The consumer lending and finance industry last year alone contributed $400,000 to state lawmakers - the bulk went to lawmakers serving on the committees that control the fate of check cash advance lenders.

No wonder then - The Roanoke Times argues - that state senators shamefully ignored evidence that these loans pose an extreme hardship to cash-strapped Virginians.

Members of the Senate’s Commerce and Labor Committee– which includes Roanoke’s John Edwards –received $120,132 from finance companies since 2004, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

So it should surprise no one that they canned bills that favored consumers over predatory, no fax payday advance lenders.

The full Senate last week passed a payday lending bill that is the equivalent of using a feather duster instead of undiluted bleach to scrub the indelible stain left by the loan-shark industry the General Assembly legalized in 2001.

The senators know payday lenders need some restraints. They certainly heard enough testimonials from borrowers and previous fast payday loan officers that the system sucks people into a cycle of deepening debt. Surely they had information from the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions that reports the average interest rate is 386 percent but it can - and has - reached more than 1,000 percent.

If senators still didn’t feel compelled to repeal a law that sanctions usury, they could have at the very least capped the interest rate at 72 percent - twice the legal limit for other types of loans.

But they weren’t even willing to grant that small concession to protect consumers.

Instead, they voted for a bill that industry favored and does little but limit a borrower to juggling three of these payday cash loans at the same time. Nothing in the law prevents lenders from charging them an additional fee of $15 per $100 borrowed every two weeks to keep rolling over the loans.

The industry claims it fills a need by extending credit to people who can’t obtain it elsewhere. With good reason: They can’t afford it.

There is some hope, although slim, that the House will act in consumers’ interest despite the $107,000 the industry has given in the last two years to committee members.

Sen. Walter A. Stosch - author of the 2001 bill that sanctioned payday loans and the largest recipient of the industry’s donations - was one of just two senators voting against the payday cash advance industry this time.

Stosch has since come to rue his legislation. It’s only a matter of time before regret catches up to the others.

The Post and Courier takes a look at all sides of the South Carolina payday loan debate below …

As state lawmakers get to grips with cash advance companies, a report released last week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York argues that payday cash advances are not predatory lending.

Rather, these loans can “enhance the welfare of consumers by providing them a critical choice for managing short-term financial challenges,” the report says.

This announcement was generally made in the form of a press release from Spartanburg-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, the nation’s largest easy payday loan lender.

In the news release, Ken Compton, Advance America’s chief executive, called the study “an important academic perspective on the debate surrounding payday lending.”

The study, written by Donald P. Morgan, a research officer for the Fed in New York, compares the differences in household debt across states that allow payday lending and those that do not.

The report uses data provided by the Consumer Federation of America and other sources. It concludes that payday loans no faxing can enhance the welfare of households by increasing credit. In addition, the report asserts that consumers appear sophisticated enough to seek lower prices for products, and finds that some of those who use payday advances for short-term budgeting do so to avoid missing other payments.

Compton said critics who attack the payday loan industry question the ability of those who use online payday advance loans to look after cash in a responsible way. The study helps shatter some of those misleading stereotypes.

On the other hand …

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. last week issued a Supervisory Policy on Predatory Lending that describes certain characteristics of the practice and “reaffirms that such activities are inconsistent with safe and sound lending, and undermine individual, family and community economic well-being.”

Read the rest of this entry »

We spend so much time talking about faxless payday loans, we figured it was a good time to stop for a moment and review various details regarding them:

What is a payday advance loan?
Short-term, small, single-payment loans intended to carry the borrower through a temporary cash deficiency. In exchange for the advance, the lender receives a personal check - dated for the borrower’s next payday - for the amount of the loan and the finance charge.

Why such high rates for borrowing?
The structure of payday advance loans makes them costly to originate these short-term loans, whose default rates substantially exceed the customary credit losses at mainstream financial institutions.

What’s the downside?
Consumer groups sharply criticize payday lenders for selling overpriced cash advance loans to people who are already experiencing financial difficulties. Critics further contend that payday borrowers are not well-informed about the true cost of their borrowing, and that lenders engage in deceptive and unfair practices, particularly practices designed to encourage repeated loan rollovers.

What’s the upside?
The payday loan industry claims to provide a valued service to underserved consumers. Industry leaders note that mainstream financial institutions have withdrawn from the market for very small, short-term loans.

