Increasingly, the problem is not one large loan. The problem is the sum of many small liabilities

For years, many people viewed financial risk in very simple terms. The real problem was supposed to be a large loan, a high monthly payment, or serious debt. Today, however, the way banks and financial institutions assess risk is becoming far more complex.

Increasingly, what matters is not only the total amount of liabilities, but also:

• the number of active financing products,
• how frequently someone uses financing,
• the number of credit inquiries,
• repayment behavior,
• and the overall pattern of financial habits.

And this is exactly why more and more attention is being paid to BNPL, or the “Buy Now, Pay Later” model.

As reported by 300Gospodarka, more and more consumers in Poland are using deferred payment solutions, while banks and financial institutions are increasingly analyzing how such obligations affect risk assessment and credit history (300gospodarka.pl).

The market itself is also growing rapidly. According to data presented during the mBank-CASE seminar dedicated to BNPL, by the end of 2023 nearly 2 million consumers in Poland had already used deferred payment services, and by mid-2024 the “buy now, pay later” model had been recognized and used at least once by 21% of surveyed internet users (CASE / BIK). Market analyses also show that the BNPL segment in Poland continues to grow at a double-digit annual rate, with forecasts predicting further expansion in the coming years.

And this highlights a very important shift: increasingly, the issue is not one large loan. The issue is the accumulation of many small liabilities that together begin to build a specific risk profile.

What exactly is BNPL?

BNPL, or “Buy Now, Pay Later”, is a payment model that allows consumers to delay payment for a purchase or split it into installments. In practice, the customer receives the product immediately but pays later - usually after 30 days, in several installments, or through a subscription-like structure.

Solutions such as Klarna, Twisto, Allegro Pay, PayPo, or PayU Pay Later have become extremely popular in recent years, especially in e-commerce. From the customer’s perspective, the process often feels very lightweight: just a few clicks, a quick decision, no traditional loan procedure, and an instant purchase.

The problem is that from the perspective of financial institutions, this is still very often a form of financing. That means some of these liabilities may be reported to BIK and affect the user’s credit history. Selected BNPL providers such as PayPo, Twisto, PragmaPay, and BLIK Pay Later already report data to BIK, which means deferred payments can genuinely influence creditworthiness - especially in cases of delayed repayment (lendtech.pl).

We discussed this mechanism further in the article Does applying for business financing affect BIK?.

The issue is not a single payment. The issue is the entire risk profile

This is one of the most important aspects of the whole discussion. A single deferred payment rarely becomes a problem on its own. Banks and scoring models increasingly look at the broader picture:

• how many active liabilities a customer has,
• how frequently they use financing,
• how many financial products they hold simultaneously,
• whether new credit inquiries appear regularly,
• and what the overall financial management profile looks like.

Increasingly, the issue is not the use of BNPL itself, but the scale and frequency of such obligations. According to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau data referenced in BNPL market analyses, many users maintain several active deferred payment obligations simultaneously, and some regularly open new financing products every month. This is exactly why financial institutions increasingly analyze not just individual liabilities, but the overall pattern of financing behavior.

And that is why many small liabilities can begin to look very different to a financial institution than one well-managed loan. This becomes especially important when applying for:

• a mortgage,
• leasing,
• business financing,
• or larger investment products.

Because in such cases, institutions assess not only income or a single installment amount, but the entire way a person uses financing.

Interestingly, BIK’s own analyses also indicate that BNPL users often maintain very good repayment histories, and some customers with limited credit history may actually improve their creditworthiness through responsible use of such products. The problem, therefore, is not BNPL itself, but losing control over the number and structure of liabilities.

Increasingly, BIK analyzes behavior, not only debt

Many people still think about BIK mainly as a place where information about repayment problems is stored. In reality, modern risk assessment models operate much more broadly. What matters today includes:

• repayment timeliness,
• the number of active liabilities,
• financing history,
• the number of inquiries,
• behavioral stability,
• and overall predictability.

That is why even relatively small financial products are becoming increasingly important in building credit history. This is actually very similar to what we increasingly observe in businesses. The issue is not always one large loan or one delayed payment. More and more often, risk accumulates gradually - through many small tensions, a growing number of obligations, and an increasingly narrow safety margin. We discussed this broader mechanism in the article Why do companies delay ZUS and tax payments first?.

It is easy to lose control when financing becomes “invisible”

This is exactly why the BNPL model attracts so much attention from the financial sector today. Psychologically, it works very differently from a traditional loan. Deferred payments feel small, fast, convenient, and often almost “invisible”. Users do not perceive them as traditional financial obligations.

The problem appears when such liabilities begin to multiply, exist simultaneously across multiple systems, repayment dates start overlapping, or financing becomes a permanent way of managing everyday expenses. And this is when risk begins to build not through one large problem, but through many small financial decisions.

Businesses can learn a very important lesson from this

This is not only a consumer topic. A very similar mechanism operates in business as well. Risk rarely develops through one major liability or one bad decision. Much more often, it grows gradually - through additional leasing agreements, deferred payments, new financing products, delayed contractor payments, and an increasing number of costs that all require simultaneous control.

As long as a company maintains full visibility over its liabilities, financing can be a very useful tool. It may help maintain liquidity, finance contract execution, secure larger projects, or bridge periods where costs appear faster than incoming payments. The problem begins when liabilities stop being part of a structured plan and instead become a way of continuously postponing financial pressure.

That is why access to financing itself matters less than visibility into how financing is actually being used. How many liabilities are currently active? When are repayments due? Does new financing genuinely support growth, or is it merely covering a lack of cashflow control? These are increasingly the questions that determine how a company looks from a risk perspective. We discussed this mechanism further in the article More and more companies are no longer afraid of losing customers. They are afraid of the cost of delivery.

Increasingly, the issue is not access to financing. The issue is how financing is used

Financing itself is not the problem. Both in private life and in business, it can be an excellent tool for growth, liquidity management, investment, or safe cash management. In many situations, properly structured financing allows companies to handle larger contracts, maintain project continuity, and continue operating despite delayed payments.

The problem appears when financing stops being a conscious strategic decision and becomes an automatic response to every operational tension. If a company continuously adds new liabilities without maintaining visibility into total costs, repayment schedules, and future inflows, it can very easily lose control over its real level of risk. Not because any single financing product was bad, but because the entire liability structure gradually started working against the business.

And this is exactly what banks and financial institutions are increasingly analyzing today. The simple fact that a company uses financing matters less and less. What matters more is whether financing is used in a predictable, controlled, and operationally justified way.

Because today, the overall image of risk is built not only by the size of debt, but also by the way financing is used as a whole.