Setup Considerations: loan policies
What this achieves
Section titled “What this achieves”A loan policy decides how much your people may borrow, and under what conditions. Getting these decisions right before you lend is what stops a loan being written that the employee cannot service.
The decision that comes first: no policy at all
Section titled “The decision that comes first: no policy at all”With no policy for a loan type, there are no limits and any amount is allowed. That is a real state, not a warning banner — a company can lend without ever creating one.
The question is therefore not whether to configure limits, but whether you are content for the answer to be “no limit” while somebody is capable of writing a loan. For most organisations the honest answer is no, and the cheapest policy is one with a single maximum amount in it.
Company-wide default, or one policy per entity
Section titled “Company-wide default, or one policy per entity”You can hold one policy for the whole company, or a policy for a specific legal entity.
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Company-wide default | One set of limits everywhere. Simple, and correct where your entities are alike. |
| Entity policy | Limits for one legal entity, which replace the default for that entity rather than adding to it. |
Replacement is the part that catches people. An entity policy is not a layer on top of the default — every limit you want for that entity has to be present on it, including the ones that were fine in the default.
Example: HC Corp UK Ltd sets a company-wide maximum, then adds a policy for HC Corp Inc. Anything left blank on the US policy is unlimited there, whatever the default says.
The multi-currency case decides this for you. An amount cap is a bare number with no currency attached, so where you operate in more than one currency, amount caps belong on entity policies rather than on a shared default. A single figure cannot mean the right thing in GBP and in USD at once.
Which limits to set, and how hard
Section titled “Which limits to set, and how hard”Four limits govern borrowing, and they answer different questions.
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Maximum amount | The absolute ceiling. Blunt, and the easiest to explain to anyone who asks. |
| Maximum × monthly salary | Scales with the person, so a junior and a director are not held to the same figure. |
| Cooldown | Stops serial borrowing by requiring a gap after the previous loan settled. |
| Max concurrent loans | Stops parallel borrowing, which is the other way a cap gets circumvented. |
Setting only a maximum amount leaves both circumvention routes open: somebody can take the maximum repeatedly, or take several at once. If you set nothing else, set the concurrency limit.
The salary multiple is worth preferring over a flat amount where your pay range is wide. A cap that is prudent for a warehouse operative is meaningless for a finance director, and one number cannot be both.
Interest, if you charge it
Section titled “Interest, if you charge it”Three separate caps exist because they govern genuinely different products, and copying one into another produces a policy that does not mean what you think.
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Maximum interest rate | The highest flat rate a loan may carry. Zero forbids interest entirely. |
| Maximum flat fee | The highest one-off fee charged on the principal of a flat-rate loan. Zero forbids it. |
| Maximum annual rate | The highest annual rate on a reducing-balance loan, charged each period on what is still owed. |
A one-off fee and a rate charged every period are not comparable numbers. Decide the product first — a fee or a rate — then set the cap that governs it and leave the other blank.
Cap interest at the original projection is a separate decision and ships off. Switched on, a reducing-balance loan can never charge more interest over its life than it projected when it was written. The case for it is that a delay payroll caused should not make a loan cost the borrower more than they were shown. The case against is that it forgoes interest genuinely accrued. Decide it as a fairness question rather than a financial one, because the amounts are usually small and the reputational cost of the alternative is not.
Effective dates are how you change a policy safely
Section titled “Effective dates are how you change a policy safely”A policy governs loans created on or after its effective date. A future date therefore stages a change: you set the new limits now, and they take hold on the day you choose, without touching loans already running.
Use that rather than editing on the morning it takes effect. Announcing a change to lending limits and having it apply from a stated date is a different conversation from changing it quietly.
Retiring a policy is not the same as tightening it. New loans fall back to the company-wide default, or to no limits where there is not one — so retiring an entity policy in a company with no default silently removes every limit for that entity.
What a loan policy does not decide
Section titled “What a loan policy does not decide”Two things people expect to find here are configured elsewhere, and both matter more than the limits.
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Who approves a loan | Approval routing is configured in workflows, not on the policy. |
| Tax treatment of loans and waivers | Whether a waived balance is treated as taxable pay, and whether a cheaply-priced loan generates a taxable benefit, are set on the statutory profile. Both are off unless somebody turns them on. |
Those two tax decisions carry consequences for the employee rather than for the company, and neither is a default you inherit. Read the statutory profile considerations before you assume either is handled, and take your own advice on whether they apply where your people are employed.
Related
Section titled “Related”© 2025-2026 Humavera Documentation - BPilot Ltd. All Rights Reserved