In what universe does a one percent check cashing fee exceed a $35 overdraft fee for overdrawing a checking account by $.01? (Photo: flickr.com)

In the 1960s and 1970s, many of America’s largest banks decided to go “where the money is” by pulling their branches out of the inner cities and focusing more on affluent areas. It may be sheer coincidence that infamous bank robber John Dillinger once gave that response to the question of why he robbed banks, but I’ll leave that for you to decide. Only in recent years has that trend begun to reverse.

What this exodus created was a growing population of “unbanked” individuals and families, people who depended upon everything from shoe boxes and coffee cans to store their money to check cashers for paycheck services and payday lenders for emergency cash. The traditional view society took of such people who depended upon check cashing and payday lending was that they were the “unsophisticated poor.” However, re-examination of this idea is advisable, as the truth may be that the unbanked are more knowledge about what the banking establishment is foisting upon consumers that we’re willing to admit.

Avoiding the World of High Fees

A recent New York Times article explores the phenomenon of why so many people are resorting to alternative measures rather than depending upon traditional checking accounts. While the journalist fails to produce any conclusive reasons, it doesn’t take much to read between the lines – the cracks in society’s pavement, if you will: overdraft fees of $35 per infraction for a checking account mistake are exorbitantly more expensive than a check casher’s fee of a few percentage points to cash a paycheck.

Jose Abreau Says “No”

A 37-year-old native of the Dominican Republic, Abreau denies the bank representatives who come to his New York coffee shop to recruit him into the world of traditional banking. He doesn’t see the point, as what money he earns beyond his immediate needs is sent to his family back home. He does this in spite of the fact that banks are credit unions are within easy reach. However, so are check cashing businesses.

A recent Pew poll indicates that 86 percent of licensed check cashers in Manhattan are located closer than four blocks from a bank or credit union. People like Jose Abreau actually walk past the banks and credit unions to get to the check cashing businesses and payday loan stores. Perhaps this is because many immigrants come from countries where friends or relatives lost money due to bank collapses or corruption (where there was no FDIC to step in and insure the deposits), but in reality there are a wide variety of reasons. Language barriers can exist, but community outreach groups are available to assist. Financial education is available for those who may not understand how traditional banking works. However, the way many banks treat consumers stands at the top of the list as to why someone would not want to rely upon the banking monolith.

Not So Unsophisticated, Are They?

Millions of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. That’s a fact that the current recession has made painfully clear. Yet this does not mean that these consumers who are just making it are unsophisticated. On the contrary, they’re educated enough to see that if a surprise expense or miscalculation dips their checking balance into the red, the resulting overdraft fees are unconscionable. Rather than having such an organization hold their money hostage, many people feel more comfortable with check cashing, where all the money they have is right there in their hands. Check cashing fees are much lower than any overdraft fee or minimum balance penalty.

How Much Lower?

Consider this. Many banks extend customers the “courtesy” to use ATM machines to withdraw more than they actually have in their accounts. This comes with a heavy – and damningly silent – penalty. We’re talking 200 percent on overdraft fees or more. How is this no legal fraud? How can this be advertised as a courtesy? Is it any wonder that check cashing customers don’t want anything to do with such institutional treachery? If banks would charge no overdraft fees and simply not allow purchases that would create overdraft to go through, they’d probably draw more of a customer base. But banks depend upon overdraft fees for much of their operating profit, so it’s clear that they have little incentive to stop.

Imagine this scenario if you don’t already understand just how disillusioned some are with banks. If a working poor family bounces a single check – let’s say it’s for a mere $3 – there’s an overdraft fee of $35 or more. That could be a weekend’s worth of food for hungry children, plus diapers and subway fare. If the family doesn’t keep their balance above a certain figure, they could be paying even more. Yes, if overdraft fee policies were different, I’d be telling a different tale. And some banks and credit unions do offer free checking. But not everyone meets the credit or documentation requirements, or their local bank many not offer the service. For the transportationally challenged, that means taking what’s closest to home.

What Carrot Could Banks Possibly Offer?

Banks are crying out for customers in this recession, aren’t they? What kinds of incentives could they offer to make people want to use their services? Aside from being able to receive direct deposit or develop a credit history, it seems that people would like to earn a decent amount on their money. But savings accounts that offer .0125 percent interest don’t cut the mustard, let alone the artificial buttery spread. It’s better than nothing, but not by much. Factor in the fees and penalties and traditional banking can feel as good as a sock in the eye.

Hiding from “The Man”

Those who avoid traditional bank accounts for the services of check cashers may be hiding, too. I mention this not to justify the practice, but it’s something of which we should be aware. Without a checking account, bill collections and courts have one less option for skimming cash in the event that the consumer owes money. Of course wage garnishment is still a possibility. And what about those people who avoid traditional banking because their income is under the table? Being able to cash in on certain welfare benefits is a powerful lure, which could explain why some consumers don’t feel the compulsion to put their money in the bank where it can be detected so easily.

Not Such a Rosy Picture for Most

One reader commented on the New York Times article in a manner both poetic and bitingly real:

O, these great unwashed masses, unwilling to strap themselves to our glorious consumer banking system where they can know the joys of ATM fees, NSF fees, account maintenance fees, account research fees, etc. , all while enriching themselves on the 1.8 percent interest rate! What is wrong with these people? Don’t they want to be part of the American Dream?

Avoiding traditional banking is second nature for many, but steering clear of it entirely can have its disadvantages. Check cashing is an attractive option for those who can ill-afford the predatory practice of overdraft fees. Unfortunately, that would include most people. Many who have money do not understand just how much the deck is stacked against those with so little. Bank presidents think in terms of profits; bank customers hope not to run afoul of bank policy, as they have become increasingly unprofitable for consumers with each passing year.

This should be considered a deadly weapon, in light of banks' runaway abuse of overdraft fee policies. (Photo: flickr.com)

Overdraft fees across the board have attracted the interest of Congress lately. Many have said that the way in which overdraft fees are assessed by banks and credit unions is predatory and dishonest. Charging the same high fee for each infraction – even if is for 1 cent – and then charging an additional fee for each day a customer’s account is overdrawn makes it nearly impossible for  already cash-strapped consumers to raise their heads above water.

In a recent case before California’s Supreme Court (Paul Miller et al. v Bank of American, NT & SA No. S149178), the ruling from Kruger v. Wells Fargo Bank (1974) 11 Cal.3d 352, 356 [113 Cal.Rptr. 449, 521 P.2d 441] (Kruger) was put to the test for Paul Miller, a retiree who depends upon Supplemental Social Security for his income (since 1992). Funds are directly deposited into his Bank of America checking account (since 1994). At the time that the direct deposits began, Miller was promised by Bank of America employees that those deposits would “be safe from debits or charges” unless he authorized otherwise.

But Overdraft Fees Came Calling

First, Bank of America accidentally deposited $1,799.83 in Miller’s account. They realized the error and reversed the credit, but not until Miller had made some charges. B of A also failed to give Miller notice of the deduction. The result was that his balance dipped below zero. Overdraft fees followed, which depleted a social security payment. For reference, Bank of America’s NSF fees at that time ranged from $14 to $32 per transaction. Up to five NSF fees could be processed against a checking account per day, with a maximum of $160 in overdraft fees allowed.

Miller pointed out that depleting his social security payment made it impossible for him to pay his rent or living expenses. Yet Bank of America told their long-time customer that he’d have to repay the part of the erroneous credit that he’d spent, but that he “could open a separate checking account for his SSI deposits that would not be used for repayment.” Miller did this, but a few months later the bank twice dipped into this new account to cover the overdraft fees. Both times Miller complained and the money was credited back to him.

And the Same Thing Happened Again

Although he did so infrequently, Miller occasionally overdrew his checking account. Each time, Bank of America hit him with overdraft fees that automatically deducted from his social security income. Bank employees who’d previously assured Miller that no deductions could be made from social security deposits without authorization now claimed that such funds received no “special treatment.”

Interestingly, during trial, a Bank of America executive responsible for checking products at Miller’s branch testified that Bank of America “could develop the capability to identify accounts into which public benefit funds are directly deposited, and could bypass charging NSF fees to those accounts.”

Why Didn’t Bank of America Take the Customer-Friendly Route with Overdraft Fees?

The same executive testified that “in order to prohibit certain account holders from overdrawing their accounts (which would eliminate the Bank’s need to recoup overdrafts or charge NSF fees), the Bank would have to ‘bounce’ more checks, withhold check deposits for the maximum allowable period of four days instead of one or two days before the Bank would make the funds available for withdrawal, eliminate point-of-sale purchases (but not personal identification number (PIN) transactions), and restrict automated teller machine (ATM) withdrawals from non-Bank ATMs.” The executive also stated that larger transactions would be processed before small – regardless of when the transactions occurred – because Bank of America felt larger transactions were “more important.”

More Important for Whom?

Any consumer who has felt the barbed sting of overdraft fees knows that the reordering of transactions is a way that banks stack the deck against consumers. Bank of America claimed in the Miller case that “the Bank’s practice of processing larger transactions before smaller ones results in the same total amount being overdrawn from a particular account.” Yes, but as Mr. Miller’s team clarified, doing so “increases the number and amount of NSF fees imposed.”

Miller would have none of that. His complaints alleged such things as “fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as violations of Code of Civil Procedure section 704.080; the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; the unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and the false advertising act, Business and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.” That’s a lengthy list of charges. How would Bank of America fare?

Nearly $300 Million at Stake in Overdraft Fees Alone

The California trial court found that fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CLRA, UCL, and false advertising claims were all viable issues that could be tried. A class was even certified that included “[a]ll California residents who have, have had or will have, at any time after August 13, 1994, a checking or savings deposit account with Bank of America into which payments of Social Security benefits or other public benefits are or have been directly deposited by the government or its agent.”

By the numbers, Bank of America had 1,079,414 such accounts in 2003. They received more than $800 million in government benefits via direct deposit. From January 1994 to May 2003, Bank of America took “at least $284,211,273 in NSF and other overdraft fees from accounts containing Social Security direct deposits.”

What Did the Jury Find in the Miller Case?

The jury found that Bank of America violated the CLRA by “falsely represent[ing] that it ha[d] the right to use Social Security funds from direct deposit accounts that receive government benefits including Social Security funds to pay overdrafts, insufficient fund[s] fees, . . . and money claims it has against class members.” Thus, the jury awarded $75,077,836 in compensatory damages for the class action. Each member also received $1,000 in statutory damages. Finally, Miller received $275,000 for emotional distress.

However, the Court of Appeal later reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Kruger did not apply. This is apparently still under review at this time.

What is the Kruger Argument?

Essentially, Kruger stated that a bank “may not exercise its right of setoff against deposits which, derived from unemployment and disability benefits, are protected from the claims of creditors.” But the Appeals Court found that the 1974 Kruger ruling “only applied to cases in which government payments were redirected to pay debts outside the bank.” Overdraft fees, by that logic, are internal debts.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) sided with Bank of America’s ability to honor overdraft fees in the event of insufficient funds. They claimed that banks can do this without infringing upon 12 United States Code section 24, par. Seventh, or 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 7.4002 or 7.4007 (2009). (Letter, at p. 1). Overdraft fees are considered account maintenance, rather than creating a debt that the bank later collects.

The Consumer Loses Again

Runaway overdraft fees continue to plague consumers who can ill afford them. This is not to say that consumers should not be responsible for their expenditures, but in the case of Miller, I would argue extenuating circumstances. Until this is settled in California court – and until Congress forces banks to curtail abusive overdraft fee practices – the old phrase “buyer beware” still applies. At least there’s no deception with payday loans…

Payday loans have not put this woman on the street. This study indicates that there is in fact no clear correlation between using payday loans and facing financial calamity like bankruptcy. (Photo: flickr.com)

Human Ecology professors Ruth Berry and Karen Duncan of the University of Manitoba appear to have been ready to point the accusing finger at payday loans in Canada. Given supporting data, it appears they would have been happy to report that payday loans and bankruptcy were strongly connected in the Great White North. However, “The Importance of Payday Loans in Canadian Consumer Insolvency” does nothing of the sort because doing so would fly in the face of hard evidence. There is no clear correlation between bankruptcy and use of payday loans in Canada, according to the authors of this study. In fact, the overall financial well-being of payday loan customers appeared to be slightly more favorable than those surveyed who did not use payday loans.

Payday Loans in Urban Centers and Inner Cities

In much the same way that payday lending has grown across the American landscape, payday lenders have stepped in to serve people of the inner cities who have been abandoned by the traditional banking industry – all because there wasn’t enough money to be had. And yet the same banks are the ones who charge payday loan companies with exploiting the public. While it is true that interest rates (when annualized as APR) for payday loans are higher than some traditional bank loans, the ease and convenience of payday loans tends to trump the offerings of banks and credit unions who demand higher customer qualifications and force applicants through a maze of paperwork. Credit-constrained consumers who lack liquid assets continue to find payday loans infinitely useful.

Berry and Duncan Want to Find the Payday Loan-Insolvency Connection

In their quest for this grail, the authors obtain data from “the main industry players in the payday loan field in Canada,” namely National Money Mart Company, RentCash and Cash Money. They also reference the Canadian Payday Loan Association, which is the national industry association that represents at least 40 payday loan companies (including those mentioned above), and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada through analysis of related studies.

Previous Studies Didn’t Find a Connection, Either

“Not much literature exists connecting the experience of payday loans with consumers filing for bankruptcy,” write the authors. Perhaps this is because there isn’t a real connection? One study they cite found that only one in 10 payday loan customers filed for bankruptcy following a payday loan. Other studies noted a similar percentage. Those respondents who were found to have multiple payday loans at the same time may have been more prone to bankruptcy, but this group was found to be a minority. Moderate usage – which represents the majority of payday loans – shows no clear correlation with bankruptcy filings. In fact, a study by Robert Mayer (”Payday Lending and Personal Bankruptcy,” 2004) showed that those who displayed such moderate use owed only 17 percent of net monthly income, which is hardly a bankruptcy-inducing situation.

More Findings that Break the Mold

• The authors’ data indicated that payday loan customers tended to hold less in the way of long-term loans that did those surveyed who did not use payday loans. Such loans were most often mortgage loans.
• Interestingly, those who filed for bankruptcy and had used payday loans carried “significantly less” short-term debt than those bankruptcy filers who had not filed for payday loans. Payday loan customers held a mean of $14,485 in debt for 2005 and $13,938 for 2006, while those who did not use payday loans showed a mean debt of $25,972 and $26,615 in those years.
• Insolvent consumers didn’t display any tendency toward being either male or female.
• Households surveyed who used payday loans tended to be smaller than those households who didn’t.

Data by City

Berry and Duncan analyzed data from a number of major Canadian cities. What they found tended to be consistent with what has been discussed thus far: that payday loans do not correlate directly to bankruptcy and that payday loan consumers tended to display greater financial well-being than those surveyed who had never used the short term loans. Here’s a sampling:

Vancouver: Bankruptcy households who used payday loans versus those who did not displayed a higher average income.

Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto: Payday loan users showed much less long-term debt.

Installment Loans: Yet Another Path to Avoiding Bankruptcy

Berry and Duncan freely admit that “bankrupts with payday loans are more likely to be employed and have higher incomes and lower debt-to-income ratios than other bankrupts.” This brings them to their burning question: “Do payday loans contribute to bankruptcy?” Numerous studies paint very different pictures regarding the average amount for payday loans. Since more of them point to relatively small figures, it seems unlikely that such amounts would contribute heavily to bankruptcy. And since many lenders offer installment loans as an option in the event that a consumer is unable to pay their payday loan on the maturity date, there is a built-in path leading away from default and bankruptcy.

There’s an Indictment in Here Somewhere

Despite the fact that they found that payday loan customers tended to be more financially healthy than those respondents who never used the product, Berry and Duncan continue to operate from the position that payday loans are some evil product that should be avoided at all costs. Such is not the case, truly. They fulfill a need that traditional banking has largely ignored. Oh, but if only “mainstream lenders provided more accessible services, and educational institutions and non-profit or government agencies gave more objective information about payday lenders in public service advertisements, perhaps these borrowers might attempt to access other lending options,” write the authors. They follow that statement with the false claim that payday lenders do not make their interest rates known to consumers. In America, payday loan companies are required by the Truth in Lending Act to make this information readily available to consumers.

Prescience and Payday Loan Law

If there were only a database in place that could record payday loan usage, then perhaps there would be fewer abuses. That’s what the authors suggest in their 2007 study, and it has come to pass in numerous U.S. states. “A model that might be considered for regulating the number of payday loans held by one individual is the Drug Program Information Database (DPIN) which connects Manitoba Health and all pharmacies in Manitoba to a central database,” they write in reference to a 2006 Manitoba Centre for Health Policy study. “This prevents duplication and double-doctoring by providing the dispensing pharmacy with real time information to show the patient’s drug profile and allows the pharmacist to deny filling a prescription, which is the same or similar to another recently prescribed.” This is quite similar to what we see with payday loan databases. Such inventions do tend to lean toward the nanny state frame of mind, but many lawmakers have insisted upon pushing it through.

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

And in this case, the authors can’t even draw a correlation between payday loans and bankruptcy filings in Canada. Certainly, those who have filed for bankruptcy would be burdened by any additional debt (including payday loans), but that implies no correlation (let alone causation). “It is not possible to determine whether the loan is hastening the insolvent’s decision to file for bankruptcy,” write Berry and Duncan. I’d go further than that, based upon their findings. I’ll say what they appear unwilling to admit: that payday loans help more than they hurt when used moderately (as most are). Bankruptcy is frequently the result of a complex mixture of financial and social issues. Payday loans are no scapegoat.

Making Work Pay will cost millions of American taxpayers anywhere from $250 to $400 this coming tax season. These people may need payday loans. (Photo: flickr.com)

Were you one of those people who were elated to hear about the “Making Work Pay” tax break that President Obama gifted to the American people? Truly, it did benefit many people. Workers were paid back to the tune of 6.2 percent of their earned income, with a max of $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples filing jointly. Those singles making more than $95,000 and couples making more than $190,000 weren’t eligible, but then they didn’t have to be.

With that refund, those eligible didn’t have to resort to short term loan options like payday loans. However, for millions more, perhaps they’ll be wishing they had gotten a payday loan instead of having to pay back hundreds of dollars. And don’t even get me started on the farce that is tax refund loans (aka refund anticipation loans).

15-Million-Plus Owe Uncle Barack $250 Apiece

And that’s just the retirees!

That’s what the Associated Press is reporting as consumers are attempting to dig their way out of the blight of the recession. People are looking forward to some debt relief without the pain of tax refund loans, and in this instance, perhaps even without payday loans. But according to the IRS, many of people are going to be disappointed. What goes around comes around … and bites you in the hindquarters.

Who Will Owe Money Because of Making Work Pay?

We’re talking those with more than one job and married couples where both parties work (that’s a big one). These groups will have to repay $400, which could mean a smaller refund or even a tax bill. Even those in their golden years with rusty old Social Security and taxable wages will not have the lamb’s blood painted on their door. Their Obama giveback will be $250. Pony up, America!

Ah, the Memories of Magic Refunds and High Hopes

Individuals felt up to $400 worth of love for Making Work Pay, while couples doubled their pleasure up to $800. It was all part of the revolutionary stimulus package back in February of 2009. It pumped paychecks full of chicken broth, which most consumers promptly spent. If you spent it and you aren’t sure if you’re having enough withheld from your paycheck, click here for a handy calculator. If you don’t like what you find, file a new W-4… fast, because the 2009 tax year is almost over! The IRS has known about this problem since last spring, and they’ve been urging people to check their withholding amount since then.

Picking Up the Pieces of a Shattered Stimulus Plan

Payday loans may be short-term glue for what ails your budget, but this whole stimulus thing replaced pro-mise with pro-blems. For instance, a single worker with two jobs could get a $400 Obama-boost for each job, even though he’s only eligible for one $400 buff. That will have to be paid back. Similarly, with married couples where both work, if they combine to earn over $13,000, they enter a new tax bracket. There’s a total $1,200 boost instead of the $800 that should have been allowed. That’s $400 to pay back, friends. The Census Bureau says that 55 percent of all married couples in America are in this boat. That’s 33 million couples with 400 reasons to love Making Work Pay.

Wait, Don’t Forget Victimized Students

If they’re single and work part-time, they were eligible for the $400 credit. But, all my payday loans and garters, if their parents claimed them as a dependent, they didn’t qualify! In this case, Making Work Pay means paying back that $400.

Retirees Making Work Pay for Obama

More than 50 million Social Security recipients got $250 lump sum payments each, all thanks to Making Work Pay. But they were already receiving the credit for being employed, so the $250 refund will have to be paid back. It keeps getting better for American citizens.

Don’t Make the Same Mistakes in 2010

The Making Work Pay credit is still available, so tread cautiously. You certainly don’t want to create the same problem for yourself again. The average refund was about $2,800, so this Making Work Pay giveback will not result in a bill for many. However, some won’t be quite so lucky.

Iowa Sen. Chuck “Seppuku” Grassley of Iowa took a break from his more breathless moments to nail Making Work Pay on the head. It was “another unfortunate example of what can happen when Congress and the White House rush through legislation like the stimulus without thinking through the consequences,” he told the AP.

(Insert forehead slap and “I shoulda had a payday loan!” here)

Related Video:

Payday loans are heavily regulated in the Canadian province of Manitoba. This flies in the face of reason, as 310-LOAN's executive study indicates. (Photo: picasaweb.google.com)

Governments both large and small often take it upon themselves to decide what consumers should or shouldn’t be able to do with their own money. Call this the “nanny state” mentality if you will. Regardless, it seems that a population is somewhat less than empowered if the ability to make financial choices is taken away, replaced by rules (explicit or otherwise). Through the eyes of capitalism, if consumers are not afforded self-determination, the market flounders and the people become increasingly dependent upon their government for financial protection.

The payday loans industry has taken its lumps when it comes to regulation-happy governments. Despite well-reasoned arguments that reflect the trends, tendencies and – dare I say it – general will of the people, numerous governments have managed to push through legislation that effectively kills consumer choice and destroys the payday lending industry within the affected region. In addition to the obvious unemployment that results from such careless legislation, the consumers who demanded the payday loan product are driven to less desirable (more expensive) alternatives. There’s a reason they weren’t depending upon the traditional banking system in the first place. Just because payday lending is regulated out of states and provinces doesn’t mean all of the consumers who depending upon payday loans are acceptable risks by traditional banking industry standards.

Manitoba Allows 17 Percent APR

This rate cannot sustain a payday lending business that relies upon payday loans alone for operating profits. It’s been proven many times over. Canada’s provinces have made life difficult for businesses that offer payday loans. British Columbia has a 23 percent APR rate cap, Quebec caps rates at 35 percent and Nova Scotia allows 60 percent. Compared with Nova Scotia, it seems that Manitoba payday lending lobbyists forgot to show up for the party. I jest, of course. One 2007 study by Andrew Smyth and Nathan Slee of 310-LOAN (considered to be Canada’s largest direct payday lender) makes such a clear case that one wonders if Manitoba’s government even read it. If they had read it and still voted to go with a 17 percent APR cap, you’d wonder either what axe they have to grind or who was fronting their retreat to Aruba.

“Evidence pertaining to public hearings before the Manitoba Public Utility Board to determine maximum allowable charges and fees for payday loans“

To preface the study, the authors cite a comment by Manitoba’s Minister of Finance at the time, Greg Selinger. Selinger said that “The intention is not to drive the companies out of business, because people are showing an interest in having this service, but to make sure that when they offer the service they do it in a way that’s just and reasonable.”

What is “Just and Reasonable?”

310-LOAN, according to the authors, clearly explains their fee structure to customers before any agreements are signed. They also verify that customers are actively employed as opposed to depending upon pensions or social assistance. That is a reasonable way to treat one’s payday loan customers, it would seem. Furthermore, 310-LOAN will not accept applicants who already have more than two NSF transactions in their recent banking history or more than one outstanding payday loan with another lender. They accept applicants who can reasonably repay their payday loans. Such is a protection for both the consumer and the payday loan company. Just and reasonable care is taken that neither party is exploited.

Who Uses Payday Loans?

The study authors utilize payday loan studies from Statistics Canada (StatsCan), IpsosReid, Environics, The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and StratCom. When available, these findings are compared against the general Manitoban population. The data for Manitoba indicates that payday loans are used by consumers who earn a slightly below average income for the province, but these consumers are far from being the “victimized poor.”

Average Age: Neither Too Young nor Too Old

According to Environics, the average Manitoba payday loans customer is 39 years old. StatsCan puts the number at 39.5, while PIAC found the average to be 42. With these and all the following results, it should be noted (and perhaps goes without saying) that the survey audiences are not identical.

Gender Split

It’s nearly a 50/50 split according to most studies. The 2006 Census for Manitoba gave a three to four percent bump up for female payday loan customers, however.

Marital Status: Most are From Married Households

The 2006 Census found that 48 percent of payday loan customers in Manitoba were married. Environics recorded 49 percent while PIAC was significantly higher at 59 percent. For single payday loan customers, the numbers were almost identical across the board: 35 percent by the Census, 35 by Environics and 31 percent according to PIAC. Only a small sample listed themselves as separated, divorced or widowed: 17 percent in the Census, 15 percent by Environics’ count and 10 percent according to PIAC.

They Will Have Residency

Partakers of payday loans in Manitoba tend to weight more heavily toward being renters, but the RBC Home Ownership Survey used for a portion of the data indicates that a majority (61 percent) do indeed own homes. In total, renters totaled 39 (RBC), 76 (Environics) and 41 percent of the respondents. Home ownership was 61 percent according to RBC, 21 percent for Environics and 59 percent for PIAC. The variations in the Environics study are curious, but not discussed by the study authors.

Household Income: Below Average, But Not Poor

Manitoba’s payday loan portrait is decidedly middle-class according to data the study authors present. Using 2001 Census data for the province, the average income for all Manitobans was $58,360. Looking at payday loan customers, PIAC found that the average income level was $51,400 and StratCom (using stats for Toronto in the Ontario province) marked it at $53,480. Environics was considerably lower at $41,376, while StratCom (using Vancouver, British Columbia data) was $42,026.

Education Level: Educated Payday Loan Customers

Using the same sources as the previous indicator, the 2001 Census found that 23 percent of Manitobans had graduated from university, 31 percent had gone to college or vocational school and 24 percent had at least a high school diploma (leaving 23 percent under that education level). StratCom (again for Vancouver) puts those numbers at 16, 28, 44 and 12 percent, respectively. StratCom Toronto clocks in at 26, 36, 34 and a miniscule three percent (more highly educated in urban Ontario, it seems). Environics’ distribution is 21, 43, 20 and 14 percent and PIAC’s is 18, 23 52 and six percent.

Employment: Payday Loan Customers Have Steady Jobs

As stated earlier, 310-LOAN requires that their customers be gainfully employed. While this standard is not exclusive in the payday lending industry as a whole, it is a dominant requirement to which most lenders adhere. Looking first at the general population of Manitoba as surveyed by Environics, we see the following breakdown, supporting the notion that payday loans in Manitoba and beyond are taken by consumers with the ability to repay:

• Employed: 62 percent
• Unemployed: Four percent (very low by today’s standards)
• Student: Six percent
• Retired: 21 percent
• Homemaker: Four percent

The total sample of payday loan customers taken by StratCom (Vancouver and Toronto) is as follows:

• Employed: 89 percent
• Unemployed: Four percent
• Student: One percent
• Retired: Four percent
• Homemaker: One percent

For Environics in Manitoba:

• Employed: 78 percent
• Unemployed: Seven percent
• Student: Two percent
• Retired: Five percent
• Homemaker: Two percent

And finally PIAC:

• Employed: 70 percent
• Unemployed: 10 percent
• Student: Eight percent
• Retired: Seven percent
• Homemaker: Five percent

Why Does Manitoba Use Payday Loans?

Emergency cash and money to cover unexpected expenses are the main reasons given in the PIAC and Environics studies, report the 310-LOAN study authors. Environics also found that consumers use payday loans to avoid bouncing a check. For Environics:

• Necessary Emergency Cash: 36 percent
• Covering Surprise Expenses: 24 percent
• To Cover a Potential Bounced Check: 21 percent
• Short-term Income Shortage: 11 percent
• For Discretionary Purchases: Four percent
• Other: Three percent

PIAC showed similar results, but notice the differences, which are not excluded to the categories PIAC respondents didn’t even cite that did rank in the Environics study:

• Necessary Emergency Cash: 31 percent
• Covering Surprise Expenses: 34 percent
• Bounced Check: Seven percent (why it’s so much lower is unclear)
• For a Major Purchase: Five percent
• Discretionary Purchases: 16 percent (why so much higher?)

When Banks Simply Won’t Do

Speed, convenience, privacy and the ability to handle emergency financial situations were all significant indicators for payday loan customers across multiple study sources. In addition, there is some evidence that suggests some dissatisfaction with traditional banking sources. See the authors’ study for specific numbers. It should also be noted that the studies referenced lean significantly toward “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” for consumer approval level with payday loans and alternative financial services.

What Does a Harsh Rate Cap Do to Payday Loans in Manitoba?