Are borrowers chronic?
Apparently. A 2005 FDIC study concluded fewer than half of a typical faxless payday loan store’s customers took out six or fewer loans per year.

Do lenders prey on the poor and minorities?
Numbers vary. A 2001 study of borrower demographics showed more than half of all borrowers had an average annual income of between $25,000 and $49,999. The study also showed 74.4 percent of all borrowers had either a high school diploma or some college education.

A 2003 North Carolina study revealed, however concluded the incidence of payday borrowing is higher among blacks and among individuals recently involved in the welfare system. Also, the study shows that individuals with impaired credit histories are more likely to use payday loans as a source of funds.

Are these businesses regulated?
Yes. Some states have outlawed the practice, but pay day loan lenders still operate in 37 states with varying regulations. In Alabama, borrowers may not have more than $500 in outstanding loans from payday lenders and loans can only be rolled over once. The maximum 14-day fee for a $100 loan is set at $17.50.

Are payday lenders and car title lenders the same?
Not according to the laws regulating them. Car title lenders have different regulations, as do those businesses that cash checks for a fee.

“Usury” is a word you don’t hear too often anymore, at least outside the Department of Medieval Studies. So begins an opinion piece, paraphrased below, in The Bainbridge Review.

Condemned by the 12th century papacy, its practitioners relegated by Dante to the fiery ninth circle of Hell, the practice of lending money at exorbitant interest rates has been morally suspect as long as there have been sheep to fleece.

Our modern, more laissez-faire attitude toward personal economics has taken some of the stigma out of high-interest lending, but a more descriptive term lives on in the vernacular: “loan sharking.”

Hard to imagine what else you might call fast payday advance lenders who charge up to 390 percent annual interest for short-term payday loans.

Thankfully, 23rd District Rep. Sherry Appleton is behind legislation (HB-1020) now making the rounds in Olympia to cap the interest on short-term cash advance lending at 36 percent per annum. This sensible, consumer protection legislation deserves support.

With the easy availability of credit cards, Americans each year sink deeper into the quicksand of consumer debt. Yet the Washington Post reports that a popular conception – that we’re running up high-interest plastic charges to buy wide-screen televisions and bankroll weekends in Vegas – is decreasingly accurate.

The debt culprits these days are unforeseen hospital bills, onerous housing payments and high college tuition. So it’s easy to see how payday loan outfits – who would get no sympathy from Dante – look attractive to those who find themselves suddenly short of cash.

“Can’t pay the bills this month? No problem! Come on down to Moolah Mart and we’ll help you get by until payday – at which time you can pay us back at (cough cough) a modest fee.”

That fee is anything but modest; the Federal Trade Commission reports that patrons of such predatory lenders can end up owing $60 in interest to borrow $100 for mere weeks. Compound that for bigger amounts over more no fax cash loan periods, and it’s a downward financial spiral few could escape.

The issue came to Appleton’s attention thanks to Kitsap military officials, concerned that unwary servicemen and women were being taken advantage of off-base; her legislation would extend protection to all payday loan patrons. Banks, Appleton notes, seem to get by okay doling out credit at much lower rates, so it’s hard to imagine the storefront outfits can’t survive on 36 percent.

By any other name, it’s still usury.

Better still if the state’s 700-odd providers of instant payday loans went away altogether, replaced by credit unions or consumer counseling services. Socially, we’d get a much better rate of return.

According to The Arizona Republic, payday lending just might be one of the best of the unappealing financing options open to cash-strapped individuals.

The practice of extending fairly small, short-term loans secured by a worker’s postdated personal check certainly is controversial. Critics claim the fees, when expressed as an annual interest rate, amount to usury. They also accuse no fax payday advance lenders of targeting vulnerable groups, such as single mothers and military personnel.

However, in some respects, payday loans are better than many other financing alternatives.

“Our industry exists solely because we offer our customers a product that is more desirable than the alternatives,” said Darrin Andersen, president of the Community Financial Services Association of America, an industry group.

His comments came in response to a new government report that provides some exoneration for the fast cash advance industry.

Researcher Donald P. Morgan at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York saw little reason to label the industry as “predatory,” though he also noted it’s hard to define the term. In fact, Morgan found people living in states where payday lending is largely unregulated are less likely to report being turned down for credit, with no greater likelihood of carrying higher debt or missing debt payments.

