Never a lender be!!

Coming from someone who had been a banker for 35 years and derived his compensation primarily from the banks' lending activity, that is bemusing, right?  Dont get me wrong, this has nothing to do with banks and similar entities which do their lending, using somebody else's money.  Honest bankers will readily admit that it is always fun to dole out funds that are not one's own.  So what, if the borrowers fade away and the loans go kaput; one does not personally lose anything.  Actually, come to think of it, nobody loses anything, so long as only a small portion of the borrowers play truant.  That is actually expected, part of the game; if every borrower repays everything, it would be absolutely boring. In such a scenario, a number of bankers might end up losing their livelihood since there is precious little for them to do and managements might just deprive them of employment. Only when the repayment-dodging-malady gets widespread and a bank fails as a result, depositors may be affected.  May be not, even then; the idea of a failed bank is so repugnant to any government or regulator that such `bad' banks unfailingly get merged with some large, good public sector bank, which can mask all the losses and everybody can pretend that nothing serious has happened.  So, the wise man he was, Shakespeare could not have had lending institutions in his mind when he spilled these precious words. This is strictly for individuals, who cannot rely on public funds but have to lend out of their own resources; and are not in the same mould as Shylock, romping about, demanding pounds of flesh for unpaid dues!

I guess Shakespeare was a rather generous, avancular lender, with little or no experience in credit analysis and paying no heed to credit bureau ratings.  He must have collected funds at the box office in a sack during his plays and while smugly carrying the booty home, must have doled out loans to whoever accosted him with a polite request.  That meant the delinquency ratio for his lending business must have been sky-high since those who took advantage of his kindness did not think it necessary to repay the loans; probably that was never part of their plot. Obviously, Shakespeare did not run a decent collecting agency to chase them, which complicated the scene.  Why else would he make Polonius in Hamlet give this rather timeless and universally sound advice `Never a borrower nor a lender be' to his son??  But I have a bone to pick with the bard on this.  He should have concentrated only on the `never a lender be' part, because there are immense benefits in borrowing (and not repaying), as we all know.  That is a great and easy way of creating wealth for yourself and your progeny, as many contemporary worthies have demonstrated over the years; especially if the lender is a public sector bank!  Well, one's reputation may be impaired a wee bit in the corners or even damaged seriously, but that is a very small price to pay in a world shamelessly devoid of honour, which glorifies money, idolizes the wealthy and chooses to read and peremptorily ignore the footnote in bold print as to how the wealth came about!  Especially when you can change your name and resurface in some other location, doing your own reincarnation without dying! But I am forgetting that in Shakespeare's time, honour meant something; so, let me not be overly critical of the big S. in this context. Since it would be anachronistic today to dwell too much on `never a borrower be', let us focus on the other part.

Almost all of us, with a retinue of staff such as drivers, maids, gardeners, cooks and the like, are rather forced to be reluctant lenders repeatedly.  Invariably, even before the new driver, on a test run, has taken us to the next block or the cook has made the first roti, the ubiquitous loan application has already landed with us.  For some strange reason, we are only too willing to suspend disbelief and imagine that this driver or cook is going to be significantly better than the previous one.  In our desperation we are absolutely delighted to expose ourselves to an even larger loan than the one which the previous employee took and decamped without repaying, as is the norm.  Actually the higher the first-day-loan-demand is, in some strange way we are more convinced of the `good' intentions of the new employee to stay with us and work the loan off!  If one is rather wary of parting with 3 to 6 months' salary as loan on Day 1 and wants to protest, an angry glare and muttered-under-the-breath warnings from the spouse propel one with outstretched arms (laden with the money) towards the new recruit!  Once this hara-kiri is committed, the rest is like watching the first minute of an MGM or Columbia produced movie - the same lion roaring or lady with a torch benignly looking at us; only the title (in this case, the name of the individual) varies.

This is a real life story.  One vendor in the area where I live was so impressive with his conduct that I was bowled over.  He would not even cross my path, when I walked.  When he saw me coming, he would dismount the cycle and wait for me to pass.  Even in the middle of the road, he would remove his sandals and then answer my question, if I had one.  Such exemplary show of respect, nay, reverence!!  It was all too good to believe and I should have read the hidden signs, but did not.  A couple of times, he touched me for small `advances' and returned them as committed to, thereby building up his case and reputation as a borrower.  One day he brought a mini truck and parked it in front my house and said he wants some funds to buy that one.  He very respectfully urged me to take the documents for the vehicle as collateral.  He was even willing to park the vehicle in front of my house to assuage my concerns as a lender (that was what I thought initially, but subsequently realised that parking elsewhere was a problem and expensive!).  Suitably impressed with his approach, I agreed to lend him some money, despite alarm bells jingling inside me all over.   Well, the rest is... what......yes....like watching the first minute of an MGM or Columbia produced movie etc etc.  He is still profoundly respectful and takes off his sandals while I pass him, but no repayment is forthcoming nor do I see any intent on the horizon.  The only vague comfort is that he does provide a service to us and we can adjust a miniscule amount every month against the loan!! So, all is not lost.

But this one takes the cake.  Recently there were glowing newspaper reports about a very honest auto rickshaw driver, who restored to a customer, a bag with some articles and a large amount of money which were left behind in the vehicle.  The reports said he was poor and could not even afford treatment for his ailing wife.  We called this chap, spoke to him and he shed copious tears on hearing we were willing to bail him out of his problems.  We decided to fund him to the extent of the other expensive loans he had taken from moneylenders so that he can get on with him life peacefully.  Just as a small test, we gave 50% of the amount as a gift and the balance 50% as an interest-free loan, to be  repaid monthly in installments.  He elevated all of us to the level of gods overseeing the poor and the helpless; fell at our feet and thanked us.  Out of the 20 installments he was due to repay, we got 2; then there was stony silence.  A couple of calls to him yielded no response and we had to see a replay of the first minute of an MGM or Columbia produced............. And to think that we gave him the money to appreciate his integrity and honesty!!! What an irony!

So, I have gotten wiser and have decided that if I wanted to help someone, I will hand the money over as a giveaway.  No expectation of repayment and no sour feeling of having been cheated.