310-LOAN’s study authors attempt to illustrate this is terms of where their own business is in the product life cycle. They claim payday lending is reaching the maturity stage, where saturation in society is relatively high. “In the case of payday loans, as more lenders appear, consumers are more exposed to the product and more inclined to use it,” write the authors. The saturation tends to intensify competition, leading the market toward greater self-regulation of pricing. This competition ultimately benefits the consumer, but the competition must be allowed to reach its apex if they are to fully reap the benefits. That’s the nature of a free-market economy.

Canadian Government Thinks Competition Should Already Be Maxed

Thus, they think rates should have already reached the lowest “consumer-friendly” point. Since they consider rates to be too high (a notion that the average consumer surveyed disputes), governments impose rate caps. It kills payday lenders, but does not kill demand for payday loans.

310-LOAN finds that while payday lending has grown quickly, supply is only now starting to catch up with demand. Their support for this notion is that payday loan industry advertising spending in Manitoba has begun to exceed revenue increases only in this most recent stage in payday lending’s life cycle. Earlier findings (where the supply was lower) wouldn’t need excessive advertising in order to gain customers. Demand provided fuel for growth.

Section 347 of the Criminal Code Has Delayed Saturation

Legal woes for the payday loan industry have slowed growth. This is not to say that the product is illegal; it certainly is not. But enough roadblocks were set up by the Canadian legal system to slow payday loan industry growth. In many cases, it was even a barrier to entry for potential payday lenders. This kept many potential investors away as well.

Competition and Lower Rates: the U.S. Model

The authors cite a Federal Reserve study by Donald Morgan (”Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending“) in which the connection between more payday loan stores per capita and lower rates is made quite clear. This does not mean, as the authors comment on a 60 percent APR cap that some Manitoba lawmakers had proposed before going off the deep end at 17 percent, that such a rate would be sustainable. That’s far from the truth in their estimation. In fact, it had been widely acknowledged that 60 percent is not financially viable for payday loan companies.

“Without an agreed upon method of calculating an unconscionable rate,” write the study authors, “we suggest that the board consider the costs involved in issuing short-term, small sum loans in the market today in order to effectively set the limit on the cost of borrowing.” Using a well-known Ernst & Young study, they note the profit margins for what are considered to be Canada’s “big five” banks:

• CIBC: 23.61 percent
• BMO Bank of Montreal: 27.43 percent
• RBC Royal Bank: 23.26 percent
• Scotiabank: 32.81 percent
• TD Canada Trust: 35.51 percent
  Average: 28.52 percent

Also based upon Ernst & Young findings, the authors note that the rate for issuing a $279 payday loan is $74.08. That’s 26.55 percent for the loan issued, which compares quite favorably with the average banking profit margin above. Based upon the authors’ interpretation of data on 11 payday lenders, such a rate would allow 10 of them to “remain in the market and stimulate and immediate increase in supply and investment in the payday loan industry.”

The Risks of an Excessively Low Rate Ceiling

Allow the industry to evolve in a natural free-market setting, argue the study authors. That will enhance both product and pricing according to consumer need. Set the rates too low and lenders must slash costs wherever possible and abandon efforts to meet consumer need. For instance, allowing for installment loans has proven to be popular with consumers in many locations, but the cost associated would be impossible to swallow for lenders if rates are cut to the proverbial quick. For consumers, there is anecdotal evidence that the convenience of installment loans would outweigh having the least expensive loan possible under law.

Life Dictates Debt, Not Payday Lenders

Situations like job loss, illness and family or other personal difficulties tend to have the greatest impact upon a consumer’s ability to repay short term credit such as payday loans. Yet the Manitoba government (or any government) wants the public to believe that it is the rates of supposedly predatory lenders that cause the problem. Thus, they see rate caps as the only answer. Consumers and even economists do not tend to share such views. Interest rate caps to not solve personal and societal issues; they merely restrict the free market and tend to add trouble rather than subtract it.

Debt relief is possible, even if you have to plan a Thanksgiving meal. (Photo: Wikipedia.org)

If you find yourself inhaling the last of the crouton dust after a fruitless search for the elusive meal, you are likely in need of debt relief. I’ve been there before, so I feel your fruitlessness. Now that Thanksgiving has flickered into view like flames from a toaster slot, you’re going to have to do a little bit better, particularly if you’re going to be having people over.

Plan and Save from Your Man Cave

Or feminine aerie, or whatever you call your esteemed hovel. You can plan how much food you’ll need and save some money in the process. That’s debt relief with wings that work, unlike the ex-bird that will grace your table.

Or Will You Even Give Them the Bird?

There are lots of other solutions, including ham, enchiladas or the gluten-free vegan feast of your choosing. But the main things you need to know are how long you’re going to entertain, how many people you’ll have and what time of day you’re doing this. If you’re doing an after-dinner party rather than an all day football gorge fest, you know you won’t need as much.

But Let’s Get to the Menu “Rules of Thumb”

Thanks to About.com, here are some general guidelines for you to follow. I’ve added my own comments, as I’m sure you’ll deduce. They’ll make Thanksgiving cheaper and contribute toward your debt relief journey.

1) Round Up When You Estimate

Better a little too much than too little.

2) Offer Ample Choices

Contrary to what you might think, more choices equals less of any one item. A little of this and a little of that instead of industrial-sized portions of an old stand-by make Thanksgiving parties spicy and (generally) cheaper for you.

3) Assume They’ll Try Everything

But they’ll likely go small, so that’s more leftovers for you! Trust me, it’s a psychological thing akin to nobody wanting to be “the one” who ate the last cookie.

4) Go Bulk for Sit-Down Dinners

Go with breads, nuts, olives, pretzels or anything cheap. This saves on prep time for those of you with no culinary skills. Besides, lots of bread will fill them up fast, make them feel like fat slobs and lower their resistance to your hypnotic suggestions. Tell them to stop eating and leave immediately… but wait until after dessert. The world’s all right with pie.

How Much SHOULD One Person Eat?

This varies, but you can do the math and figure out where the budgetary debris will fall.

Hors d’oeuvres and Salad?

Six bites before a meal. Remind them of Botswana if they object. If that’s the meal, think four to six bites per hour. With green salad, one ounce is right. Excess lettuce leads to emission problems (see the bean barb below).

Le Main Course?

Poultry, meat or fish are acceptable. About.com says six ounces per person if there’s one main dish, eight if there are two or more. To me, that seems counter intuitive to the myriad bulk plan offered above, but perhaps your guests are zombies and their lust for carne cannot be sated.

Rice and Grains? Yes Please! Pasta too!

One-and-one-half ounces as a side dish, two in a main dish like risotto. Can’t go wrong there, I think. And for pasta, think two ounces as a side, three for first course and four for main. Not all of those, however. Pick one. Repetition will cause your guest to plot your demise as you sleep. Change it up and you won’t have an “Ox Bow Incident” on your hands.

Get Starchy

Five ounces of potatoes should do it. The starches lull the mind into trance more readily, to which I’ve already alluded. It also weighs them down if you plan to use your guests as tackling dummies later.

Veggies and Beans within Your Means

Think four ounces of vegetables and two ounces of beans per person. I cannot stress enough that you adhere to think, particularly when it comes to the beans. You’re going to be locked in tight quarters with many people for a few hours, so think about it. If you have a gas stove, it’s a no-brainer.

You May Now Have Dessert

One thin slice of cakey substance is appropriate. In fact, it’s very cosmopolitan. If you’re going to get gushy, four ounces of pudding will do. For ice cream, think five ounces. If you mix the two, cut the portions in half. You’re out to perform debt relief surgery on yourself, so you don’t need pastry blobs giving you a hard time. Give those creampuffs the what-for if they question your stinginess.

But as always, do this in the most thankful manner possible. It is Thanksgiving, remember!

Related Video:

Credit cards are both a blessing and a curse for millions of people worldwide. Managed use of this form of consumer credit can help build one’s credit score and provide a convenient means through which to transact with merchants who require a credit card in order for a consumer to secure services (automobile rentals, hotel rooms, etc). The key to managing one’s credit card usage, however, is a something that many consumers do not practice: paying off the balance each month. By making only the minimum payment, credit card debt grows significantly as interest is compounded. Revolving lines of credit like credit cards can saddle a consumer with a lifetime of debt.

Then There’s Identity Theft

Use of credit cards can expose consumers to the nightmare of identity theft. Whenever you pay a restaurant bill with your card, you’re exposing yourself to risk if the server is less than honest with your sensitive information. If you’re shopping online at a site with less than industrial-strength security, great potential for an information leak is there. Giving your credit number over any form of telephone connection is highly problematic as well.

Such scenarios of financial pain and horror might cause you to wonder how you can keep yourself from becoming a victim. One answer is to use payday loans rather than credit cards in emergency situations where you need quick cash, as the process does not generally expose you to potential identity theft. However, having a small number of credit cards can be beneficial to your FICO score (indicating diversity in your credit portfolio, which creditors like to see), so perhaps a better long-term answer would be how to make credit card usage less dangerous.

Make it Anonymous, Perhaps?

Elli Androulaki and Steven Bellovin of Columbia University recently published a study entitled “An Anonymous Credit Card System” which proposes a system that could serve as a solution to this problem with credit cards. Consumers would be able to kept close track of their credit card usage while banks would be able to justify the payments it makes to merchants through an anonymous E-cash system.

An Anonymity Barrier

One of the benefits consumers enjoy when using credit cards is that logs of transactions are readily accessible. In addition to convenience, this provides a level of security in that consumers can challenge erroneous charges. However, such logs can be a double-edged sword in that banks can (and often do) sell that consumer profile information to third parties. What the study authors propose is a system that maintains the benefits while at the same time protecting consumer and bank privacy through a barrier of anonymity. For consumers, however, the anonymity system express is conditional in that the consumer must make honest attempts to keep up with payments. If an overspending transaction occurs, the consumer is blacklisted from the anonymous service.

For online retail, truly anonymous credit cards would prevent any unauthorized outsider from acquiring information about a transaction or those involved in the transaction. Androulaki and Bellovin stress that banks would not be able to create profiles that they sell without the cardholder’s permission. In order to achieve this level of privacy and security, the authors have created a theoretical system whose high points will be discussed here.

The Dawn of Credit Card Security

According to previous studies of credit cards and state-of-the-art security methods, measures have existed since at least 1994, but such schemes have involved extraneous trusted parties to maintain security. Furthermore, previous credit card protection schemes offered no expense reports or means of error correction for consumers. Using E-cash as a money substitute that cannot be copied or spent more than one time has furthered security schemes, but it requires prepayment to function and works only for online transactions. It also provides no avenue for error correction or clear listing of transactions. Prepaid debit cards are limited in their security application for similar reasons.

What the authors propose is a system that combines an E-cash system for making payments and a combination of “blind and plain digital signatures” for other operations. Consumers, merchants, card-issuing banks, acquiring banks (institutions merchants are authorized to receive payments through) and credit card associations (Visa, MasterCard and others who set transaction rules between the different bank types named here) would all be served by this system. Credit cards under the new system, write the authors, “should not be forgeable or usable by any third party. It should be possible for cardholders to track their transactions (Expense Report Service) and provide an undeniable proof of any mischarge (Error Correction Service) without endangering their privacy.”

How E-cash works

There are two types of E-cash used in this system, drawn from “wallets.” One is accessed by the consumer while the other is where merchants deposit E-cash received from the consumer. Blind signature schemes are used to ensure that merchants get paid and consumer identities are protected from third parties. If set limits are exceeded, conditional anonymity of the consumer is revoked – an added incentive to make payments, which appeases the banking establishment. For the most part, merchants and consumers are identified only by signature keys when they open their E-cash accounts with their banks. In order for consumers to access their E-cash credit cards, they create an anonymous pass code. Backups, multiple layers of encryption and loss recovery systems are present here, as are timestamps for online transactions; consult the study for a more detailed account. It is interesting to note that encryption is performed by the consumer during the anonymous credit card origination process, via secure home software. Thus, a home computer would be required.

How are Anonymous Credit Cards Paid?

Obviously a consumer honor system would be inappropriate, so the consumer is required to report the amount of money spend each month to the card-issuing bank. Regular backups and reporting are required to protect both banks and consumers. Spending is proven through receipts. The card-issuing bank then computes the consumer’s monthly payment through the same formula used today for standard credit cards.

How Does Error Correction Work?

The consumer has the right to contact their credit card association in the event of an error or fraudulent use. In the event of a error, a receipt is required in order for a correction to be made. When the merchant makes the correction and gives back funds via E-cash, the currency passes the refund to the credit card association, who in turn moves it to the merchant’s acquiring bank. It is the acquiring bank who finally moves the funds back to the consumer’s card-issuing bank. If fraudulent charges require purchase cancellation, the exchange is handled in a similar fashion.

Breaching the Veil of Anonymity

As mentioned previously, consumer anonymity is dropped if credit cards are charged over their limit. In that instance, all E-coins withdrawn by the consumer are traced. The authors mark this as necessary for loss recovery. But seeing as how a cardholder may open as many anonymous accounts as desired, being able to achieve transaction linkage is possible.

Buying into the Checks and Balances

The anonymous credit card system proposed by the study authors could eliminate identity theft altogether (until someone figures out how to introduce decryption technologies in the middle of the process). That could occur, but the system proposed could be the best current option for safe credit card use.

I find it interesting that the proposed system would require consumers to hang on to their receipts. It’s something consumer groups and banks (not to mention mom and dad) always advise us to do, but how often do we practice what they preach? If you’re a conscientious consumer who already keeps track of such things, your adjustment to such an anonymous credit card system would likely be painless. For those of us who are forced to become more accountable, the transition would be more difficult. However, it is a much safer financial road to travel. It is also a responsible road. Sure, payday loans are still be more desirable in situations where carrying a balance over from month to month becomes too expensive, but credit cards will still have their place. The layers of checks and balances that preserve security may sound inefficient to some, but remember that the financial world rarely gives us something for nothing. This isn’t trading freedom for protection, in my opinion.

Have you had it up to here with your bank's overdraft protection schemes? You aren't alone, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. (Photo: flickr.com)

If you’re able to see past the shady origins and history of the Center for Responsible Lending, you’ll see that occasionally they do good work that benefits society. While they’re certainly no friend of the payday loans industry, I find that their recent report on the overdraft fees and overdraft protection rackets is worth noting for any financially conscious consumer. Personal Money Store wants you to be informed when it comes to your money, so take the CRL’s findings as a word of caution when it comes to the twisted world of overdraft fees and protection.

