हायर-पर्चेज कर्जाको ऋण-मूल्य अनुपात ८० प्रतिशत कायम गर्न नाइमाको आग्रह. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s arguments without adequately representing other relevant perspectives.

The article is almost entirely built around NAIMA’s demands and reasoning: - “नाइमाले सबै प्रकारका सवारी साधनमा हायर–पर्चेज कर्जाको ऋण–मूल्य अनुपात ६० प्रतिशतबाट वृद्धि गरी अधिकतम ८० प्रतिशत कायम गर्न नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंक तथा अर्थ मन्त्रालयलाई आग्रह गरेको हो।” - “हालको ६० प्रतिशतको सीमाकै कारण अटोमोबाइल बजारमा सुस्तता देखिएको नाइमाले जनाएको छ।” - “... जसले बिक्रीमा कमी ल्याएको मात्र नभई समग्र आर्थिक गतिविधि तथा राजस्व संकलनमासमेत प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव पारेको नाइमाको दाबी छ।” - “बैंकिङ प्रणालीमा विद्यमान अधिक तरलताको अवस्थालाई ध्यानमा राख्दा ... व्यावहारिक तथा प्रभावकारी उपाय हुन सक्ने नाइमाको धारणा छ।” There is no explanation of why the 60% cap exists, what concerns the central bank or Ministry might have (credit risk, household over‑indebtedness, import pressure, external balance, environmental or congestion concerns), nor any independent expert or data-based counterview.

3 suggestions

Add the regulators’ rationale for the current 60% LTV cap, e.g. quoting Nepal Rastra Bank policy documents or officials on credit risk, macroprudential concerns, or import management.

Include at least one independent economist or banking expert assessing both potential benefits and risks of raising the LTV to 80%.

Clarify that the article is reporting NAIMA’s lobbying position and explicitly note that the concerned authorities have not yet agreed and may have differing views.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual information that is necessary for readers to fully evaluate the claims.

Key missing context includes: - No mention of why the 60% LTV limit was set (e.g., to control credit growth, manage imports, reduce NPL risk, or protect consumers from over‑borrowing). - No data on actual trends in auto sales, bank NPLs in hire‑purchase loans, or macro indicators to support or challenge NAIMA’s claims. - No discussion of potential downsides of higher LTV: increased household leverage, default risk, pressure on foreign exchange reserves due to higher vehicle imports, or environmental/traffic externalities. Examples: - “हालको ६० प्रतिशतको सीमाकै कारण अटोमोबाइल बजारमा सुस्तता देखिएको नाइमाले जनाएको छ।” – The article does not explore other possible causes of market slowdown (overall economic conditions, income growth, import restrictions, fuel prices, etc.). - “... जसले बिक्रीमा कमी ल्याएको मात्र नभई समग्र आर्थिक गतिविधि तथा राजस्व संकलनमासमेत प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव पारेको नाइमाको दाबी छ।” – No figures or alternative explanations are provided.

3 suggestions

Explain the policy background: when and why the 60% LTV cap was introduced, and what objectives it serves.

Provide basic data: recent trends in vehicle sales, hire‑purchase loan volumes, NPL ratios, and government revenue from the auto sector, so readers can gauge the scale of the issue.

Mention potential risks or criticisms of raising LTV, even briefly, to give readers a fuller picture of the trade‑offs.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting causal or evaluative statements without evidence or clear attribution, or relying solely on an interested party’s assertion.

Several strong causal claims are reported with only NAIMA’s assertion and no supporting evidence: - “हालको ६० प्रतिशतको सीमाकै कारण अटोमोबाइल बजारमा सुस्तता देखिएको नाइमाले जनाएको छ।” – This attributes the slowdown solely to the 60% cap, without data or consideration of other factors. - “... जसले बिक्रीमा कमी ल्याएको मात्र नभई समग्र आर्थिक गतिविधि तथा राजस्व संकलनमासमेत प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव पारेको नाइमाको दाबी छ।” – ‘समग्र आर्थिक गतिविधि’ and ‘प्रत्यक्ष प्रभाव’ are broad and strong claims, not backed by numbers. - “... ऋण–मूल्य अनुपात बढाउँदा राजस्व संकलन, रोजगारी र सहायक उद्योगमा सकारात्मक प्रभाव पर्ने विश्वास नाइमाले व्यक्त गरेको छ।” – The positive impact is presented as NAIMA’s belief, but no evidence or counter‑evidence is discussed. - “... व्यावहारिक तथा प्रभावकारी उपाय हुन सक्ने नाइमाको धारणा छ।” – Again, only NAIMA’s view is given, with no independent assessment.

