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.

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.