Major Overdraft Findings That Should Give You Pause

Overdraft fees and overdraft protection costs have skyrocketed in recent years. According to the CRL’s findings, there are three shocking points of which we should all be aware:

1. Overdraft occurs frequently. Over a 12-month period, the CRL found (based upon Federal Reserve data) that more than 50 million Americans overdrew their checking at least one time. Of those, more than half (27 million) had five or more.
2. How much operating income did overdraft feeds produce for banks and credit unions in 2008? Try $24 billion. Broken down, it’s been noted that a credit union could derive as much as 60 percent of their operating income from overdraft fees and overdraft protection.
3. Think overdraft is under control? Think again. From 2006 to 2008, the CRL found that banks and credit unions upped the penalty by 35 percent.

Were You Even Asked to Opt Into This?

For most people, the answer is no. When you sign up for a checking account at your bank or credit union of choice, you’re automatically enrolled in an overdraft program. And buried in the fine print of your contract is the overdraft fee schedule. Generally, transactions consumers don’t have the money to cover are automatically paid by the bank or credit union. What the consumer gets for the trouble is a penalty per transaction in the neighborhood of $34. Furthermore, banks and credit unions tend to charge an additional daily fee for as long as a consumer’s account balance remains overdrawn. Regardless of whether an account is overdrawn by $100 or $.01, fees can mount – and no bank or credit union I’m aware of works on a sliding scale. It’s all about flat fees that the consumer must pay. And CRL research indicates that for every $1 in overdraft protection credit extended to consumers using their debit cards, $2 in fees are assessed.

The Banks’ Defense

It’s all about protecting a consumer’s good name, they might say. By providing this “service” to customers, banks and credit unions claim they’re keeping people from bouncing checks. NSF fees from banks, bad check fees from merchants and (potentially) other late fees could amount to a person’s picture being hung on the wall in mug shot-like splendor.

Bouncing Checks Aren’t the Story, However

Debit card and ATM transactions are the big issue. The CRL finds that if banks and credit unions wanted to, they could simply decline transactions that would put consumers in the red. However, most do not do this. They pay for the transaction but “help” the consumer by severely penalizing them. While consumers should certainly be responsible with their money, digging unnecessarily deep holes for them to try to climb out of after they’ve already made mistakes is a questionable tactic on the public relations front. In the end, it comes across as a money grab.

The Reordering Transactions Shell Game

Did you know that banks and credit unions reserve the right to reorder your banking transactions from highest to lowest, even if the lesser transactions occurred first? This catches millions of consumers who gamble that a large expense won’t clear until after their paycheck is deposited. If you’ve ever done this (I know I have), know that you’re playing a losing game.

Automatically Dragged Over the Coals

This is what John and Jane Consumer typically get when they sign up for a standard checking account. Many aren’t even aware that cheaper options are available. Some banks may offer a cheaper, more formal line of overdraft credit, or even a link to a savings account in the case of overdraft. However, even these can be expensive. Payday loans, when used properly, can cost even less. Did you expect me to say otherwise?

A Terrible Trio for Consumers

Using FDIC data from 39 member banks, the CRL digs into just what the overdraft fee jungle means for consumers. They do this by addressing the three points raised above.

1. Overdraft Occurs Frequently

Of the 6.5 million accounts held in the FDIC sample, around one in four experienced at least one overdraft over the course of a year. One in seven experienced five or more. As mentioned earlier, this translates to about 51 million Americans stuck in the overdraft fee quagmire. Those with five or more instances are sinking beneath the muck. The CRL found that repeat offenders tended to be of lower income, single, non-Caucasian renters. Considering that the FDIC points to the 18 to 25 age group as being most likely to fall into the overdraft trap, it seems that more effective financial education is in order. Learning to control excessive impulse spending, balance the checkbook and consider options like payday loans in emergencies could help anyone.

2. Excessive Overdraft Fee Profits

Banks and credit unions are conveniently not obligated to report what they make on customers’ overdraft fees, but the FDIC did manage to compile from a sample of its member banks. They found that that around 69 percent of their service charge income came from NSF fees. Extrapolating the data, the CRL finds that this amounts to $34.3 billion in fees for 2008 alone for all service fees. Sixty-nine percent of that is $23.7 billion, a staggering sum that should be much lower. As banks, credit unions and even credit card companies are jacking up fees, that figure could be even larger in 2009.

3. Fees are Out of Control

As I was saying, overdraft fees are a source of concern for any consumer who depends upon the traditional banking industry to care for their money. As the collection has increased 35 percent from 2006 to 2008, the CRL wonders if there’s a ceiling. Organizations like the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the Credit Card Bill of Rights are designed to help make right what has gone so far wrong, but will they have the healthy canine teeth to tear away the sweet meat?

As mentioned, fees for individual overdraft transactions and days a balance is in the red are commonplace. A cup of coffee, a tank of gas and a few miscellaneous convenience store purchases can quickly and silently become hundreds of dollars in overdraft fee debt. The CRL finds that the monthly average for individual debt card usage is 17. More than a quarter of those are for less than $10.17 on average. Imagine the possibilities across the banking industry. Since this use has exceeded credit card use since 2005, it’s also no wonder that the credit card industry has sought myriad ways to charge their customers with fine print clauses.

Fruits, Vegetables and Overdraft Fees

That sounds like part of a balanced diet these days. The CRL frightens us all with the details of how Americans spend “about the same amount” on overdraft as they do on fruits and vegetables. As for grains and other essentials like postal stamps and books, overdraft fees are clearly in the lead, say the CRL. Considering how difficult financial matters are during the recession, is it any wonder that the CRL found that most consumers would prefer that a transaction be denied than to have to paid exorbitant $34-per-transaction overdraft fees?

How Can This Problem Be Fixed?

This is your checking account on overdraft protection. (Photo: http://tolweb.org/)

Beyond preparing consumers to make sound financial choices, the financial abuses inherent in the traditional banking system must be exorcized. The Federal Reserve is considering that very matter, as is Congress. Large-scale change is needed.

Prohibit Overdraft Fees on Debit Card and ATM Transactions

This exception would be a welcome aid. If a fee is absolutely necessary, then a bank should have to provide a more highly visible, real-time warning so that debit and ATM infractions don’t fly under the radar and destroy overtaxed consumers’ budgets. If warning sign appears, consumers would have the choice to back out of the transaction (if the merchant didn’t simply rule out that method of payment). Some banks and credit unions block such transactions completely. The CRL suggests that all should follow the practice.

Overdraft Fees Should Be Proportional

The CRL’s finding that the amount that banks pay out to merchants for consumer overdraft is about half of what they actually charge consumers for the “convenience” is another signal beacon that change is needed. Flat fee overdraft charges are unnecessary when compared with the actual cost of covering the overdraft to banks and credit unions. It is understandable that banks and credit unions have to think of profit margins, but the current overdraft fee system is tantamount to gross customer abuse. The CRL suggests that an overdraft line with a reasonable rate of interest would be easier for consumers to swallow. Then again, rather than dealing with revolving interest, why not use payday loans?

There Should Be a Limit

If a consumer dashes their checking upon the overdraft fee rocks, banks and credit unions should be required to offer an alternative product at lower cost. A consumer shouldn’t be allowed to rack up more than six overdraft fees per year, says the CRL. This is what’s called weaning traditional financial institutions from their habits of excessive profit. Getting by with a reasonable profit margin may mean fewer executive retreats to Cabo San Lucas, but it’s the right thing to do.

No Overdraft Protection Without an Opt-In

This is self-explanatory. No service or accompanying gross fees should be thrown at a consumer without their approval. The CRL found that around 90 percent wanted to be able to choose whether they would have overdraft protection or not, so banks and credit unions should listen. If not, they run the risk of losing even more customers to payday loans when financial calamity strikes. Banks and credit unions certainly have a larger war chest to draw from, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try to be competitive.

Make Banks Toe the TILA. Payday Lenders Do!

The Truth in Lending Act requires that lenders disclose certain information to the public. It seems that information regarding the amount of money banks collect in overdraft fees should be included in the purge, much the same way payday loan companies make their APR known. Since overdraft protection is an act of extending credit to a consumer, banks and credit unions should be forced to clarify just what they’re charging customers. No bank or credit union should be exempt from the law.

There’s Nothing Up My Sleeve

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is on its way. President Obama made a great deal of show about the related Credit Card Bill of Rights. It’s time for banks and credit unions to be made to tow the line. If you’ve even gone through the hassle of dealing with overdraft, you know that there has to be something better behind the curtain. In the case of payday lenders, there’s nothing “up the sleeve.” In a short term financial emergency, payday loans are up front about fees, which typically are much less expensive than falling back on overdraft protection. The consumer should have the power to choose what fits their financial circumstances best.

Related Video:

Do not discriminate! So long as he draws steady income, some payday loan companies don't care if that income comes from an employer, the government or court-ordered support. (Photo: flickr.com)

At Personal Money Store, one of the primarily qualifications a consumer must meet in order to receive a payday loan is that they must be actively employed for a pre-determined length of time. It’s an indicator of steady income, which traditionally signifies that the consumer will be less of a financial risk in that they’ll have the money to pay back their loan. It’s also a safety measure for borrowers, in that only those with consistent income – or, to be more precise, a sufficient level of livable income – will be allowed to enter into a contract with a payday lender in the network to which Personal Money Store has access.

However, desperate times may indeed call for desperate measures on the part of some major payday lenders. That’s what a KEPR 19 story out of Pasco, Washington indicates. The CBS affiliate found that not all payday loan companies require the consumer to be drawing a paycheck. In the Tri-Cities area (of which Pasco is a part), the answer to whether consumers could get a payday loan with an unemployment check as their only source of income was “Yes.”

As in, “Yes, We Do Not Discriminate as to Income Source”

Moneytree, Check into Cash and Advance America (three of the top payday loan companies in America) told KEPR Action News that they would not only cash a consumer’s unemployment check, but would issue them a short term loan based upon that proof of income. Thus, “you don’t even need a payday to get a ‘payday loan,’” says KEPR.

Advance America says they accept such proof of income because doing otherwise would be discriminatory. The federal government does not allow traditional lenders to discriminate based upon an applicant’s source of income, so “non-traditional” payday lenders are following suit. However, Advance America did acknowledge that “only a small percentage of clients are using unemployment checks for loans.”

Sandbagging Before the Storm?

Whether you’re talking unemployment, social security or even child support, some payday loan companies will say yes. This could be because the state of Washington is preparing to make life more difficult for payday lenders and the consumers who use their products. In 2010, the maximum amount a Washington resident can borrow will be $700 (not to exceed 30 percent of total monthly income). In other bad news, payday loan customers will be entered into a database used by state lenders. The purpose of this database will be to prevent consumers from taking more than eight payday loans in a single year. While this could protect some consumers, it could also be argued that the lack of privacy and the nanny state mentality behind such a database doesn’t make for a more financially independent society.

Baby Me, Lawmakers

At what point did Americans lose sight of the values of educating oneself and making appropriate decisions based upon one’s own knowledge? Now it’s apparently OK for government to educate consumers through nanny state regulations. Make it harder for consumers to get payday loans – because you’re TEACHING them! Brilliant! Put the cookies on top of the fridge and schedule nap times while you’re at it.

Setting limits and guiding children is one thing… but administering the same treatment to adults is completely inappropriate. People must be given the chance to learn and save THEMSELVES.

“There’s always ways around it, but I do think that if nothing else they’re going to put up hurdles to jump a little higher and try harder and maybe that will make the consumer wiser,” said Yvonne Fengler of Consumer Credit Counseling in reference to Washington’s payday loan laws.

Some People Can’t Put Down the Cookie Jar

And that has never been the cookie jar’s fault. The minority of payday loan customers who do create unmanageable debt for themselves through short term loans make for sensational news copy. They owe large amounts and the media feigns sorrow as they cry along to stories that are indeed sad. Yet such sloppy journalism is like a sugar cookie: tasty, but far from nourishing.

Don’t Follow Oregon’s Example, Washington

Oregon has placed a hard 36 percent APR rate cap on payday loans, and mandated that consumers have 31 days to repay (rather than the two weeks that is standard in the payday lending industry). Studies indicate that this harmed the financial welfare of credit- liquid asset-constrained consumers in the state. Washington can do better for its residents, whether they are employed or not.

Payday loans in Ohio still exist, but the opposition continues to bulk up for the next battle. (Photo: Wikipedia.org)

The battle for payday loans in Ohio has been a difficult one for consumers. The recession hit the Ohio workforce harder than most, and the need for emergency short term loans is greater than ever before. Yet the state legislature in their infinite wisdom decided that what their constituents needed was nanny state regulation. Rates were capped at 28 percent APR, which effectively crippled the industry in Ohio and sent credit- and liquid asset-constrained consumers scrambling toward more expensive options. That rate is more stringent that the federal rate of 36 percent APR set for lending to active military, and we know that even at that level, the business model in unsustainable.

Payday Lending is Now

Consumers desire the flexibility to choose what is best for their financial situation. The Columbus Dispatch, rather than turning away from this point in order to blow with the political wind, recently produced an article that was pleasantly even-handed. For some, it’s true: payday loans are “the only way to get by.” While no reputable lender would advocate payday loan dependency, it’s been proven not only in customer surveys but in studies conducted by the Federal Reserve and institutions of higher learning that payday loan can be an invaluable tool for smoothing out financial shocks.

Choice is Good

CheckSmart CEO Ted Saunders pointed out to the Dispatch that “There is a bank right there,” in reference to a traditional institution just a football field away from one of his stores. “They could go right there if they wanted to.”

Competition fosters choice. It also tends to help regulate prices, both of which are benefits to the consumer. But activists like Bill Faith of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COOHIO), who appears to be a firm believer in the nanny state, reminds that “People at one point also were excited about high-interest subprime mortgage loans that helped ruin the housing market.” Yet Faith makes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Wall Street shenanigans and impotent governmental policy that allowed it to go on are what destroyed the economy. Payday loans aren’t even in the same ballpark. In fact, studies like those by Dartmouth College’s Jonathan Zinman suggest that capping payday loan rates and otherwise restricting the industry harms consumers’ financial welfare.

Don’t Believe? Ask Somebody Who Has Used Payday Loans

The Dispatch interviewed Amie, a 47-year-old mother of six. Recessionary times have been tough for her budget, and her low earnings make getting ahead almost impossible. Even though she’s found herself jumping from one payday loan to another, she said “I can’t complain. At least they’re helping me,” referring to CheckSmart in Ohio.

That’s ammunition that payday loan critics would use to say that companies like CheckSmart are pulling Amie into an endless cycle of debt. But what we truly have here is a financial landscape where banks, credit unions and even employers have for the most part failed to serve the populace. Requirements to apply for consumer loans through old-school channels often exclude those who need the most help. As wages have not kept pace with the rise of inflation, too many consumers like Amie find themselves in a large hole.

