Yes, exactly. In fact, this could be interpreted as evidence that the bank's standards are close to ideal. The loans have a basically neutral effect on the marginal borrowers (the only borrowers included in the Dartmouth experiment), which is exactly what you hope to see if you're trying to draw a line between people who would be helped by loans and those who are more likely to be harmed.

You may also be interested in another study done a few years ago that was based on random samplings of high interest rate loans to the poor: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119388104410378595.html?mod=...

Excerpt: "The lender charged its normal rate: 200% APR. The remaining, just-below-the-normal-approval-bar applicants (the "control group") were rejected in line with the lender's normal credit policy. We then tracked both groups over the next six to 27 months, measuring their well-being based on a range of economic, social, health and mental health measures. Applicants who were randomly approved for a loan had higher incomes, less hunger, better credit scores and more positive outlooks than their control group counterparts -- even after paying the high interest rate. Though they had higher than normal default rates, the borderline loans were also profitable for the lender."