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 (See: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h3DfHGfgaUgIrJMxJEAUzZ1K5CbA) 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.

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 Market, 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 Market 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.” ( See: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/11/09/copy/More_Payday.ART_ART_11-09-09_A1_6QFK8AH.html?adsec=politics&sid=101) 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:

It's all well and good when you're a baby, but Ontario wants to nanny its payday loan customers so they don't have to be responsible. (Photo: flickr.com)

When it comes to short-term consumer lending, few products are as quick and convenient as a payday loan. The bulk of payday loan companies in Canada operate within the bounds of established governmental guidelines into order to provide consumers with a safe, affordable product while businesses collect profits that offset operating costs. Yet there are an unfortunate few who attempt to operate “beneath the radar,” charging overly inflated rates and enforcing abusive loan terms. Section 347 of the Canadian criminal code attempts to regulate this with a limit of 60 percent interest that can be charged per annum, but further intervention has been necessary in order to protect consumers.

The Payday Loans Act of 2008

Here’s a prime example of an attempt to make things right. In June of 2008, the Ontario Legislature devised the Payday Loans Act in order to require that all payday lenders and pawnbrokers:

• Become licensed
• Clearly spell out all costs of borrowing
• Prohibit loan rollover by instituting a database
• Allow borrowers to cancel their payday loan contract during an initial cooling-off period (within the first two days)

Furthermore, the Payday Loans Act was to make it easier for offending payday loan companies to have their licenses suspended and establish the Ontario Payday Lending Education Fund to promote consumer understanding of and confidence in the product.

Capping the Numbers

By the time additional provisions were in place by April 1, 2009, the Payday Loan Act was also altered by Ontario’s Maximum Total Cost of Borrowing Advisory Board so the most money that could be charged per $100 borrowed is $21. For a standard two-week payday loan, that’s 21 percent, which is not out of the realm of feasibility.

However, there was little or no penalty in place for consumers who defaulted on their loans. It seems unconscionable for there not to be consequences when a consumer makes a promise to repay a debt and doesn’t follow through. Such a lack of safeguarding damages payday lenders severely, just as it would any business that exposed itself to financial risk but didn’t have the tools to protect itself in the event of default. This is definitely an example of the nanny state at work, absolving others of taking responsibility for themselves.

Now Ontario has an Order Dealing with “Criminal Interest Rates”

Specifically, “Order Designating Ontario for the Purposes of the Criminal Interest Rate Provisions of the Criminal Code P.C. 2009-1628 October 1, 2009” has taken a big step toward expunging out-of-control interest rates. Payday loan companies that fail to toe the line will no longer be able to escape notice. This is an order “DESIGNATING ONTARIO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL INTEREST RATE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.” It appears in large, capital letters because Ontario wants it known that from this point forward, all payday loan stores in the province are required by section 347.1 of the Criminal Code. Once the following two provisions are in effect:

1. The Payday Loans Act, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 9, except for sections 52 and 66 to 74; and
2. Ontario Regulation 98/09, except for sections 37 and 38.

The $21 per $100 loaned will definitely be in effect, without exemption. But what will happen to the lack of protection afforded payday loan companies for customers who don’t pay? What does Nanny Ontario plan to do about that? This isn’t a game of jacks among five-year-olds; these are adults who should have learned to take responsibility for their actions a decade or more before. It would be in the best interests of its citizens if Ontario (and Canada as a whole) reconsidered this ridiculous lack of penalty for default.

Related Video: