Payday lending is a controversial practice and faces both legal battles and public perception challenges in nearly every place where it is practiced. In the UK, David Drew MP signed an early day motion criticizing the payday lending market for high APRs and for locking customers into a "cycle of credit dependency"; it also noted the growth of Dollar Financial, a US-based payday lending company trading as Monevshop in the UK, and called for a public inquiry into the growth of high cost lending in general and payday lending in particular.
Draining money from low-income communities
People who resort to payday lending are typically low-income people with few assets, as these are people who are least able to secure normal, lower-interest-rate forms of credit. Since the payday lending operations charge such high interest-rates, and do nothing to encourage savings or asset accumulation, they have the effect of depleting the assets of low-income communities.
Exploiting financial hardship for profit
Critics such as Consumers Union blame payday lenders for exploiting people's financial hardship for profit. They say lenders target the young and the poor, particularly those near military bases and in low-income communities. They also say that borrowers may not understand that the high interest rates are likely to trap them in a "debt-cycle," where they have to repeatedly renew the loan and pay associated fees every two weeks until they can finally save enough to pay off the principal and get out of debt. Critics also say that payday lending unfairly disadvantages the poor, compared to the middle class who pay at most 25% or so on their credit cards.
However, opponents of government regulation of payday loan businesses argue that some individuals that require the use of payday loans have already exhausted or ruined any other alternatives. Tom Lehman, an advocate of unfettered payday lending, said,
[P]ayday lending services extend small amounts of uncollateralized credit to high-risk borrowers, and provide loans to poor households when other financial institutions will not. Throughout the past decade, this "democratization of credit" has made small loans available to mass sectors of the population, and particularly the poor, that would not have had access to credit of any kind in the past....
Lehman attacked proponents of increased regulation of the lending industry, arguing that,
These allegations against the payday-lending industry are largely without merit, and generally reflect the views of "do-gooder" anticapitalist elites who abhor the "messy" and unplanned outcomes in low-income consumer finance markets. Rather than seeing payday lending practices as a creative extension of credit to poor households who may otherwise be without loans, these critics see it as yet another opportunity for government intervention in the name of "helping" the poor.
Lehman has in turn been criticized for presenting himself as an independent voice while taking money from the payday loan industry.
Aggressive advertising practices
Debt charity Credit Action made a complaint to the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that payday lenders were placing adverts on social network website Facebook which broke advertising regulations. Their main complaint was that the APR was either not displayed at all or not displayed prominently enough, which is clearly required by UK advertising standards.
Aggressive collection practices
In US law, a payday lender can use only the same industry standard collection practices used to collect other debts.
In many cases, the borrower has written a post-dated check to the lender; if the borrower defaults, then this check will bounce. Some payday lenders have therefore threatened delinquent borrowers with criminal prosecution, for check fraud. This practice is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Ignoring legal restrictions
Payday lenders have been known to ignore usury limits and charge higher amounts than they are entitled to by law. On May 30, 2008, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation fined Global Payday Loan $234,000—the largest fine in Illinois history against a payday lender—for exceeding the $15.50 per $100 limit on charges for payday loans. A customer, known only as J.M., borrowed $300 and repaid $360 ($13.50 more than the company was legally entitled to collect under the Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act), but the company was still sending her warnings that her account was 'seriously delinquent' and that her unpaid balance was $630.
Pricing structure of payday loans
Issuers of payday loans defend their higher interest rates by saying processing costs for payday loans do not differ much from other loans, including home mortgages. They argue that conventional interest rates for lower dollar amounts and shorter terms would not be profitable. For example, a $100 one-week loan, at a 20% APR (compounded weekly) would generate only 38 cents of interest, which would fail to match loan processing costs.
Critics say payday lenders' processing costs are significantly lower than costs for mortgages and other traditional loans. Payday lenders usually look at recent pay-stubs, whereas larger-loan lenders do full credit checks and make a determination about the borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Net profitability
A study by the FDIC Center for Financial Research found “operating costs lie in the range of advance fees” collected and that, after subtracting fixed operating costs and “unusually high rate of default losses,” payday loans “may not necessarily yield extraordinary profits.” Based on the annual reports of publicly traded payday loan companies, loan losses can average 15% or more of loan revenue. Underwriters of payday loans must also deal with people presenting fraudulent checks as security or making stop payments.
Critics concede that some borrowers may default on the loans, but point to the industry's pace of growth as an indication of its profitability. Consumer advocates condemn the practice as a whole, regardless of its profitability, because it "takes advantage of consumers who are already hard-pressed to pay their debts".
Proponents' stance
A staff report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that payday loans should not be categorized as "predatory" since they may improve household welfare. "Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending" reports "if payday lenders raise household welfare by relaxing credit constraints, anti-predatory legislation may lower it." The author of the report, Donald P. Morgan, defined predatory lending as "a welfare reducing provision of credit." However, he also noted that loans are very expensive, and that they are likely to be made to under-educated households or households of uncertain income.
