At the end of March, the police of the financial sector reminded the sellers of instant mini-loans – Bling, Floa, Cashper in particular – the rules to follow for their distribution. A month later, have they done what is necessary to rectify the situation?
A few hundred euros, immediately credited to your bank account and reimbursed in a maximum of three months: this is the promise of instant mini loans. In recent years, a few players have positioned themselves on this market, aimed at those who tend to end the month in the red. It is easier for this type of very short-term loan to escape the rules (pre-contractual information, solvency check, etc.) of consumer credit.
Not enough consumer credit, therefore, but loans despite everything. This is what the Prudential Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) said in a press release published on March 31. The bank policeman reminds us that companies that offer this type of product must necessarily have financial approval, and therefore be included in the Registry of financial agents (Regafi). They must also be in accordance with the rules of usury, which prohibit exceeding certain tax limits.
Bling, Cashper, Floa: instant mini-loans in view of the regulator
Bling is taking a break
Among the specialists of these mini-loans, only one, at the time of the recall of the ACPR, seemed in the nails: FinFrog. Conversely, another was particularly targeted: Bling, a request for a loan of up to 100 euros, repayment the following month, without paying interest. Sherwood SAS, the company that offers this service, is not listed in Regafi. It does not make it a secret, moreover, clearly displaying on its website that it is not approved as a credit institution or financing company, and does not [pas pouvoir] act as such. If he does not earn interest on the borrowed money, he charges, instead, instant transfer of money, height of 7euros. That, given the small amount borrowed, brings the cost of this advance far beyond the thresholds of usury.
Result: A few days after the publication of the press release, Bling announced, via its website, the temporary interruption of its activity, the time to hold discussions with the banking regulator. Then, more recently, she explained that she could not return with the same product so soon. [qu’elle l’aurait] wanted: We are working on more and more daring services to help you. We will keep you informed of the development, which may take a few months.
Come up with the lowest price for your real estate project!
Floa Bank changes its price
Another actor concerned by the reward of the ACPR order: Floa Bank. There is no worry about accreditation: Floa is a credit institution, a subsidiary of BNP Paribas. His bill, on the other hand, posed a problem: the express option cost (between 6.90 and 24.90 euros depending on the amount borrowed), making it possible to receive the money the same day or the next day depending on the time of the request, it was invoiced without APR. A practice therefore contrary to the framework established by the ACPR.
Floa was quick to rectify the situation. The new general conditions, from April 20, 2022, of its boost loan, also distributed by the Lydia payment application, modify the express option invoice, which now varies from 0.01 euros for loans of less than 200 euros to 40 euros above 2,500 euros. This allows you to integrate this cost into the APR, flirting with the wear rate (21.22% for this type of loan) without exceeding it. The price conditions for the Coup de Pouce mini loan were aligned after the regulator’s press release, Floa confirmed to us, explaining that it has always and continues to comply with the regulations in force for all the products it sells.
Status quo at Cashper
Last actor targeted by the ACPR: Cashper, a brand of Novum Bank, a credit institution established in Malta and operating in France thanks to its European Union passport. It also contravenes the regulation of usury in charge, apart from the APR, an express option, up to 30% of the loan amount. Since the statement of the ACPR, the Maltese bank, which has not responded to our questions, does not seem to have changed its practices, according to their website. It is therefore better to avoid contacting her for the time being.
Consumer credit: the comparison of offers online