New UPI merchant discount rate and its scope Effective 15 October, peer‑to‑merchant (P2M) UPI transactions exceeding ₹2,000 will attract a 0.4% merchant discount rate (MDR). The charge is levied on the merchant, not the consumer, and cannot be passed directly to borrowers.
How the MDR hits small‑ticket loans The MDR is calculated on the entire repayment amount – principal plus interest – rather than only on the interest earned. For a typical ₹20,000 personal loan with a six‑month tenure and a 30% annualised rate, the EMI works out to about ₹3,631, generating roughly ₹1,786 of interest over the loan life. Collecting every EMI via chargeable UPI would incur about ₹87 in MDR, which is close to 5% of the lender’s interest income. That translates to a yield reduction from 30% to roughly 28.6%, a 144‑basis‑point hit. Shorter, three‑month loans feel an even larger impact, around 248 basis points.
Why UPI AutoPay isn’t a complete fix UPI AutoPay transactions are exempt from MDR, but NPCI data shows a 74% average decline rate across the top 50 banks, with more than 20 million mandates being revoked each month due to insufficient funds. While this does not mean 74% of loan EMIs fail, it highlights the unreliability of mandates as a sole collection method.
Proportion of chargeable repayments matters If only a fraction of EMIs are collected through chargeable UPI, the yield impact scales accordingly. A 10% share of MDR‑subject repayments trims yields by about 14 basis points; a 25% share adds roughly 36 basis points; and a 50% share can erode yields by around 72 basis points.
Merchant classification adds complexity Debt‑collection agencies (MCC 7322) face a flat ₹5 MDR, whereas financial institutions (MCC 6012) are subject to the 0.4% rate plus 18% GST, of which only half is recoverable as input credit. Existing loan contracts cannot be retroactively repriced, so the additional cost initially eats into lender margins.
Potential industry response Over time, lenders may incorporate the MDR cost into the pricing of new credit products, adjust collection strategies, or seek alternative payment channels. The key question is not the size of the 0.4% charge, but where it lands in the economics of ultra‑small, short‑tenure loans.
--- *The views expressed are personal and do not represent the publication.*
