regime as identified by Wilson, it is apparent that the South African reckless lending regime is no ‘toothless tiger’, and that it attaches the necessary amount of significance to the credit provider's duty to take reasonable steps to do a proper pre‐agreement assessment in order to avoid reckless credit granting. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".