Consumer Groups Blast Gutierrez' Payday Loan Reform Bill

Earlier this month, we questioned whether Rep. Luis Gutierrez really had consumers' best interest in mind when he introduced the Payday Loan Reform Act of 2009. Although the Chicago Democrat penned a similarly-named bill two years prior that consumer advocates praised, some of those same individuals told us that the latest version ostensibly legitimizes the payday loan industry's existing fee structure under federal law, possibly undercutting more stringent reforms emerging at the state level.

On Wednesday, 10 consumer advocacy groups made their complaints formal, sending a letter (PDF) to the U.S. House decrying the measure for "condon[ing] the predatory payday loan business model." At issue is Section 2d of the bill:

It shall be unlawful for a payday lender to require a consumer to pay interest and fees that, combined, total more than 15 cents for every dollar loaned in connection with a payday loan.

A $15 fee on $100 loan doesn't sound terrible at first glance, until you realize that the typical payday lender applies that fee over the course of a single pay period.  And as the consumer groups note in their letter, the typical payday loan consumer will pay such a fee nine times during a given year. That adds up, which is exactly what the lenders are counting on. 

More from their letter:

H.R. 1214 provides Congressional approval to payday loans at rates of 390 percent APR for two weeks or 780 percent APR for one week. The loan cap of fifteen cents per dollar loaned in HR 1214 authorizes lenders to charge $60 for a typical $400 loan, which is due in one pay cycle. This means that, for the typical borrower with nine loans per year, H.R. 1214 authorizes lenders to collect $540 in finance charges for a $400 loan taken out over an 18-week period. [...]

Although the bill does not preempt stronger state rate caps, it would send a message approving usurious lending at triple-digit rates. The practical impact of Congressional passage of this bill will be to stop the progress of reform in the states.

Gutierrez's defense is that Sen. Dick Durbin's bill to cap interest rates at 36 percent -- legislation favored by consumer advocacy groups -- does not have broad enough support. Here's what he told the Huffington Post on Friday:

"[T]he fact is that we don't have the votes to pass a 36% rate cap now for all of the consumers who deserve it," the congressman writes. "As it stands, the payday lending industry will in fact lose substantial profits if my bill passes, but consumers in the 23 states with weak or no payday lending rules will be shielded from entering a spiral of debt, simply for seeking the money they need in an emergency."

While lenders operating in the 23 states with no laws on the books will likely lose some profits, it's just not the case that authorizing lenders to charge these rates will protect borrowers from "a spiral of debt." In trying to placate both the consumer rights and lending communities, Gutierrez seems to have missed the mark.

Comments

All too often, statutes which look like they regulate an industry actually enable it. We don't know Rep. Gutierrez' intentions. But we can be clear that the outcome of this statute would be to allow the proliferation of pay-day loans. Some academic types think that pay-day loans serve a legitimate purpose. But having put too many people through bankruptcy because they were attached to pay-day loan companies with unbreakable shackles and post-dated checks far in to the future, I can tell you that the reality is the contrary. Pay-day loan companies prey on people's immediate needs and economic weakness. They serve little social interest.

David Leibowitz, if you were a counselor for overweight people you might similarly have an opinion that all the companies that advertise cakes and candies on TV serve little social interest and their products should be banned. But we happen to live in America, sir, where we are supposed to have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the free pursuit of happiness - as long as we don't infringe on the equal rights of others to the same, as you and the "consumer groups" looking to put an end to the popular payday-loan service are trying to do. Why don't you let people decide for themselves if a transparent $300 loan with a $50 flat fee is in their best interest? For some people payday loans are a lifesaver, and for you to take that option away from them is nothing less than CRIMINAL.

People who insist on evaluating payday loans in terms of the annual percentage rate - which is just a very small part of the picture - are simply showing that they are basically just looking for a target to criticize. The APR, as a statistical tool, only has value for comparing loans which you have access to - if all other factors are the same, choose the one with the lowest APR. But if due to your credit rating you can't borrow money at a low APR, that doesn't mean a relatively high APR loan is a ripoff or a bad choice for you. If without the payday loan you are going to lose your job because you can't get your car repaired on time, then it is definitely a good choice for you. If you are otherwise going to be paying more than the cost of the payday loan in bounced check and late credit-card payment charges, then yes it is good for you. People use payday loans for many different reasons and customer satisfaction surveys have unequivocally shown that most people who use them are basically satisfied with the service and consider them to be a valuable financial option. Yes, some people overborrow and make their situation worse, but that is true of every good thing. You don't ban useful things because some people need to learn from their own mistakes not to use them irresponsibly. If you want to help those people then counsel them or offer them a better alternative - don't take away what is in fact the best available alternative for many people in many circumstances. That is absolutely mean and authoritarian.