Legislation: Like an Ant Lion’s Hole

Legislators who fight for 28 percent APR and other such unreasonable restrictions upon businesses without the deep pockets of the financial mainstream are creating a nanny state scenario where consumers with nowhere else to turn will have to depend upon the “alms” of the government and their banking tentacles. Freedom of choice sinks beneath the waves. Or, if the government does not assert total control and credit-restricted consumers are left to fend for themselves, regulating payday loan companies out of the market most frequently leaves consumers with even more expensive options, from loan sharks to overdraft fees. At least payday lenders make their costs clear up front. That’s something a bank never does with overdraft fees. If you’re skirting the red, using an ATM card becomes a deadly game, as every infraction can incur a fee of $25 or more, even if you overdraw your account by as little as one penny. But that’s OK, says banks. It’s all in the micro-fine print!

“Banks and other lending institutions aren’t doing their jobs,” says Koziura

That’s what House Financial Institutions Committee chair Rep. Joseph F. Koziura of Lorain, Ohio told the Dispatch. “The system is built on making money on fees now instead of the old-fashioned loaning money and putting money in the system. That’s 90 percent of the reason we’re screwed up.”

What happened when half of Ohio’s 1,600 payday lending outlets closed down after approval of a 28 percent APR rate cap? Lots of people hopped into the unemployment line, for one. Consumers kowtowed to the voice of government and made life more difficult for those who can ill afford such windmill chasing. There were certainly some payday lenders who were unscrupulous in their dealings with customers, but it was not a majority. Payday lending is a regulated industry with a keen eye toward consumer relations. Groups like the Community Financial Services Association and the Online Lenders Alliance are there to ensure that consumers can safely enjoy the use of payday loans.

But Payday Lenders Aren’t Being Allowed to Run Legitimate Business

Charging $15 per $100 loaned is common for a payday loan. For a two-week loan, paying 15 percent interest is reasonable for an emergency service that can expose the lender to a great deal of financial risk. But Ohio legislators managed to convince consumers (lead the lemmings?) into laws that prevent payday lenders from even doing that. According to the Dispatch, CheckSmart charges up to that rate, but it’s broken down into numerous fees in order to circumvent faulty legislation. It gets around the 28 percent APR rate cap as it currently exists. And CheckSmart makes each of the individual fees clear to its customers, who continue to use their services. The truth is what consumers want, not horror stories that leave you thinking, “Yeah, that really doesn’t happen to most people.” No hook hands scraping the door at midnight, no dolls that move on their own and no payday loan debt traps… that’s story time, kids.

Legislators Still Aren’t Satisfied

Ohio legislators are continuing to drive for a 28 percent APR rate cap that applies to any payday loan and closes the loopholes. “The latest bill up for debate in a House committee,” writes the Dispatch, “would cap interest at 28 percent for all loans of up to $1,000 made for a term of three months or less.” That would kill payday lending in Ohio. A vote is set for early December.

Payday Lending: A Tool to Be Used with Healthy Caution

Payday lending is not a magic ATM. It isn’t money to fulfill your wildest cash desires at a moment’s notice. Such unbridled use can easily lead to dependency, when what a consumer’s finances need is sound budgeting. But regulating payday lending out of business in Ohio because a minority of consumers use the payday loan product in ways it was not intended to be used is no answer. If people fear the nanny state when it comes to bailouts and healthcare, shouldn’t they also fear it in this avenue of consumer finance?

Speaking of government, there’s an invention called Social Security. While it has been a cash lifeline for some, many others worry that it may be a financial scam, a Ponzi scheme that is costing the modern workforce millions each year. Yet legislators make no earnest attempt to reform that system. They consider payday loans a more desirable target, perhaps? There might just be more of a campaign war chest in that field, thanks to the banking industry. Vote as the dollars go; isn’t that the way?

Related Video:

Senator. Chris Dodd (Photo: Wikipedia.org)

The people of American are looking for debt relief any way they can find it these days, and it appears that the only way true gains in this area are going to be made is if major restructuring of America’s financial regulatory agencies occurs. Along those lines, controversial Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (who some consider to have turned a blind eye to the financial shenanigans that greased the way for the mortgage industry collapse) is hard at work. He wants to push through a new financial reform plan that would completely change the way the government would control banking oversight and debt relief.

Obama Praised Dodd’s Consumer Protection Agency Work

It appeared that Dodd was preparing to take banking regulation and debt relief in an exciting new direction much in tune with the president’s plans. However, recent signs indicate that Dodd’s plan will be significantly different that what was previously expected by the current administration. Specifically, Dodd wants nearly all bank-supervising powers to be removed from the Federal Reserve and FDIC (where they currently reside). An entirely new agency would pick up the reins. They would be responsible for all national finance institutions as sole regulator and guide toward debt relief on both the institutional and consumer level. It would replace the four federal regulatory agencies that exist.

Enter the Watchdog

Watching out for potential risks to the country’s banking and finance industries would become the responsibility of a new kind of watchdog council that would be a chaired by a single White House official. What this would accomplish is to take the teeth out of the Fed’s ability to conceive of consumer protection and debt relief measures on its own. America’s 12 Federal Reserve Banks would also potentially be in jeopardy or closing, according to the Wall Street Journal.

And guess what? In a time when President Obama constantly extols the virtues of bipartisan support, Senator Dodd’s actions could be seen as somewhat extreme. That’s because Dodd is going after his version of the finance reform/debt relief bill on his own. Sheila Bair of the FDIC is against Dodd’s ideas, and the Journal predicts that Senate Republicans will be as well.

The Frank-Man Commeth

Rep. Barney Frank (Photo: Wikipedia.org)

Rep. Barney Frank and the House Financial Services Committee is currently working on its own debt relief and regulation program. According to the Washington Post, Frank’s bill would take a much more conservative approach to regulatory reform. It would get rid of just the Office of Thrift Supervision. At the same time, rather than stripping the Fed of power, it would give them even more power to step in and control the actions of America’s banks.

Consumer Debt Relief Appears to Be Covered

That’s where the Consumer Financial Protection Agency the House has already concocted comes in. Mortgages, credit cards and various consumer loans will fall under that agency’s jurisdiction. Dodd and Frank are battling for a solution to the problems in the banking industry as a whole. Frank estimates the House will vote on his plan by the end of 2009, but Dodd is attempting to push his plan through even sooner than that, perhaps as early as next week if the Washington Post’s sources are accurate. Get ready for some major debt relief debate, America.

Related Video:

Pursuit of alternative financial services like payday loans is sometimes necessary. But do the costs break the budget? (Photo: flickr.com)

There are numerous entries in the volumes of study on payday loans which suggest that low- to middle-income (LMI) families are the most frequent users of the product. Where access to credit and liquid assets are limited – particularly in areas that are not well-served by the traditional banking industry – the need for short term credit is greatest. Yet payday loan industry critics continue to produce statistics which they claim are evidence that too much of LMI families’ income is being eaten up by the allegedly excessive fees that payday lending outlets charge for their services.

Not According to this University of Michigan/Federal Reserve Study

In an August 2009 paper entitled “And Banking for All?” by Michael Barr and Benjamin Keys of the University of Michigan and Jane Dokko of the Federal Reserve Board, we see the expense for alternative financial services like payday loans expressed in very different terms for LMI families. Contrary to your average slapdash media expose, their well-researched study found (using the Detroit area as a sample) that “for the vast majority of households, annual outlays on financial services for transactional and credit products are relatively small, around one percent of annual income.” Payday loans and similar alternative financial services make up only a fraction of that, as we’ll see.

The Nature of the Study

The authors derive their data from the Detroit Area Household Financial Services (DAHFS) study. The survey takes into account which alternative and mainstream financial services LMI households tend to use. Respondent demographics, socioeconomic patterns and full access to balance sheet information helped the authors to piece together an interesting portrait of nearly 1,000 Detroit LMI households. Mainstream financial sector fees like annual bank account fees, check fees, NSF fees, bank overdraft charges and annual credit card fees are significant, while alternative financial service costs like money orders, check cashing, payday loans and others are somewhat less so.

Banked vs. Underbanked (or Unbanked)

The authors found that LMI households with access to bank accounts were more financially active and had access to more forms of credit than those households with little or no traditional banking usage. In short, the banked households tended to spend more. Underbanked LMI households displayed less willingness to access credit, but their status did not entirely preclude them from mainstream bank services. Furthermore, the state of being unbanked was shown to be a far from permanent condition. Expanding bank policies which strive to extend services to the “invisible minority,” would account for this.

Who Chooses Payday Loans?

“The alternative financial services sector plays a significant role in the provision of financial services to LMI households,” write the authors. According to Federal Reserve studies like those conducted by Brian Bucks et al in 2006, 25 percent of such households nationwide tend to be unbanked. This creates the need for such products as payday loans and check cashing services to fill the gaps that traditional forms of credit might be used.

Do Payday Loans Burden Them Unnecessarily?

That is a widely held view, but the authors’ findings suggest that convenient, easy-to-use payday loans have a negative financial impact on only “a small fraction” of LMI households. On average, LMI households (banked and unbanked) have been shown nationally to pay between $400 and $600 on payday loans yearly, which only amounts to two to three percent of annual income. For the Detroit area, the median was much lower, ranging from $41 to $98 for various credit services.

Time and distance costs for LMI households to use alternative financial services were observed to be somewhat more significant. In most cases this appeared to be the time and cost of transportation to get to brick-and-mortar payday loan and checking cashing outlets. However, I would suggest that if more consumers were aware of online payday loan services like those found at PersonalMoneyStore.com, time and transport costs would be greatly reduced or cut to nothing, so long as a home Internet connection is available.

Conservative Spending

LMI households necessarily displayed low level spending in the study. Mainstream financial service usage was low, as was alternative service usage (like payday loans). Being banked and having access to direct deposit – both of which are generally necessary in order to receive payday loans – are two areas in which LMI Detroit households surveyed were behind national averages. What this means, of course, is that widespread abuse of payday loan products would be impossible, as the possessing both of the above criteria is generally required.

Staving Off Food Shortages and Eviction

These were two categories where use of payday loans were reported among LMI households in Detroit, which would appear to indicate that such credit is relied upon in emergency situations (rather than in superfluous spending, as the media would have people believe). Access to more credit options (following a transition into the traditional financial services sector) would perhaps assist such consumers in dealing with financial issues, but the fact remains that most traditional banks simply do not have programs for which LMI households can qualify, whether it is because their credit rating is insufficient or the entry cost is too great.

Payday Loans and Fees: a Minute Percentage of Annual Income

While it is true that LMI households may curtail spending due to their relative lack of financial means, the observed debt load from payday loans and similar products didn’t prove to be excessive when they were used. Some financial institutions are rushing to catch up with payday lenders by offering similar products, but since they draw so much of their operating income from more expensive services like overdraft protection, there is little incentive to face risk and greater loss potential that goes with payday lending.

Savings is Important

The savings factor is not included in the authors’ analysis, but they do mention that consumers who face credit restrictions and income shocks that threaten to destroy their budget could certainly benefit from such education. Sadly, such things as how to budget and maintain savings for a rainy day is still something that the American public school system tends to gloss over. Basic financial literacy is something everyone should be aware of, which is why a great deal of institutional reform is needed. To their credit, many payday loan outlets and traditional banks offer information on financial education, but the ideal time to learn is during childhood.

Why So Many Unbanked?

Recall earlier that I mentioned that payday loans aren’t terribly lucrative for banks, to the point that things like overdraft protection are more interesting for them. It is true that the costs of collecting small deposits are high in relation to potential earnings. The only way to make up for that on the institutional level is to charge a higher fee. Unfortunately, such fees even apply to maintaining bank accounts, particularly for LMI customers who banks might consider to be of greater risk. The fees make having a bank account less attractive to some of the more challenged LMI households. Costs for transactions, not maintaining a minimum balance and overdrafts are often excessive. And if a household has had difficulty maintaining a bank account in the past, systems like ChexSystems let banks know. It would appear that the traditional banking system itself is designed to oppose the entry of many LMI households.

Is it Any Wonder that Payday Loans are Popular?

They are popular, indeed. And the authors’ findings regarding payday loan fees in relation to total annual income clearly indicate that they are not an excessive burden. There is a need that payday loans fill. The aftermath for most borrowers is far from catastrophic. Only the slim catastrophically impacted minority make for juicy news, I suppose.

President Obama's plans for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency could mean that debt relief is closer than ever for the downtrodden. (Photo: flickr.com)

The recession has forced America to face some of its most deep-seated systematic financial troubles. One thing that has become clear is that unscrupulous mortgage lenders and credit card agencies have dined for far too long upon consumers who largely didn’t understand that they could hold out for something better. Foreclosure and bankruptcy have amplified the burden on consumers, courts and the economy as a whole tenfold, which makes the question of how debt relief should be handled a more pressing issue that it has been in decades.

Cornell and George Washington Law School Economics lecturer and former professor Dr. Neil Buchanan ponders in a recent FindLaw column entitled “Should Federal Agencies or Courts Protect Consumers in Financial Markets?” which side of the regulatory coin America needs most. Existing regulatory agencies are being given more extensive duties by the Obama administration in order to help make America’s financial markets safe and sound. At the same time, new agencies like the newly minted Consumer Financial Protection Agency appears to be on its way to receiving unprecedented powers. In theory, it will have the power to police how mortgage lenders, banks, credit card companies, payday lenders or any other consumer finance company interacts with consumers. It is Buchanan’s opinion that allowing regulatory agencies to protect consumers is the best route, as relying solely upon the courts wouldn’t be enough of a deterrent to keep suspect lenders from indulging in bad behavior. The ideal system would have both in place as a regulatory enforcement clearing house.

But Isn’t This Big Government Clogging the Market?

Some will surely feel that way. What I have seen from state governments is an overzealousness to regulate payday lending, to the point where it is impossible for such legitimate businesses to operate in some states. Mortgage lenders and credit card company supporters would likely have similar complaints, although the path of destruction their industries have carved is rather hard to ignore. Buchanan begins his argument by considering the “courts only” option. If it were possible t regulating a market in need of deep repair like the mortgage industry through simple enforcement of the law, that would be ideal. However, Buchanan doesn’t see that as being enough. Sometimes the courts might work in favor of the consumer and debt relief, but not often enough. Extreme circumstances would be required to convince most judges to see cause to invalidate a contract. The “non-elite” consumers, as Buchanan calls those most in need of debt relief, would not receive the help they need.