3 suggestions

Where possible, add quantitative evidence (e.g., percentage decline in auto sales after the 60% cap, changes in revenue, employment figures in related sectors).

Clearly and consistently attribute evaluative and causal statements to NAIMA, and distinguish them from independently verified facts (e.g., “नाइमाको दाबी अनुसार…”, “नाइमाको अनुमान छ कि…”).

Include expert or official commentary that either supports, nuances, or challenges NAIMA’s causal claims, or explicitly state that no independent data were available to verify these claims.

Cherry-picking data (by omission)

Highlighting only information that supports one side’s position while ignoring relevant data that might weaken it.

The article highlights only the potential positive effects of raising LTV (higher sales, revenue, employment, use of excess liquidity) and does not mention any data or examples that might show risks or negative outcomes: - “सवारी साधन बिक्रीमा वृद्धि हुँदा राजस्व संकलनमा ठोस तथा सकारात्मक प्रभाव पर्ने विश्वास छ।” – Only the revenue upside is mentioned; no mention of possible fiscal or external vulnerabilities from higher imports. - “... बैंकिङ प्रणालीमा विद्यमान अधिक तरलताको अवस्थालाई ध्यानमा राख्दा ... पूँजी परिचालनको व्यावहारिक तथा प्रभावकारी उपाय हुन सक्ने नाइमाको धारणा छ।” – Only the ‘excess liquidity’ angle is used; no data on whether banks are already facing sectoral concentration risk in auto loans. No alternative data points (e.g., household debt levels, NPLs in hire‑purchase, import bills) are presented.

3 suggestions

Add data or expert commentary on potential risks (e.g., NPL trends in hire‑purchase loans, household debt‑to‑income ratios, import and FX pressures) to balance the positive claims.

Explicitly note that the article is reporting only NAIMA’s arguments and that other data or perspectives may show different or mixed effects.

If such data are unavailable, state that clearly so readers understand the limitations of the evidence base.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the status of an organization or sector to lend weight to its claims without providing substantive evidence.

The article implicitly leverages NAIMA’s position and the auto sector’s revenue contribution as a form of authority: - “'अटोमोबाइल क्षेत्र भन्सार महसुल, अन्तःशुल्क तथा मूल्य अभिवृद्धि करमार्फत सरकारको राजस्वमा उल्लेखनीय योगदान पुर्‍याउने क्षेत्रमध्ये एक हो,' नाइमाद्वारा जारी विज्ञप्तीमा उल्लेख छ…” This framing can make NAIMA’s policy prescription seem more compelling simply because the sector is a large taxpayer, not because the specific proposal has been rigorously evaluated.

3 suggestions

Balance NAIMA’s sectoral authority with input from neutral experts (e.g., independent economists, consumer protection advocates, or banking risk specialists).

Clarify that being a large revenue contributor does not automatically mean all policy requests from that sector are economically or socially optimal.

Add context on how policy decisions weigh multiple objectives (revenue, financial stability, consumer protection, external balance) rather than revenue alone.

Framing effect / Pro‑growth framing

Presenting the issue in a way that emphasizes certain positive outcomes and downplays or ignores potential costs, influencing readers’ perception.

The article consistently frames raising LTV as a solution to multiple problems and as broadly positive: - “हालको सीमाले अटोमोबाइल बजारमा सुस्तता ल्याएको र उपभोक्तालाई सवारी खरिदमा कठिनाइ भएको…” – Focus on consumer difficulty and market slowdown. - “... राजस्व संकलन, रोजगारी र सहायक उद्योगमा सकारात्मक प्रभाव पर्ने विश्वास नाइमाले व्यक्त गरेको छ।” – Emphasis on positive macro and employment effects. - “... पूँजी परिचालनको व्यावहारिक तथा प्रभावकारी उपाय हुन सक्ने…” – Framed as an efficient use of excess liquidity. No mention of potential negative frames (e.g., increased household debt burden, environmental costs, urban congestion, import dependence).

3 suggestions

Reframe the issue more neutrally by explicitly stating both potential benefits and potential risks of raising the LTV cap.

Use balanced language such as “सकारात्मक र नकारात्मक दुवै प्रभाव पर्न सक्ने विशेषज्ञहरूको भनाइ छ…” if expert views are available.

Avoid implying that higher LTV is primarily a ‘solution’ and instead present it as one policy option among several, with trade‑offs.