Draining money from low-income communities
People who resort to payday lending are typically low-income people with few assets, as these are people who are least able to secure normal, lower-interest-rate forms of credit. Since the payday lending operations charge such high interest-rates, and do nothing to encourage savings or asset accumulation, they have the effect of depleting the assets of low-income communities.
Exploiting financial hardship for profit
Critics such as Consumers Union blame payday lenders for exploiting people's financial hardship for profit. They say lenders target the young and the poor, particularly those near military bases and in low-income communities. They also say that borrowers may not understand that the high interest rates are likely to trap them in a "debt-cycle," where they have to repeatedly renew the loan and pay associated fees every two weeks until they can finally save enough to pay off the principal and get out of debt. Critics also say that payday lending unfairly disadvantages the poor, compared to the middle class who pay at most 25% or so on their credit cards.
However, opponents of government regulation of payday loan businesses argue that some individuals that require the use of payday loans have already exhausted or ruined any other alternatives. Tom Lehman, an advocate of unfettered payday lending, said,
[P]ayday lending services extend small amounts of uncollateralized credit to high-risk borrowers, and provide loans to poor households when other financial institutions will not. Throughout the past decade, this "democratization of credit" has made small loans available to mass sectors of the population, and particularly the poor, that would not have had access to credit of any kind in the past....
Lehman attacked proponents of increased regulation of the lending industry, arguing that,
These allegations against the payday-lending industry are largely without merit, and generally reflect the views of "do-gooder" anticapitalist elites who abhor the "messy" and unplanned outcomes in low-income consumer finance markets. Rather than seeing payday lending practices as a creative extension of credit to poor households who may otherwise be without loans, these critics see it as yet another opportunity for government intervention in the name of "helping" the poor.
Lehman has in turn been criticized for presenting himself as an independent voice while taking money from the payday loan industry.
Aggressive advertising practices
Debt charity Credit Action made a complaint to the UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that payday lenders were placing adverts on social network website Facebook which broke advertising regulations. Their main complaint was that the APR was either not displayed at all or not displayed prominently enough, which is clearly required by UK advertising standards.
Aggressive collection practices
In US law, a payday lender can use only the same industry standard collection practices used to collect other debts.
In many cases, the borrower has written a post-dated check to the lender; if the borrower defaults, then this check will bounce. Some payday lenders have therefore threatened delinquent borrowers with criminal prosecution, for check fraud. This practice is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Ignoring legal restrictions
Payday lenders have been known to ignore usury limits and charge higher amounts than they are entitled to by law. On May 30, 2008, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation fined Global Payday Loan $234,000—the largest fine in Illinois history against a payday lender—for exceeding the $15.50 per $100 limit on charges for payday loans. A customer, known only as J.M., borrowed $300 and repaid $360 ($13.50 more than the company was legally entitled to collect under the Illinois Payday Loan Reform Act), but the company was still sending her warnings that her account was 'seriously delinquent' and that her unpaid balance was $630.
Pricing structure of payday loans
Issuers of payday loans defend their higher interest rates by saying processing costs for payday loans do not differ much from other loans, including home mortgages. They argue that conventional interest rates for lower dollar amounts and shorter terms would not be profitable. For example, a $100 one-week loan, at a 20% APR (compounded weekly) would generate only 38 cents of interest, which would fail to match loan processing costs.
Critics say payday lenders' processing costs are significantly lower than costs for mortgages and other traditional loans. Payday lenders usually look at recent pay-stubs, whereas larger-loan lenders do full credit checks and make a determination about the borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Net profitability
A study by the FDIC Center for Financial Research found “operating costs lie in the range of advance fees” collected and that, after subtracting fixed operating costs and “unusually high rate of default losses,” payday loans “may not necessarily yield extraordinary profits.” Based on the annual reports of publicly traded payday loan companies, loan losses can average 15% or more of loan revenue. Underwriters of payday loans must also deal with people presenting fraudulent checks as security or making stop payments.
Critics concede that some borrowers may default on the loans, but point to the industry's pace of growth as an indication of its profitability. Consumer advocates condemn the practice as a whole, regardless of its profitability, because it "takes advantage of consumers who are already hard-pressed to pay their debts".
Proponents' stance
A staff report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that payday loans should not be categorized as "predatory" since they may improve household welfare. "Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending" reports "if payday lenders raise household welfare by relaxing credit constraints, anti-predatory legislation may lower it." The author of the report, Donald P. Morgan, defined predatory lending as "a welfare reducing provision of credit." However, he also noted that loans are very expensive, and that they are likely to be made to under-educated households or households of uncertain income.
No comments:
Post a Comment