There is precedent here, but it could be a one in a million kind of thing. Buchanan points to a New York Times story where a judge ruled that a homeowner’s mortgage debt could be completely discharged during bankruptcy. This loop in legal convention happened due to a technicality: the mortgage company couldn’t prove it had the legal right to collect payments on the homeowner’s mortgage due to the fact that their mortgage had been repackaged and resold so many times that the paper trail had been lost. The mortgage company claimed this was “standard procedure” now, but the judge wouldn’t accept such shenanigans. Since the judge wasn’t exactly sure who was due the money, he decided he couldn’t compel the consumer to make mortgage payments to any one party.

“Saved by a Technicality” Won’t Work for Everyone

Buchanan rightly points out that not all judges will be as determined to call mortgage lenders’ bluff in such situations. “Standard procedure” should hold in most cases, meaning that homeowners would still be legally obligated to follow the terms of their mortgage contract. And mortgage lenders have certainly learned something from that case and are making sure all paperwork is in order. Once again, the deck will be stacked against consumers.

Don’t Depend Upon Courts for Debt Relief

Courts enforce the law. When a consumer enters into any legal contract with a lender, the terms of that contract are in most case subject to enforcement by law. Buchanan considers the vast majority of consumers to be “grossly mismatched” against mortgage and credit card companies. Mandatory arbitration clauses, hidden interest spike triggers and means of computing interest are always written in the best interests of the creditor. Consumers often agree to such contracts because they feel they don’t have any other choice. New regulatory agencies may be able to curtail abusive practices that are currently considered legal, but until that time officially arrives, there is too little hope that the average consumer will be able to fight back through the court system.

Courts Have Been Friendlier to Finance Companies

Families can go to court to attempt to prove that they shouldn’t have to pay under the terms of less than legal contract. However, Buchanan believes most judges will stick to enforcing contract language. In turn, the lending companies themselves are effectively using the court system to compel consumers to pay, even if it is through wage garnishment.

What about “Equitable Doctrines” for Debt Relief?

Hoping that lenders lose their paperwork isn’t a good strategy. That’s where “equitable doctrines” come into play. These can create situations where courts might be willing to set aside otherwise valid contracts because they feel that it there were unconscionable circumstances that placed the consumer under duress or undue influence to sign. Buchanan draws our attention to the “doctrine of unconscionability” itself, claiming that it works in two ways. First, in terms of procedure, there is the scenario where a contract was formed under suspicious circumstances. Second, there is the scenario where the substance of a contract is deemed grossly unfair. If both conditions are met, a contract like a mortgage, credit card agreement, etc, will not be enforced.

Too Good to Be True?

Perhaps it is. It all looks great on paper, says Buchanan, but debt relief is hard to come by via equitable doctrines. Only the most extreme cases are considered by courts, and for most people, having trouble paying a mortgage or credit card they signed up for won’t be enough to sway a judge. This raises the question in Buchanan’s mind as to whether courts should be compelled by stronger legislation to accept equitable doctrine arguments based on things like unconscionability. But as with any other action fought through courts, the cost would likely be prohibitive. Moreover, lenders would still be favored because “losing a contracts case legally cannot result in a company paying punitive damages,” writes Buchanan. “If you lose a contracts case, you merely pay what you would have paid anyway; and if you win, you are ahead. Thus, from the standpoint of repeat players, there is no reason not to abuse your customers (except to maintain goodwill, which many of the companies at issue here have already forfeited).” Then there are plenty of consumers who simply will not have the stomach to sue or be willing to accept a lesser settlement.

Calling on the Government for Debt Relief

Traditionally, the government has remained behind the scenes while consumers have pursued their right to take debt relief matters before the court system. As Buchanan suggests, however, this route has not often proved itself to be effective for the average consumer. In situations where genuine signs of abusive practices and unconscionable contracts are involved, new government agencies could take up the baton and make financial regulation more consumer-friendly.

“An agency can be empowered by Congress to order changes in behavior, changing business practices broadly and generally in order to level the playing field on which financial institutions and their customers do business,” says Buchanan. There could even be scenarios where lenders themselves could support agency regulation over the courts. “Out of control lawsuits” that financial institutions claim burden them unnecessarily would certainly be something lenders would be willing to leave behind so that a regulating agency can rule on matters. “But that hypothetical,” Buchanan writes, “ignores the financial industry’s real agenda, which is to fight to maintain both weak legal rules (allowing them to win in court) and weak-to-nonexistent agency regulation.”

Congress, Act Now

New agencies are about to spring forth from the executive branch to regulate the financial abuse of consumers through deceptive practices. Congress is in a perfect position to arm these agencies with more consumer-friendly laws that will make reasonable debt relief easier to attain. It’s that kind of consumer protection that Neil Buchanan and most concerned consumers are in search of as America looks to emerge from the darkness of the recession into the light of a stronger domestic America.

Is this person singing the inner city blues over payday loans? Don't bet that it's that simple. (Photo: flickr.com)

Have you ever heard that statement before – that “correlation does not imply causation?” What it means is that even if one can identify a correlation (strength and direction of a relationship between two random variables), it does not automatically imply that one causes the other. Making such a connection is falling prey to a logical fallacy known in Latin as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which translates to “with this, therefore because of this.”

People falling prey to a logical fallacy in conversation is one thing, but if a logical fallacy is central to the argument in a published academic paper that is attempting to shape public opinion and even advise lawmakers as to procedure, the work becomes irresponsible and even harmful. Such is the case with a recent intercollegiate study by Charis Kubrin and Gregory Squires of George Washington University and Steven Graves of Cal State Northridge entitled “Does Fringe Banking Exacerbate Neighborhood Crime Rates? Social Disorganization and the Ecology of Payday Lending.” Through the use of a logical fallacy, the authors attempt to link the rise of payday loan companies in middle- to low-income neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington with increased community violence. As if there could be no other contributing factors (which is something the authors even concede to more than once during their study, completely invalidating their previous hypothesis).

First, the Pro and Con Payday Loan Arguments

As we’ve heard many times before, those who are against payday loans claim that the businesses exploit the underprivileged and the uneducated. Supposedly, they cause poverty and an endless spiral of debt. On the other hand, supporters indicate that payday loans address a particular need for those who experience short term financial difficulty and are credit constrained and have little or no liquid assets to help deal with the problem. For every study that claims that payday loans cause bankruptcy, there are studies that indicate to the contrary regarding payday loans. Furthermore, numerous studies regarding the profitability of payday loans indicate that the rate charged is justified by the risk involved and that payday lending outlets do not reap excessive profits.

Causing Cities to Tear Themselves Apart?

The study authors take the angle of payday lending being an agitating agent that brings out the worst in the communities where brick-and-mortar stores are present. They see greater instances of crime in areas of Seattle where payday loan store penetration is most concentrated as a previously unstudied “price” that the communities pay for allowing the presence of payday lenders. The authors state that because payday loan stores operate with late and weekend hours – when hoodlums supposedly are out in force? –there is a greater potential for violence. Whether it is the stores themselves or their customers being subject to robbery, the authors would have us believe that providing consumers with payday loans when said consumers’ access to traditional forms of credit is restricted and short term financial need is great is somehow the fault for the violence. By that same logic, wouldn’t ATM machines, banks, liquor stores, gun stores or any other place where money is kept be a potential instigator of violence? It’s ridiculous. Capitalism should either be allowed to work as it can or American society should be dramatically restructured along the dreaded socialist lines that so many Americans claim to fear. Having payday lending outlets in your neighborhood is no more the cause than any other business where money is exchanged.

Why Seattle? Why Payday Loans?

The authors hold up Seattle as being representative of a typical large U.S. city, which sounds reasonable, but they admit that it may not create an accurate picture of the supposed payday loans/violence link for American as a whole. The Seattle communities with the greatest instances of violence in the authors’ study tended to be those where poverty was greatest. So are they saying that because payday loan outlets may be present in or near such communities that the payday loan outlets were the cause of the poverty – or the violence that stems from human frustration and need? That’s a very simplistic view that does not exist upon a well-reasoned, logical framework.

But Texas Payday Loan Customers Only Make $18K Per Year!

I’m not aware of the methodology of the Fox study that the authors cite for Texas payday loan customers, but the results seem highly unlikely (or need much greater clarification). Personal Money Store has found that the average online payday loan applicant makes $31,690 per year. For those approved for payday loans, that rises to $36,000. For those denied, it only falls to $30,672. It is indeed suspicious that there could be such a disparity between those results and those in Texas, but such questions could be indicative of the kind of care in research that the authors used in studying Seattle communities.

Repeat Customers: Beaten Down Victims?

Referring to other studies, the authors make the claim that as much as 60 percent of payday loan customers frequently and quickly borrow again. Personal Money Store customers don’t follow that model at all. Since only 4.64 percent of visitors to the site return and 7.36 percent of applicants are return visitors, it certainly doesn’t support the idea held by the authors that payday lending organizations create financial stress by hooking customers into an endless cycle of debt. It is implied that the stress such a situation could theoretically cause is in turn the flash point that spurs people in the Seattle communities to violence and violent crime. Illicit drug use and abuse, domestic violence, robbery and related crimes have what nearly any sociologist or psychologist would tell you are a complex chain of causes. The presence of payday loan stores in a community – once more – is too simplistic an answer.

Explain it Away, Social Disorganization Theory

The authors use the Social Disorganization Theory to attempt to explain their preconceived connection between the presence of payday lending and community violence. “According to the theory,” they write, “certain neighborhood characteristics can lead to social disorganization, defined as the inability of a community to realize the common values of its residents and maintain effective social controls.” Such social disorganization is the root of crime, according to the authors.

What role do payday loan stores play in the characteristics of a community? Do they structure the daily routines of residents, as the theory would require? The bulk of payday loan customer survey respondents say they use the product to help with an emergency expense, and that this hardly represents a daily occurrence. But more importantly, you cannot assume that one institution is responsible for a social problem. Bars, low-income housing and liquor stores tend to appear in distressed neighborhoods as well, but their financial import to the economic health of said communities is very real. The arguments that liquor stores and bars promote alcoholism or that gun stores promote violent crime will always be on someone’s mind, but that doesn’t make the arguments valid. The connection between payday loan stores and violence/violent crime is even more tenuous.

Build More Community Centers and Libraries

The authors (as well as many others) find that such institutions contribute positively to a community’s identity. Perhaps a lack of sufficient community resources along these lines would be a greater indicator of social disorganization? It’s no stretch to say that the community that is fragmented and the community that doesn’t spend time together would be more prone to communication breakdowns that can lead toward violent confrontation. Stifling market competition by singling out payday loan stores – not to mention robbing disadvantaged consumers of a choice that can genuinely help in the short term – is hardly a way to organize a community in a healthy manner.

While you’re at it, why not install greater security measures in areas where consumers are walking away with large sums of cash? This could be considered a failing of payday loan companies in at-risk communities. With proper security measures, perhaps robbery numbers would go down. If people know there’s a greater chance that they will be caught, they’re much less likely to commit a crime.

Payday Loans and the Drug Trade

Having cash on hand tends to be a prerequisite if an individual wishes to purchase any form of harmful street contraband. However, such behavior should never be encouraged. Payday loan stores certainly do not do so simply by nature of them providing cash to their customers. Banks do the same thing – even ones in less than reputable neighborhoods – but they are not being accused by the authors of this problematic study. Where’s the balance there?

Where the Need is Greatest

“The safest neighborhoods in Seattle have no payday lenders in them,” write the authors. There are many reasons this could be the case. Perhaps the larger, more established traditional banking industry in Seattle has effectively swayed local politicians into pushing their payday loan competition out of high-rent neighborhoods. It certainly wouldn’t be unheard of in big-city politics. What consumers in lower-income neighborhoods tend to face are situations where their restricted access to credit makes qualifying for traditional bank loans next to impossible. Hence, having payday loans they can qualify for in their own neighborhoods constitutes a great service.

Some critics would argue that big banks and credit unions are beginning to offer their own alternative to the payday loan, making those outlets obsolete. However, that’s just in theory. In execution, banks who participate in such programs admit that they do so at a loss. Their real goal – stated by none other than the FDIC – is to transition consumers into other products like overdraft protection and traditional loans. Is it any coincidence that these products can be much more expensive for consumers?

Property Values Go Down Because of Payday Loans?

Of course the authors claim that payday loans are the culprit in those at-risk communities. But remember, correlation does not imply causation. To assume that payday loans are the reason why is to be unintentionally simplistic at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. There are many factors that can contribute to a drop in property values. Many of them are beyond one’s immediate control.

The Effects of Over-Regulation

The study authors challenge lawmakers to enact policies to help control the “blight” of payday loan store presence in American communities. Capping the annual interest rate at 36 percent is one idea, which the federal government has already instituted on loans to active military. However, considering the costs of operating payday loan stores, being allowed to charge less than $2 per $100 loaned for the standard two-week payday loan duration is not enough to keep such businesses open. The result of removing the distressed consumer’s ability to choose payday loan credit is to drive them toward more expensive or even dangerous alternative. I’d like to see the authors connect those alternatives, from loan sharks to other illegal activities, to the violence they claim surrounds the payday lending industry.

Widen the Net for More Meaningful Results, Please

“An obvious extension of this research would be case studies of additional cities,” write the authors. “We suspect our findings are not unique to Seattle. But there may be variations associated with the size, demography, regional location, industrial structure, and other city characteristics that affect the linkage between payday lending and crime.” No, I’d say those factors could be some of the real causes of the violence you’re studying – rather than additional links between payday lending and crime. The authors suggest that further study in the matter is needed to fully understand the supposed connection. I’d agree that further study is needed, but that study should be based on sound reasoning and logic, rather than a logical fallacy. Politicians are easily swayed by things that resemble facts but are in reality statistical noise. On the count that their work could contribute to such institutional delinquency and laziness, Kubrin, Squires and Graves’ theory regarding payday loan stores and violence is irresponsible.

Payday Loans have the green light when it comes to going where the financial need is greatest. Access to conventional credit plays a large role. (Photo: flickr.com)

Payday loans are an inescapable landmark in America’s modern economic landscape. The popularity of the short term loan product has grown significantly since the early 1990s, and it’s no wonder. Giving consumers the ability to absorb financial shocks in the short term – enabling them to avoid hefty penalties – is useful for maintaining economic welfare. It is important for consumers to be educated as to their alternatives in a financial emergency, however. For their part, the payday lending industry (organized under such groups as the Community Financial Services Association and the Online Lenders Alliance) has helped to educate consumers as to how payday loans work and when they should or shouldn’t advisably be used. However, the responsibility rightly rests with the individual.

