Mapping household bankability for Indonesia's government-subsidized mortgage program (FLPP) at national population scale across 500+ districts, making visible what the housing finance system has never measured.
Nur Jihad Albar · UC Berkeley · Goldman School of Public Policy · 2026
Prepared for the Office of Chief Economist, PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk
Explore the dataIndonesia has 74.1 million households. Of those, 39.8 million fall within the affordability window for FLPP, their income sits between the mortgage payment floor and the program's income ceiling. After narrowing for homeownership status, 5.77 million remain as program-eligible, a number the system has never had.
This study scores all 5.77 million on four dimensions of bankability: Income Adequacy, Income Stability, Financial Track Record, and Risk Buffer. It then applies four different weighting schemes to reveal how the definition of "bankable" shapes who gets served.
The four lenses are: Creditworthiness (balanced risk assessment), Bank Product Screening (reverse-engineered from bank product criteria), Credit Professional (expert judgment from a lending professional within the bank), and Regulatory (affordability only).
Results range from 2.65M to 3.49M Bankable+ households depending on which lens is used, a 14.5 percentage-point swing on the same population. The same families. Different answers.
All figures are based on BPS SUSENAS March 2025 wave. This is a point-in-time snapshot, not a live feed. The framework and methodology are designed to be re-run on future survey waves.
FLPP is a 20-year mortgage. Whether a household can sustain payments across two decades depends on more than meeting an income ceiling. It depends on four things working together.
Mean dimension scores across all 5.77 million eligible households.
Which of these dimensions matters most? That depends on who is doing the screening.
Different screening lenses produce different counts. Each reflects a different screening priority. The question is which dimensions matter most.
What Tapera regulation (BP Tapera 9/2021) literally tests. Income within ceiling, no current homeownership.
The 14.5 percentage-point swing between lenses traces to one factor: how much weight each places on employment formality. This shapes who gets selected for a 20-year obligation.
Casual workers are nearly excluded regardless of their financial profile. Salaried workers pass at high rates regardless of theirs.
Banks rely on employment formality because the current environment offers limited alternatives for verifying informal income. But the risk may be overstated: small-house mortgages carry the highest non-performing loan rate in the system at 5.23%, yet FLPP's subsidy design, a fixed 5% rate and extended tenor, functions as built-in credit enhancement that mitigates segment risk. The recommendations that follow focus on fixing the verification environment.
Start with what exists. Build toward what is needed. Status Quo is already underway. Alternative A is near-term and administrative. Alternative B is medium-term and institutional.
Two changes within reach of existing institutions: extending the government-subsidized mortgage (FLPP) loan term from 20 to 25 years, and recalibrating the Jamkrindo guarantee to match the regulatory income ceiling. The simulator below shows the joint effect on the bankable pool.
All estimates are upper bounds. They assume the income-verification gap is resolved. The simulator illustrates upper-bound expansion under stated assumptions; realized impact will depend on implementation.