Or, is the new payday lender interest limitations in Federal law actually a good thing by making these loans essentially impossible to get for military personnel, at least in UT. The “Deseret Morning News” article (via. “Overlawyered” ) gives a clue as to what is going on:
Payday lenders tells military ‘no’
Companies refusing loans at mandated lower rate
By Lee Davidson
Deseret Morning NewsPublished: October 2, 2007
© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved
Utah payday lenders began refusing Monday to make loans to members of the military rather than give them much lower rates mandated by a new federal law. That new law,…caps the annual interest on payday, car title or tax refund anticipation loans at 36 percent annually for members of the military and their families. A 2005 Deseret Morning News series found payday loans here averaged a whopping 521 percent interest, and car title loans averaged 300 percent.
Cort Walker, spokesman for the payday loan industry’s Utah Consumer Lending Association, said Utah payday lenders simply cannot make a profit… so they will decline to do business with members of the military.
“At 36 percent annual percent rate, the total fees we could charge are $1.38 per $100 for a two-week loan. That is less than 10 cents a day….
“Payroll advance lenders could not even meet employee payroll at that rate, let alone cover other fixed expenses and make a profit,” [F]or such lenders to reach the break-even point they must charge about $13.70 per $100 loaned for two weeks.
Walker said Utah payday lenders will now ask potential customers if they are active members of the military. If they are, “we cannot offer them a loan,” he said.
While refusing loans to someone based on such things as race or religion would violate civil rights laws, the payday loan industry’s lawyers say refusing service to the military does not violate laws…
Walker said, “This law will force the members of the military to choose between more expensive alternatives like bounced checks or overdraft protections and even unregulated and more risky alternatives…”
And when is a payday loan the cheaper alternative??
Linda Hilton, a payday loan industry critic and director of the Coalition of Religious Communities, disagrees.
“It may be taking an option away from the military, but it’s taking away their worst option and leading them toward others,” she said….
The Pentagon issued Monday a press release saying it hopes the new 36 percent cap will help…and said payday and car title loans “often lead to a cycle of ever-increasing debt” as families cannot repay them on time, and take out more loans to cover earlier loans.
“The protection the regulation offers is not a wall preventing a service member from getting assistance, rather it is more like a flashing sign pointing out danger and directing the borrower to a safer way of satisfying immediate financial need,” said Leslye A. Arsht, deputy undersecretary of defense for military community and family policy….
The State of Utah took action only after the military complained about payday lenders. And no wonder: These outfits cluster like cockroaches in a kitchen around military bases, taking advantage of the desperation of military personnel and their dependents who often literally live hand-to-mouth. These scumbags also rely on the “persuasive” power of the potential of a serviceman’s/servicewoman’s getting into real trouble with the “brass” in order to collect on the debt (most of us would call it extortion and intimidation).
Here is the “Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act” of 1993′s pertinent section:
Subtitle F–Other Matters
SEC. 670. LIMITATIONS ON TERMS OF CONSUMER CREDIT EXTENDED TO SERVICEMEMBERS AND DEPENDENTS.(a) Terms of Consumer Credit.–Chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
“Sec. 987. Terms of consumer credit extended to members and dependents: limitations
“(a) Interest.–A creditor who extends consumer credit to a covered member of the armed forces or a dependent of such a member shall not require the member or dependent to pay interest with respect to the extension of such credit, except as–
“(1) agreed to under the terms of the credit agreement or
promissory note;
“(2) authorized by applicable State or Federal law; and“(3) not specifically prohibited by this section.
“(b) Annual Percentage Rate.–A creditor described in subsection (a) may not impose an annual percentage rate of interest greater than 36 percent with respect to the consumer credit extended to a covered member or a dependent of a covered member.”
And, how is the law applicable to payday loans? Well…
” “(e) Limitations.–It shall be unlawful for any creditor to extend consumer credit to a covered member or a dependent of such a member with respect to which–
“(1) the creditor rolls over, renews, repays, refinances,
or consolidates any consumer credit extended to the borrower by the same creditor with the proceeds of other credit extended to the same covered member or a dependent;“(2) the borrower is required to waive the borrower’s right
to legal recourse under any otherwise applicable provision of
State or Federal law, including any provision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;“(3) the creditor requires the borrower to submit to
arbitration or imposes onerous legal notice provisions in the
case of a dispute;“(4) the creditor demands unreasonable notice from the
borrower as a condition for legal action;“(5) the creditor uses a check or other method of access to
a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the
borrower, or the title of a vehicle as security for the loan obligation;
In other words, this law prohibits charging interest in excess of 36% per annum and defines what the covered loan types are: Payday loans and car title loans.
And 36% per annum is NOT “enough” on a two-week loan? Those payday lenders can take their s*it and shove it!
Lenders–Beware the Coming Storm (X-post from Debtorboards)
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009This post by Flyingifr originally appeared at Debtorboards on November 3, 2009. It is a succinct commentary on the current credit crisis and how lenders are likely to discover that the “Law of Unintended Consequences” can hurt when it is applied to them and their business model.
The link to the original post: http://debtorboards.com/index.php/topic,8736.msg62516.html#msg62516
The post is used with the express permission of the author.