Unfortunately, the image still persists within the popular media that payday loans are an instrument through which unscrupulous businessmen and women exploit “at-risk” members of society. One of the primary means these critics use to attempt to prove their point is by focusing on the geographic clustering of brick-and-mortar payday loan locations (as well as pawn shops and check cashing outlets). This fails to take into account online payday loan companies and aggregators like Personal Money Store, whose average customer by income tends to fall comfortably into the middle class. However, when brick-and-mortar locations only are considered, a clear pattern of going where demand is greatest becomes apparent. A recent study by Robin Prager, the Assistant Director in the Division of Research and Statistics for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, supports the assertion that payday loan businesses tend to cluster in areas where access to credit may be restricted and liquid assets that help consumers handle financial surprises may be closer to scarce than abundant.

“Determinants of the Locations of Payday Lenders, Pawnshops and Check-Cashing Outlets“

Prager groups payday loans, pawn shops, check cashing and a number of related short term loan companies under the name “alternative financial service providers” (AFSPs). Recognizing the controversy the rapid growth of these institutions has generated, Prager analyzes the geographic placement of AFSPs. Using county-level data for the entire country, she expands upon the regional work most studies had undertaken before. Demographics, population, consumer credit profiles and the degree of strictness in state and local laws all play a role in where the largest clusters of AFSPs appear.

Rules and Regulations Facing AFSPs

Payday lending, pawn broking and check cashing aren’t overnight sensations. They date back to at least the 1930s, although payday lending may date back to Colonial America and pawn broking in its various forms is particularly ancient. As with any explosive growth industry, there has been a need for regulation. AFSPs are subject to regulations on the federal, state and local level. Such things as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Bank Secrecy Act all have jurisdiction. Moreover, all loan companies must follow the federal rules of the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Talent-Nelson Amendment to the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, to name a few. On the state and local level, numerous and variable other regulations exist. It’s safe to say that a regulatory maze exists when it comes to AFSPs. While they do serve to protect consumers against potential exploitation, the question as to whether over-regulation has stifled competition with the consumer financial services industry is a more than legitimate area for study.

Urban vs. Rural Distribution

Prager found that in 2006, 98.9 percent of rural and 99.6 percent of urban counties in the U.S. featured at least one bank or thrift branch. Furthermore, two-thirds of rural and 90 percent of urban counties had at least one AFSP provider (payday lender, pawnshop, check casher, etc). Considering population by county, the average of 33,000 people were serviced by 2.5 payday loan stores, 1.2 pawn shops, 1.7 check-cashing outlets and 10.7 bank and thrift branches. On the urban side, the numbers change to 220,000 people, 16.6 payday loan stores, 7.4 pawnshops, 21.2 check cashers and 67.5 bank and thrift branches. AFSPs like payday loan companies are certainly not more prevalent than banks in Prager’s sample.

Where Do the Payday Lenders Congregate?

Prager found that the highest concentration of payday loans outlets on a per capita basis came in southern states where regulation is more forgiving: Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana. Pawn shops concentration was also high in such areas (primarily Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee), although check cashing ranked highest in California, Delaware, Mississippi and North Carolina.

Banks and thrifts found their highest concentration in the north central states, including Kansas, Nebraska and North Dakota. This did not tend to correlate into having a negative effect on the number of pawn shops and check cashing outlets in a county, but Prager did find a positive correlation when it came to payday loan stores.

Credit Scores Point to Subprime

Here is where we get to the heart of the matter with AFSPs like payday loan stores. They tend to appear where the need is greatest. If consumers have difficulty security mainstream credit in an emergency, then payday loans become a very attractive option. Prager introduces an equation that factors credit availability and a variety of other factors in order to express the number of AFSP outlets as a function. It is a function of the following demographic data: racial/ethnic mixture, age, consumer education, poverty standing and the county’s population density. As stated, creditworthiness and area regulations are also factors.

Here are some of Prager’s comments on results:

Looking first at the equations explaining the number of payday loan stores per million capita, we see that the results are fairly similar for urban and rural counties. In both cases the number of payday loan stores per million capita is negatively related to the share of the population that is Hispanic, positively related to the share of the population that is non-Hispanic black, and unrelated to the share that is Asian. Payday lenders are more prevalent in both urban and rural counties where a larger share of the population is below the age of 40 and less prevalent in both urban and rural counties where a larger share of the population lives below the poverty level. The number of payday loan stores per million capita is significantly related to the share of the population with a high school diploma (negative sign) and population density (positive sign) in rural, but not urban, counties.

Patterns in Payday Loan/AFSP Placement

Prager recognizes a few general patterns: 1) Payday lenders/AFSPs appear in credit challenged areas; 2) But they tend to avoid areas where the poverty level is highest; 3) AFSPs and other payday loan businesses aren’t seen to be particularly concentrated in Hispanic regions; 4) Payday lenders do tend to appear more in the African-American community; 5) population density and payday lending presence are connected in rural areas, but not as much in urban; and 6) Not surprisingly, areas with tighter regulation show a much lower instance of payday loan companies.

Payday Lenders Do Not Prey on the Poor

This is what Prager found based upon county-to-county data and it runs contrary not only to what the mainstream media would have you believe, but to the findings of a number of past studies. Credit scores remain a prime factor in distribution of AFSP. Going where the need is greatest is an idea that holds up in this instance. Mainstream credit may be less expensive on average, but if a consumer does not have the credit to access such a thing, then payday loans are the best options. As federal, state and local governments devise new ways of continuing to limit the industry, what exactly do they think credit-challenged individuals are going to do? If sinking beneath the waves of poverty so that they’re “out of sight, out of mind” is a feasible solution for elected officials, then perhaps people who can display more reason and human compassion deserve a turn.

Apply for Payday Loans here!

Think this represents the average payday loan company CEO? Think again. Profitability is hardly out of sight, even if it has allowed the industry to grow. (Photo: flickr.com)

Infinite profits earned off the backs of the infinite suffering masses. If you take your news from the multi-colored, sugar-laden toothpaste tube that is the mainstream media, then you believe that the payday loan industry is reaping massive profits while those who crawl about on their bellies are drowning in six inches of debt. It’s such an affecting image that it resides in some nether-region beyond belief. In other words, don’t buy the hype.

Payday loan companies aren’t a charitable organization, to be sure. They profit from the service they offer to consumers, but as studies like “The Profitability of Payday Loans” by Paige Skiba of Vanderbilt University Law School and Jeremy Tobacman of Oxford University indicate, the profits derived from interest are very much in line with those taken by more “traditional” lending institutions.

Short-Term Liquidity Has its Price

That’s exactly what payday loans and similar forms of short term loans provide. Their convenient immediacy (sans an extensive battery of credit and background checks) presents a certain amount of risk for lenders, so price protection is understandable. Skiba and Tobacman use financial data from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and SEC filings, as well as loan data from several major payday loan companies.

While the most expensive payday lenders charge what amounts to over 1,000 percent APR (somewhat moot; payday lenders typically charge 12 to 20 percent for two- to four-week loans), the authors find that “lenders’ firm-level returns differ little from typical financial returns.” The implication here is that on a per-loan and per-store basis, the payday loan industry experiences high costs that bite into their “profits.”

Methodology of the Study

The authors examine the CRSP and SEC numbers for seven First we summarize publicly available, firm-level profitability data from CRSP and SEC filings. They find average returns of 10 to 25 percent each year in profit. That’s on a per-firm level.

On the individual level, it is observed that loans are generally small, yielding a meager $49 in interest on average. Yet five percent loss ratios eat up more than one quarter of that interest. Net returns (interest minus defaults) amount “in expectation over all of the marginal borrower’s loans to only about $100,” find the authors. Payday lenders, then, would appear to exist in a highly competitive environment where per-loan and per-store costs are indeed large when compared with interest earnings.

Firm-Level Profits

According to the data, payday lenders have performed well on average, earning 10.1 percent profit. Yet because returns have been volatile, the Sharpe ratio (of excess return) is close to zero. Stock data has revealed little indication of excess dividends and SEC 10-K and 10-Q show only “moderate” return on equity, find the authors. Looking at the data of the payday loan firms involved in the study and comparing their returns against those of companies in the S&P 500, the authors once again find that there is “a profile of firm-level profits that fails to approach annualized payday loan interest rates.”

It should be noted that government regulation of the payday loan industry, particularly the September 2006 Talent-Nelson Amendment cap on lending to active-duty military, have impacted firm-level large risk premiums, to the point where the FDIC even released a report (http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/safety/payday/) suggesting that the “unusual risk” accepted by payday lenders justifies the interest and suggests ways payday loan companies can effectively handle this risk.

Individual-Level Profits

How does interest as high as 7,295 percent (the highest instance in the authors’ study) per year lead to only a 10 percent equity return? The authors look at individual-level data for payday loan origination, repayment and instances of customer defaults. The authors determine a mean payday loan size of $283 and median of $269. Eighteen percent interest leads to average revenue of $49 per payday loan, but once losses are taken into account, the story changes. The authors observed that approximately nine percent of post-dated collateral checks bounce. Collections were found to be pursued internally for 60 days, during which time the lenders collected on about half.

Credit standards tell an important tale as well. The better the short term loan applicant’s credit score, the greater revenues payday lenders derive. The authors find that “the intercept of the best-fitting line at the credit score threshold is $100.49. Thus, if the industry is competitive, the total economic costs of servicing the marginal borrower equal $100.49.”

Small Money, Big Default

Returns are astronomical in theory only. Stock returns are also observed to be modest for payday lenders. Store-level costs have to play a major role in this. A 2003 study by Jerry Robinson and John Wheeler estimated 40,000 employees in the payday lending industry. Their wages totaled $1.4 billion annually. They also found that total interest revenue for payday loans totaled $4.0 to $4.3 billion in 2002, indicating that employee salaries eat up a significant portion of that (about one-third).

A 2003 study by Michael Stegman and Robert Faris found that while the 2000 per-payday loan outlet profit in North Carolina was $57,999, the capital requirements for these outlets amount to at least $35,606. This doesn’t factor in wage costs, rent, marketing or administrative expenses, but it does include bounced-check fees, screening costs and loan losses.

You begin to see how expensive it is to operate a payday loan business. Flannery and Samolyk (2005) found that store costs and their revenues are related to store age, too. Start-up costs and establishing a clientele are difficult hurdles that have led newer entrants into the payday lending market to consider the online payday loan market.

A Cash Flow Example

Skiba and Tobacman present this hypothetical. Let’s say a payday loan store has $10,000 in capital at the beginning of the year. If risk is loan default risk is eliminated from the equation and 18 percent interest is earned every two weeks, the take would be $739,500 by year’s end. If annual wages amount to $30,000 (paid out every two weeks), that bill would be a large part of the $1,800 in interest income at the beginning of the year. At that time, the store would only early six percent on its capital. The year-end result would be an annual net of 2,150 percent, which is profitable but hardly extortionary.

So Someone Thinks Payday Lenders Should Only Charge by Cost?

Critics want a flat fee for payday loans – regardless of loan size – but the truth is that so many cost variables exist such as the cost of firms to originate payday loans that per-store differences in fees charged are necessary. Considering the explosive growth within the industry (200 stores observed in 1990 according to the authors vs. 30,000 in 2004), which came in no small part due to lobbying, there is both a consumer need for the product and an environment in which they can successfully exist on the subprime market.

Pricing behavior is largely regulated by oversight organizations like the Community Financial Services Association and the Online Lenders’ Association, but businesses that exist outside these member organizations may unfortunately set rates that are far beyond what is necessary. This is where government regulation can help rein in payday loan companies with the most excessive prices (even if this group may be in the minority of the industry), but excessive regulation is not desirable. Stifling market competition and limiting consumer choice are hardly a desirable alternative.

Superstitious knick knacks clutter your cupboard? Your fingers may be why… so if you know this, you can avoid needing payday loans to fuel such an intuitive compulsion. (Photo: wikipedia.org)

When you believe in things
That you don’t understand,
Then you suffer,
Superstition ain’t the way

- Stevie Wonder, “Superstition”

Psychologists have sought answers for some time as to why people believe in superstitious things and paranormal phenomenon. According to University of Helsinki psychologists Kia Aarnio and Marjaana Lindeman in an article entitled “The Origin of Superstition, Magical Thinking and Paranormal Beliefs: An Integrative Model,” “explanations have ranged from personality traits, psychological motivation, and flawed cognition, to emotional instability, demographics, and social influences.” That’s an awfully broad net to cast, but I’d tend to place the most stock in the social influences aspect. However, from the same pseudo-science (funded by payday loans rather than academic grants?) that brought you the digit ratio theory that supposedly enables you to tell if someone will be predisposed toward homosexual orientation based upon how long their index and ring fingers are in relation to each other comes… something rather disappointing.

Superstition is in the Fingers and Hormones?

According to author Martin Voracek, whether or not someone will be predisposed to believe in the fantastic and the paranormal may be determined before they even hear their first ghost story. It may be set in the womb, relegating those with increased intuitive thinking and decreased analytical thinking into following in Fox Mulder’s footsteps.

Stereotypically, Women Show the Intuitive Trait

Is this a disguised way for the old-boy scientific community to throw age-old “weaker sex” put-down around? Or is this based on solid scientific ground? Voracek is convinced that “there are biologically based, prenatally programmed influences on paranormal and superstitious beliefs.” It just so happens that one of the same indicators for superstition – that digit ratio thing – also connects to the homosexuality theory.  Voracek bases his findings on a survey of 1,118 Austrians, both men and women, who ranged from 17 to 72 years old.

Surveyed for Belief

Voracek questioned subjects regarding their position on all sorts of supernatural beliefs and phenomenon. Then data was collected on weight and length at birth, current age, education level and current height and weight. Inevitably, the digit ratio check came into play as well. While certain hormones do affect growth and proportions, it’s hardly a universal determinant. According to Discovery, “Men tend to have ring fingers that are slightly longer than their index fingers. In women, these fingers are usually about the same length, or the index digit is slightly longer.”

What Hormone are We Talking About?

For the sake or argument, let’s see. Oh, it appears that androgen exposure is involved. If the traditionally female sex hormones are more dominant, then I suppose you will chase Bigfoot the rest of your life. Just accept it, grow a mullet and live out of an RV.

What Voracek believes he’s found tends to follow conclusions Aarnio and Lindeman tended to arrive at:

Shorter feminized digit ratios in women also correlated with a greater likelihood of superstitious beliefs, as did a woman’s lighter weight at birth. For both sexes, shorter body length at birth was associated with later beliefs in superstitions and the paranormal.

Jock Scientists Taunting Nerd Scientists?

What is this, really? It sounds to me like yet another way to attempt to marginalize a minority group. If men or women have the wrong length of finger and want to do something about it, perhaps their innate belief in telekinesis can be used to create a psychic knife (a la Sylar in “Heroes”) and trim the digits down to size. Seriously, though, you should never actually try to do something like that. You’d injure yourself severely and find out that payday loans are in your future to help take care of the hospital bills. Of course if you believe in or actually are clairvoyant, you already knew that.