“The latter result is consistent with claims by defenders of payday lending that some households borrow from payday lenders to avoid missing payments on other debt,” Morgan wrote.

The study also asserts borrowers can get better deals in neighborhoods that count lots of bad credit payday loan lending stores for the simple reason competition drives down fees a bit.

This observation undercuts the argument for restricting payday lenders through regulation. It even paints the clustering of cash loan stores in low-income areas and around military bases as a good thing.

Also, the boom in payday lending appears to have cut into the business of pawnshops, which offer a financing option that arguably is less savory than that of same day payday loans.

The study didn’t delve deeply into other unattractive alternatives, but you can make a case that payday loans aren’t worse, and perhaps better, than taking a cash advance on a credit card, running chronically high credit-card balances, triggering late fees or missing bill payments altogether, especially if such moves result in foreclosure, eviction or damage to your credit score.

“Despite (the) high cost, perhaps payday loans help risky households better manage their finances,” Morgan wrote.

But all this shouldn’t be construed as a reason to run up chronic quick cash loan tabs. The practice is expensive, as Morgan noted in the report.

Read the rest of this entry »

Cash Now Corporation, a public payday loan company engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing and distribution of customized cash advance and check cashing software and white or private label back end systems, Internet based payday loans, and other sub prime financial utility tools, annouced today after the market closed, the completion of the regional training transaction.

The trainee, a Maryland based mortgage broker, plans on adding additional services to their clients via the Internet such as online payday loans and other sub prime financial services made available by Cash Now and its vendors.
Cash Now’s CEO Garr Winters said:

“This is a bit of a different twist from our traditional model, however, as more and more states and provinces change the laws on payday loan lending we are noticing an increase in the media scrutiny and the need for [easy payday loan] and check cashing operators to stay on top of the current laws and regulations that affect our industry.”

Case in point, the recent soon-to-be-released San Francisco Chronicle expose on the payday loan industry that is comparing traditional bank fees to those charged by cash advance payday loan companies. The company confirms that it did contribute to the payday industry support cause, as it did participate with the journalist inquiry.

Mr. Winters continued:

“We are not a bit surprised that most consumers and journalists alike did not realize that in most cases, taking out a short term payday advance is less expensive than the fees charged by some traditional banks.”

In other company news, the company remains concerned about the erosion of its share price. The company plans on issuing a “President’s Message” press release to its shareholders, that will address this and many other frequently asked payday advance loan questions of its shareholders.

The Virginia Senate passed a bill yesterday tightening regulations on instant payday loan lenders - but falling short of changes critics had sought.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D- Fairfax, would still allow lenders to charge up to 391 percent per annum for a two-week loan.

The measure passed the Senate, 35-2, with one senator, whose wife is a lobbyist for the payday-lending industry, abstaining. The dissenters were Sens. Nick Rerras, R-Norfolk, and Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico. Stosch had introduced a bill that would have placed no fax payday advance lenders under the same 36 percent rate cap facing other makers of small loans, but it failed in committee.

Saslaw’s bill would set up a state database to allow lenders to keep up with limits on payday loans. The bill would restrict the number of cash advances a borrower could have at any one time to three.

Critics of payday cash loans, which include consumer, church and social organizations, say such reforms have been tried and failed in other states. They say payday loans catch borrowers in a debt trap.

Providers of bad credit payday loans, on the other hand, say that they provide a service to borrowers who need money for emergencies and otherwise couldn’t get credit. That was one of the reasons Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke, gave yesterday for voting for Saslaw’s bill.

Besides Saslaw, Edwards was the only one to speak on the bill yesterday. The day before, efforts on the Senate floor by Edwards and others to tighten the bill and cut allowable interest rates failed.

Payday loans are not necessarily predatory, says a surprising new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Payday lenders are touting the report while consumer groups note that the report is still preliminary and does not reflect what they see in the real world of low-income borrowers.

The report comes out at a time of growing concern about fast payday advance lenders. New Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison has called for a round-table discussion on whether payday loans trap borrowers in long-term debt.

However, the report by Federal Reserve Bank of New York research officer Donald P. Morgan argues that contrary to arguments that payday loans are predatory, payday lenders may actually enhance the welfare of households by increasing the supply of available credit in a state.