Small-dollar short-term loans must have a relatively high APR just for the lender to break even on the transaction. About ninety percent of the fees payday lenders charge go to covering the cost of making the loans plus those that are defaulted on. The SEC filings of the public payday loan companies show that their profit margins are about the same as most Fortune 500 companies, and less than many. This is an undisputable fact.

The critics of payday lending are simply dishonest, as is shown in the statement:

"The loan cap of fifteen cents per dollar loaned in HR 1214 authorizes lenders to charge $60 for a typical $400 loan, which is due in one pay cycle. This means that, for the typical borrower with nine loans per year, H.R. 1214 authorizes lenders to collect $540 in finance charges for a $400 loan taken out over an 18-week period. [...] "

Even if the average payday loan customer does take out nine loans over the course of a year, to view the multiple fees over the whole year as a single charge for a single loan is an absolutely gross distortion which clearly shows that these people simply have no respect for the truth. They are apparently just looking to raise their own stature by criticizing somebody else.

If payday lenders advertise the service dishonestly or violate debt collection laws then go after them for that - but otherwise please have a little respect for freedom in America and let honest business people make honest offerings which are useful for many people, as payday loans are - and be a true consumer advocate and let consumers DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES whether or not a payday loan works for them in their individual situation, which only they understand.

Having seen many people recover from financial hiccups and enabled in their quest for fiscal stability through using payday loans, I'd have to respectfully disagree with David's statements. While there are, undoubtedly, individuals who have filed for bankruptcy with payday loans on their creditor list, I'd venture a guess there were also other consumer credit options incorporated as well- including credit cards, bounced checks and even mortgages. Yet, there aren't many seeking an outright ban on credit cards or checking accounts.

Regulated fairly, as already done in the majority of US states, (including NOT allowing individuals the ability to transact more than 1 or max 2 payday loans at a time-- an unwise practice not unlike multiple credit card acceptances-- capping loan amounts based on a percentage of income, etc.), payday loans do serve social interest. As is, this bill is a one-sided argument.

Having never taken, or fully understanding the viability of, a payday loan does not negate their useful purpose.

It's just as important for the borrower to properly manage his debt and know what he's in for when he takes out the loan. Too many borrowers DON NOT, which is what leads to all this unnecessary legislation, or worse—economic downfall. We need financial wisdom, which has been scarce in this country for most of the last 15-odd years.

At a 36% APR, the total fee charged on a $100, two-week advance would be $1.38. Payday advance lenders could not cover the cost of originating a loan, let alone cover basic business expenses. Ultimately, a 36% APR cap would eliminate an affordable short-term credit choice for consumers.

Compare the fees of consumers' short-term credit options: $100 payday advance = $15 fee; overdraft protection = $29; late fee on a credit card bill = $37; $100 off-shore internet payday loan = $25 fee; bounced check and NSF/Merchant fee = $55. (Source: http://www.cfsa.net/cost_comparison.html)

Rep. Guiterrez had an ACTUAL PAYDAY LOAN CONSUMER at his hearings. She was fantastic! Reasoned and articulate, she easily justified the existence of the payday loan industry.

It's interesting to note that multiple studies by independent third parties generally conclude that ACTUAL payday loan consumers are satisfied with their experience and are very happy the payday loan product existed as a possible solution to their economic difficulties.

It''s obvious, after watching the Guiterrez Hearings, that typical consumer activists like Ms Jean Fox of CRLA have no clue! It was with great pleasure that I witnessed her bias and naivety at the hearings. The sub-committee members had her number as well.

There are no alternatives to these sub-prime financial products. Consumers want and use them because they make sense in some circumstances. With a 36% cap, they'll be gone. Then where will the millions of consumers who use payday loans go? Bank overdrafts of 2500% APR?

Jer@PAYDAYLOANINDUSTRYBLOG.com - are you serious? You are obviously a shill for the industry. Do you really believe that people who read this are morons???

At a 36% APR, the total fee charged on a $100, two-week advance would be $1.38. Payday advance lenders could not cover the cost of originating a loan, let alone cover basic business expenses. Ultimately, a 36% APR cap would eliminate an affordable short-term credit choice for consumers. read more about payday loan Pluses And Minuses

Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.

Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

We will not publish comments that we consider:

  • off-topic
  • long-winded or containing excessive text from another source
  • inflammatory
  • commercial promotion

Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.