The Guyana Development Bank attracted an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 applications within two weeks of opening on October 5, raising questions about its capacity to process the submissions efficiently, assess business viability and ensure public funds are directed towards sustainable enterprises.
Dr Karen Abrams, MBA, Founder and Executive Director of STEMGuyana and Pathway Online Academy, has questioned whether the institution has the staffing, technical infrastructure and assessment systems required to manage the significant volume of applications without creating lengthy delays or compromising the quality of lending decisions.
In an October 25 opinion article published by Kaieteur News, Abrams examined the practical demands behind the government’s announcement, arguing that the convenience of submitting applications online does not necessarily translate into timely assessments and approvals.
President Irfaan Ali announced that between 15,000 and 20,000 persons had applied to the bank. The Department of Public Information reported on October 20 that applications were already being evaluated and grouped according to the sectors applicants intended to enter.
Drawing on her experience functioning at a senior level in corporate America, Abrams questioned whether the bank was adequately prepared to handle the administrative demands of such a large response.
To illustrate the workload, she calculated that reviewing each application for an average of one hour would amount to 20,000 working hours.
A team of five officers spending six hours daily reviewing applications would require approximately 667 working days, or 2.7 years, to complete the initial assessments. Even a team of 20 officers would need about 167 working days. These estimates exclude interviews, background checks, verification and final approvals.
“I have not noticed any advertisements for credit analysts from the GDB, so I am unsure how the staffing compares with the volume of applications. Perhaps the team is already in place.”
Abrams warned that without adequate staffing and efficient procedures, the bank could face a substantial backlog, leaving thousands of applicants waiting for decisions while officers struggle to balance assessments with repeated enquiries about application status.
Beyond processing capacity, she raised concerns about whether the bank would sufficiently examine the commercial viability of proposed businesses, particularly where large numbers of applicants intend to enter already competitive markets.
She cautioned that financing multiple shops, poultry farms, food businesses or transportation services in the same communities would not automatically generate additional consumer demand. Instead, new businesses could end up competing for an existing pool of customers, placing both new entrepreneurs and established operators under pressure.
“Who will buy the product? How many other businesses are selling it nearby? Is the applicant offering something different, reaching new customers or simply hoping to capture customers from someone else?”
Abrams argued that market analysis must be central to the lending process, particularly because the initiative involves public financing. A business proposal may appear attractive on paper, but without sufficient demand, borrowers could struggle to generate revenue and repay their loans.
She proposed using artificial intelligence (AI) to assist with application assessments. Such a system could identify incomplete submissions, summarise business plans, group similar proposals and flag concentrations of applicants seeking financing for the same types of businesses in particular locations.
She identified Kindo, which offers AI processing solutions that can operate on an organisation’s own infrastructure, and local technology company IntellectStorm as possible options for developing such a system.
However, Abrams cautioned that AI should support rather than replace human judgement. Applicants should not be disadvantaged because they lack the resources to prepare professionally written proposals, while their confidential financial information and business ideas must also be protected.
She further recommended an online tracking system allowing applicants to determine whether documents are missing, whether their applications are being assessed and when they could reasonably expect a decision.
The Development Bank initiative is intended to expand access to financing for entrepreneurs and stimulate business activity. However, the number of applications received is not, by itself, evidence that the programme will succeed.
The more consequential test will be whether the bank can demonstrate that it has the capacity to assess applications fairly and promptly, identify viable businesses and manage public financing responsibly.
Abrams’ analysis raises a fundamental question about the programme. Was the bank adequately equipped to handle the scale of demand, and can it translate that demand into sustainable businesses rather than an accumulation of applications awaiting approval?