Related Video:

Installment loans have been there for people from all walks of life who have been failed by the traditional credit and lending system. (Photo: flickr.com)

You’ve more than likely heard the call to arms “Stimulate the economy!” before. It takes expenditure in order to keep the wheels of commerce flowing. While the current recession has made that difficult – people are still highly unwilling to spend on non-essential purchases – the standard progression in America has been that accumulation of household debt can be just the grease needed to lubricate the economic wheels.

Of course, access to credit is a very large first step toward accumulating the managed debt and consumerist desire that creates the consistent cash infusion the American economy requires. But what happens when traditional credit is unavailable?

For large segments of the American population, being denied for traditional credit has forced them to consider other options like installment loans. The reason for these denials, according to researchers like Christian Weller of the University of Massachusetts and Center for American Progress, are multiple.

However, concepts of race and ethnicity may indeed be a determinant. In his study “Credit Access, the Costs of Credit and Credit Market Discrimination,” Weller considers household debt information in an effort to determine whether discrimination in the consumer credit market has declined, gone away or actually persisted as deregulation of credit industries has occurred. The survey referenced is the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which the Federal Reserve conducts on a tri-annual basis.

Borrow to Spend, Spend to Stimulate

As families borrow, more of them can afford to undertake major purchases like homes, cars and education than otherwise. Consumer credit such as installment loans also help smooth over financial shocks that come about due to medical emergencies and other situations. If the playing field were level, it would indeed be that simple.

Yet Weller acknowledges what we all know: families don’t all have the same access to consumer credit. Demographics, minority status and income levels have contributed toward lessened chances to obtain a loan and high loan costs. Weller identifies this as “credit market discrimination.”

Restricting access to traditional loans on the basis of race, ethnicity or other personal traits yet not providing sufficient access to some form of installment loan credit when consumer need is imminent has been a failing of the traditional banking industry. As deregulation began in the late 1970s and grew to fruition in the 1990s, the message became clear: America’s economy was on track for more market competition and less discrimination.

Payday loans and installment loans filled consumer need, promoted competition (an invitation banks still haven’t taken up in earnest) and turned back some of the tide of discrimination.

Measuring the Credit Market

Weller analyzes evidence of financial constraints from the years 1989 through 2004. Looking at a sampling of borrowing families, demographic characteristics like family size, marital status, living arrangement and others are considered. Financial indicators like credit history, family income and accumulated wealth are also potential factors, although some of Weller’s findings indicate a “taste-based” form of discrimination based upon prejudicial perception may play a role. Sometimes this is even a more socio-economic form of discrimination, where those of higher income judge those with less negatively.

Consulting Professionals in Times of Financial Insecurity

When consumers face financial stress and don’t have the liquid assets on hand to absorb their financial shocks, seeking out assistance is wise. Among those surveyed by Weller, however, we see that consumers in need of aid don’t always do this. Not only that, but a disparity appears to exist along racial lines. The percentage of Caucasians who relied on financial professionals in 2004 was 45.7 percent, compared with only 27.7 percent of African–Americans and 27.2 percent of Hispanic consumers. Those families who did rely on professional assistance were found to be 17.3 percent less likely to be denied for a traditional loan.

On a related note, the rate of those who applied for traditional loans but were denied also bears a connection to race. Weller found that African–Americans were 41.7 percent more likely than Caucasians to be denied a loan. This difference became even larger when larger-scale loans like home mortgages were considered. The author cites a 1996 study by Jonathan Crook, which suggests that lower-income and older families were also more likely to experience denial on traditional loans.

Negative Expectations

Weller found that 14.9 percent of African-American families and 11.9 percent of Hispanic families claimed that that rather than experiencing a denial, they didn’t even apply for a loan because they figured they’d be turned down. Among Caucasian families, this figure was only 4.9 percent. Low versus high income levels showed a similar order. Tracking these figures from the beginning of the study period in 1989 to the end in 2004, loan denial and application discouragement increased.

For those groups who experienced the greater traditional loan denial or discouragement, Weller finds that short term consumer loans like installment loans tended to be more prevalent. In 2004, 18.2 percent of African-Americans respondents used installment loans, while 10.5 percent of Caucasians and 10.9 percent of Hispanic families. While critics of the installment loan industry would point to some of the short term consumer loan products a small number of credit unions across America offer, Weller found that only 3.6 percent of all consumer debt in the survey originated with credit unions.

An Important Distinction

Weller found that even though minority groups borrowed less from traditional lenders, which did not mean that they were significantly more likely to borrow from sources like installment loan companies or rely upon credit cards. “There is no statistically significant difference by race and ethnicity when it comes to borrowing from consumer lenders,” writes Weller. “The combination of these results with the ones on traditional banks is consistent with the earlier finding that denied and discouraged applications are larger for minorities.” The common conclusion here is that minority families in the survey had restricted access to credit when compared with Caucasian families. Low- versus high-income showed a similar breakdown.

Installment Loans are an Answer

Used responsibly, installment loans can enable any consumer to handle the financial shocks that life inevitably will throw your way. The credit restrictions that have existed in various segments of American society have necessitated the need for short term consumer credit, and products like payday loans and installment loans have filled the need. If consumers are going to partake of whatever source is available when the need is great, then the presence of a regulated industry that saves consumers from highly negative alternatives.

Thus, installment loans fill a need; they do not target groups in need. Claims of “aggressive advertising” would seem to apply more to traditional lenders, as their advertisements are much more prevalent than anything the payday loan and installment loan industry offers. I base this on my own observation, but I’m convinced it is accurate.

Weller’s suggestion that further study is needed as to why such a disconnect exists between minority and low-income groups and traditional banks is an interesting suggestion that could possibly help to close the gap and create more of the competition that fuels the American economy.

Parenthood is as sacred a thing as exists for human beings. What's fair is what the child needs, not that you keep up with Martha Jones' in number of vacation days. (Photo: flickr.com)

I think that America has the wrong idea when it comes to work-life balance. The wheels of business have to turn for our economy to function, but do we honestly have to spend the vast majority of our waking lives (and sleeping lives, if you dream about work) at work to keep the engine running? There a host of other countries – many of them European – that aren’t mired in poverty. Salaried employees there tend to have more time outside of the office than Americans. I’d wager that they’re happier for it.

Take Paid Maternity Leave, For Instance

Compared with other nations like the Czech Republic, America’s paid maternity leave is pathetic. Certainly it’s an expensive venture to cover a woman’s salary while she’s away from work for an extended period of time. No short term loans can cover that kind of gap, which means tax dollars must be used. And I understand that some object to using their tax dollars to subsidize another woman’s pregnancy. But I simply cannot agree with people like those who would claim that they’re entitled to the same amount of paid maternity leave as a new mother.

2,000 U.K. Women Were Surveyed

Bethany Sanders writes in Forbes that 74 percent of childless women surveyed want paid maternity leave, too. The survey, which originally ran in the Telegraph, shows that most women want the same year of maternity leave (39 weeks paid) that new U.K. mothers receive.

Is it envy? Is it an overwhelming desire for justice and fair play? Or is it all of the above? Whatever the case, it seems to me that the entire point of childbirth, parent-child bonding and the handing over the keys to the kingdom from the old to the young is undervalued. Do they think it’s all a blissful vacation? Being a parent is joyous. It is also a great responsibility – and a time where parents get little or no rest. Such is the way of parenthood. And remember: we all started out as children. Bonding time with parents is invaluable.

Businesses Do the Spit Take

Businesses certainly aren’t warming to the idea of paid maternity for everyone (men included, as paternity). Of course, if the work-life balance was handled properly to begin with, they’d be conditioned to granting more time. The Industrial Revolution took us down the wrong path in this regard, and much of the world still hasn’t recovered. Yet if everyone had a sufficient-sized pool to draw from, perhaps there would be less squabbling and more relaxation.

Childless Men and Women, Listen Up

Your desire for time off is justifiable. And your time is as personal and valuable as another person’s. Yet you’re missing the point. Children are a class of society that deserves privileged status and special treatment more than any other. Having this early time to bond with parents should not be optional. It should be considered a requirement like eating, breathing, sleeping and pooping. Give children that and the odds are even greater that societies to come will be more well-adjusted and happy. Give the children time and we will be rewarded as a whole.

Pregnant women also need extra time to recuperate (or at least to take a stab at recuperation). If you’ve ever been there, you know. I helped keep one alive – twice – so I’ve at least seen it.

Do the Childless Deserve Paid “Maternity?”

They absolutely do not. But we all deserve more time away from the working world. We neglect personal development and family time at our peril. Knock Humpty from the wall and see just how inadequate short term loans are to put him back together again. But if things were different and we needed to buy diapers we couldn’t afford (child or adult diapers) between paychecks, short term loans would be a reasonable option.

Related Video:

Once again, Personal Money Store proves that online payday loan customers have solid, steady incomes. Where's the exploitation? (Photo: picasaweb.google.com)

If you don’t already know that American news media is first and foremost an entertainment medium, allow me to be the one to break it to you. Sensationalism sells better than the truth. Biased story selection and reporting slant are inescapable, particularly when you consider the influence of corporate sponsorships. Since Wall Street and the American banking industry are monolithic entities, their money makes a big difference in what the public hears about the economy and the shenanigans that really led to the country’s economic collapse.

They Don’t Want You to Know that Payday Loans are Useful

So they create smear campaigns that accuse the payday lending industry of preying upon vulnerable segments of society, such as the poor and the elderly. However, many studies of the industry have proven this claim to be false. Looking at applicant demographics for Personal Money Store from June 1, 2009 to October 20, 2009, we see a different picture. Our online payday loan customers are not disadvantaged, too young or too old. They’re at a stage in life where they have financial experience and know how to spot a good deal when options are few.

The Numbers Tell the Story

Consider all customers who applied for an online payday loan on Personal Money Store (accepted or denied), here are some facts to ponder:

• Average age: 35. These are people who have some experience dealing with the financial shocks life can throw your way. As industry studies tend to show that many payday loan customers have young families, it may be safe to say that Personal Money Store’s average applicant is in a position where they need to be careful with the way they handle their finances.
• Average income: $31,690. That’s hardly poverty level, and that’s just for the individual applying. If you’re talking about 35-year-olds who are just beginning to come into their own career-wise, then you have someone who hasn’t reached their maximum earning potential yet. Perhaps their access to certain forms of credit has been limited due to a relative scarcity of liquid assets. This makes payday loans a more easily attainable option in an emergency.
• Average length of employment: 6 years. That’s an indication that the person is dependable, rather than transitory and risky. They’ve been trusted to do their job, which payday lenders definitely take into account.
• Average time at current address: 3 years. Again, this could be seen as a stability indicator. Constant relocation tends to walk hand-in-hand with fluctuating types of employment held and income levels. If a payday loan applicant is entrenched, perhaps they are less of a risk.
• Home ownership: 34 percent. While hardly a majority, this statistic is still significant. More than a third of Personal Money Store’s payday loan customers own their own home. That goes along with steady income and personal responsibility, as they have to make a monthly mortgage payment.
• Average time spent on application form: 4 minutes, 44 seconds. This tells us at least two things. First and foremost, it’s proof that it doesn’t take all that long to apply for an online payday loan. The application asks for standard information to establish a person’s employment, checking account existence, age and identity. It’s easy to complete. What this number might also tell us is that our customers aren’t rushing into the process too quickly; they’re being careful and carefully considering what the application requests.
• Percent of customers who apply for installment plans: 27.76 percent. This addresses another area where media and banking industry critics have it wrong. They claim that payday loans are a certain path toward an endless cycle of debt. Used improperly, they can cause harm. But so can Cheese Whiz. If a responsible customer (most people are responsible in this world, I find) needs to extend their repayment schedule due to unforeseen financial occurrence, installment plans are usually available.
• Percent of returning visitors out of all traffic: 4.64 percent. We hope you enjoy our site; let’s grow this number!
• Percent of applicants who are return visitors: 7.36 percent. We hope you enjoy our site; let’s grow this number! However, keep in mind that this stat also indicates that people who apply for payday loans at Personal Money Store aren’t being “roped in,” as if against their will, to that media-blustered endless cycle of debt.

The Numbers for Approved Applicants

Not everyone who applies for online payday loans at Personal Money Store receive a green light. It’s important that there are standards in place. These protect both lenders and the consumer.

• Average age: 37. Mature enough to know what financial decisions work best for them. Responsible enough to make good decisions for their families. That’s your average Personal Money Store payday loan customer in a nutshell.
• Average income: $36,000 for the applicant only. Above average in many instances, and certainly not too poor to be able to repay their payday loan debt.
• Average length of employment: 6 years. Stable.
• Average length at current address: 3 years. They’ve put down roots. Doing the right thing is important for them.
• Home ownership: 42 percent. That’s almost a 10 percent increase over the average for all applicants. It indicates responsibility and greater financial security. It goes to show that everyone can use a payday loan in a pinch.

Even Declined Applicants Show Experience, Solid Income

• Average age: 34.
• Average applicant income: $30,672.
• Average length of employment: 5 years.
• Average time at current address: 3 years.
• Home ownership: 31 percent.

Some Techie Stats For Our Online Payday Loan Applicants

You’ve heard the whole thing about the “browser wars,” right? While using Internet Explorer could be viewed as a negative in this day and age, the truth is that it has a large market share thanks to the preponderance of Windows software. Here’s a breakdown of what browsers Personal Money Store applicants use.

• Internet Explorer (all versions): 62.37 percent. It’s all about market share.
• Internet Explorer 7: 47.3 percent. Not everyone has upgraded to IE 8 yet.
• Internet Explorer 8: 32.09 percent. Here we go. But why not Firefox or Chrome?
• Internet Explorer 6: 20.57 percent. Nobody’s perfect.
• Firefox: 24.57 percent. This number seems likely to grow over time, although it may never catch IE, which has a big head start.
• Safari: 8.45 percent. Mac users take out payday loans, too.
• Chrome: 2.8 percent. This browser is relatively young, but it’s quite fast. Why not make your online payday loan application process that much faster?

Connection Speed

Personal Money Store customers have proven that they are living in the 21^st century, as at least three-quarters of applicants have access to broadband connections:

• Cable: 41.97 percent
• DSL: 23.83 percent
• T1: 9.99 percent
• Unknown: 20.82 percent. Yes, even international men and women of mystery need online payday loans.
• Dialup: 2.15 percent. I know it’s cheaper, but really? Payday loans can help with that.

So What Have We Learned Today?

Online payday loan customers at Personal Money Store do not fit the negative stereotypes the media would have you swallow hook, line and sinker. They are responsible and consider their options carefully, often because they have an entire family’s financial welfare to consider. They certainly aren’t being exploited. That’s the media’s job.