The report agrees that bad credit cash loans can be expensive, but it found “credit delinquency rates are not higher for households in states with higher payday loan limits.”

Moreover, it said payday loans may provide a “preferable” alternative to pawn shops. “Despite their alleged naiveté, payday borrowers appear sophisticated enough to shop for lower prices.”

“This report gives clear and objective scholarly evidence that payday loans are not predatory,” said Darrin Andersen, president of QC Holdings in Overland Park and also president of the Community Financial Services Association of America, which represents many easy payday loan lenders nationally.

But consumer groups and credit counselors disagreed with the findings of the report, which they note is still preliminary. The report seeks comment from consumer groups and the public.

“It depends on how you define predatory,” said Tim Hagan, director of education for Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Kansas. “It appears the Federal Reserve report is an academic discussion,” he said. But, he said, in the real world, counselors are seeing more people trapped in payday loans with high fees.

The trap, he said, is that people don’t fully understand how payday cash advances, which can carry 390 percent annual interest rates, can be sucked into revolving debt with fees costing three times the amount of the debt.

“We’ve seen people in counseling who are just trying to maintain the fees on the debt.”

Both sides say the report will help spark more debate nationally.

When you are looking at the difference between legislation that would ban your industry or merely reform it, reform starts to look pretty good.

That’s the position providers of bad credit cash loans find themselves in as nearly a dozen measures wend their way through the General Assembly that range from an outright ban of the ubiquitous storefront lenders to serious reform.

Payday cash advance lenders have flourished in Virginia since 2002 when the state uncapped regulations on the industry allowing it to charge interest rates of as much as 400 percent on an annual basis.

There is a need for such lenders, as figures provided by The Washington Post show. According to the Post, more than 445,000 Virginians took out more than 3.3 million payday loans in 2005, totaling nearly $1.2 billion. The average customer takes out about seven loans a year, state figures show. Loans cannot exceed $500.Figures also show that those seven - or more - no faxing payday loans a year can often end up creating a financial trap for the borrower. The only way out of that trap is to arrange for another loan. And the borrower - often people who live from paycheck to paycheck - becomes entwined in a cycle of debt from which he cannot escape.

You know there’s something wrong with a state law when the sponsor of the bill that created it asks for it to be repealed.

Del. Harvey Morgan, R-Gloucester, opened the door for easy payday loan lenders in Virginia with legislation in 2002 that exempted them from the 36 percent cap on interest rates. He says now he didn’t think it was a good idea.

Repealing the law would not shut the payday lenders down. But they would face the same 36 percent cap as banks and other financial institutions.

Del. John O’Bannon III, R-Henrico, joined Morgan and others at a news conference the other day on fast payday advance lending, saying:

“It’s time for us to go ahead and accept the fact that this was a failed experiment and that there are more alternatives for this set of folks. At the end of the day I think the time has come, the experiment has been done, it has failed and it is time to act.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Here is a recent, paraphrased letter to the editor of The Olympian:

I agree with condemning payday lenders who violate state laws governing that industry. The Department of Financial Institutions vigorously enforces those fast payday advance laws, as a Jan. 12 editorial describes.

That editorial goes astray, though, with its blanket assertion that all “payday loans prey on the poor.” It confuses fixed fees with annual percentage rates by referring to 391.07 percent interest rates.

That sounds terrible, until you realize lenders offer, at considerable risk of default, and with full terms’ disclosure, unsecured loans with fees of $15 or less per $100 borrowed. I may never take out such quick cash loans, but would also never want to be in the risky business of offering them.

Although The Olympian calls upon banks and credit unions to offer more access to short-term loans, consider market realities: These are risky, entirely unsecured loans, and credit unions testified in December that if the Legislature lowers fees, it would be impractical to offer such loans.

So, a regulated financial option that generates very few borrower complaints to DFI, and provides Washingtonians access to over

$1 billion in loans annually, would be eliminated by proposed legislation. What then for the poor? Resort to unregulated online payday loan lenders or loan sharks?

The Olympian’s compassion is commendable, but I would refocus it upon root causes of poverty, including Wal-Mart - which does more than any other company to exploit poor people - or a Bush administration that devalues military service by paying military enlistees as little as $14,446.80 a year, putting them into desperate economic hardship.

Brendan Williams, state representative, 22nd District.