Flyingifr wrote:
Lenders – beware the coming storm
With the current recession and credit crisis, the news media is beginning to note a cosmic shift in people’s attitudes towards credit. No longer are credit cards being looked at as a universal necessity – they are once again being looked at as a luxury.
I am also seeing a shift in attitudes on both sides of the equasion. Loyalty is history. Lenders, who used to value long term relationships with their customers are now looking at their customers as cash cows and when the cow doesn’t give enough milk it is sent to the slaughterhouse to be turned into hamburger through rate jacking, credit line decreases or simple unannounced account closures.
I remember the days when bankers encouraged you to have a long term relationship with them. My Debit Card attached to my bank account still reads “customer since 1996″, but my credit cards no longer do. American Express still does that, but after a rate jacking and 4 credit line decreases in six months on an account that was never delinquent by one dollar or one day that account was closed within 14 months of its opening. Amex made no attempt to keep me as a customer and actually paid thousands of their customers to go away. The other credit card companies are in the same boat. Citibank made no attempt to salvage our relationship, neither did GEMB.
It is easy to ascribe this to the current credit crisis, and that is probably a correct assumption, but what is happening to the concept of “loyalty”? Loyalty is a component of trust, and the credit industry is built on trust. Lenders trust borrowers to repay and borrowers trust lenders to be honest with them and to honor their commitment to lend. Stories are legion of people at checkout counters across the land attempting to use a credit card that they thought had plenty of available credit only to find there is none after a quick and unannounced decrease in credit line. I am not talking about accounts that are delinquent in payment – I am talking about accounts that are current, have always been current and in many cases actually have no balance owed at all.
Lenders say “it’s a business decision” and they are correct. But that goes both ways, and this is where I am sure the collectors will argue with me. How many of us have heard collectors cajole us towards repayment based not on the “business decision to repay” but on the “moral” argument – you have a moral commitment to repay. It’s as if one side of the transaction is an amoral “business decision” when made by a lender and the other is a “moral imperative” when made by a consumer. “Yes, we raised your interest rate to 30% and cut your credit limit to $5 above your balance with no advance notice, tripled your payment, changed your due date and there is nothing you can do about it even though you have been a customer of ours for thirty years and have never made a late payment, but your payment is now five minutes late. Here’s your late charge and we dinged your credit.”
OK, so it may not actually be THAT draconian, but many people feel it’s pretty close to that, and many are angry. How angry? I see a storm coming that the lenders are powerless to stop and may end up hurting them big-time.
If credit is reduced to simply an amoral “business decision” what happens when BOTH sides of the transaction see it that way? The moral imperative to be honest goes out the window and only what is expedient and can be “gotten away with” will happen. Let’s discuss someone I know and we will call her Jenny. I personally know about dozen people who fit Jenny’s profile and the number is growing daily.
Jenny is in her late 50′s. She has a six-figure credit limit spread among a half a dozen credit cards. Her utilization is about 20% and makes her payments consistently above the minimum and on time. Her FICO’s are all in the mid 700′s. She has a six-figure household income, owns her home and has three paid for cars. Her children are all grown and she is preparing for her retirement. She has two pensions fully vested and a solid investment portfolio.
She has also had $75,000 in credit lines reduced in the past year and has had four credit cards closed unannounced. She feels she plays by one set of rules and the lenders play by another. She is right – she plays by the “moral imperative” set of rules and the the lenders are playing by the “business decision” set.
That is about to end.
Her plan: To retire at age 62 – as soon as she can collect her pensions and Social Security and move to the Philippines. She will sell her paid for home to her child before doing anything. By that time her investment portfolio will be in the low six-figure range, and her combined pensions and Social Security will allow her to live like royalty in the Philippines. Did I mention that she plans to hit all her credit cards up to the maximum before she leaves, and not pay them back? She won’t need them in the Philippines, she will have enough cash for whatever her heart desires. She doesn’t care what happens to her credit rating in the US, she will be in the Philippines. Or Brazil. Or Singapore. Or Korea. Or Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica or anywhere else in the world, even Nova Scotia. “It’s not personal, it’s business.”
Collectors will skip trace her, maybe they will find her, maybe they won’t. If they do, what can they do? Her pensions and Social Security will be Direct Deposited to a bank in the Philippines. Her assets will be in Treasury Bills. The Treasury will mail her a check every six months for the interest. None of which can be touched by bill collectors. Is she alone in making these plans? No, I know of a dozen like her and several who have already done this. The numbers will grow and with each one the lenders will get hit hard. In Jenny’s case for $100,000. The new morality is “it’s just business.”
Lenders – you created this environment. I hope you enjoy it.
Tags: bank fees, banks get theirs, business procedures, close the account incentives, contracts, credit cards, credit freeze, credit issuers, creditors' "WHAT??" moves, economic "meltdown", excessive fees, original creditors' tricks, policies and procedures, unintended consequences of greed
Posted in Commentary., Credit Issuance., Creditors, Flyingifr, bank rip-offs, credit line decrease tricks, creditors' acting badly, economic "meltdown" | Comments Off