THE BLOG

04
Apr

Payday Loan Violations and Compliance

In violation of the law!photo © 2008 Dewet | more info (via: Wylio)“Good morning! My name is Edwin Brown and I’m from the California Department of Corporations. I’m here to examine your payday loan records for compliance. I’ll be looking for exceptions and proposing enforcement actions against you and your payday loan company. I’ll be with you for the day…”

Did I get your attention? Leave here now if payday loan regulations and compliance is boring!!

Alright! It’s time to step back from our previous reflections on “Sovereign Nation – Tribal Models,” “Offshore Payday Loan” approaches and some of the other esoteric stuff and get back to basics.

Now payday loan compliance and enforcement might not appear to be a particularly exciting subject for you, but for those of us who have been greeted at the door to our business in the early AM by a state regulator, it can be the beginning of a NIGHTMARE! And don’t you Internet guys think you’re immune from this because you’re not.

Some of this will be pretty basic to more than a few of you. But these mistakes are being made every day by members of our industry – NOT A GOOD THING!

And obviously, the payday loan licensing model you’re operating under will dictate much of this including definitions such as “consumer credit” to include payday loans, vehicle or title loans, and tax refund anticipation loans (loans); “covered borrower” to include military members or their dependents; “Creditor” as any person engaged in the business of extending credit (lender), “domicile” where does the loan take place, and much more.

SO… check YOUR state/province and federal laws!

On to VIOLATIONS…

A) Military Lending
All our readers are aware that federal law regarding members of the military and their families requires lenders to:

  • Limit military annual percentage rates of loans to no more than 36%
  • Disclose rates and payment obligations
  • Identify whether loan applicants are covered borrowers (Military members or their dependents)

Where many of us are missing the boat is in not realizing this military identification process must be performed on ALL SUBSEQUENT LOANS; not just the first loan! The status of your borrower may change so don’t blow this! A “standard covered borrower identification statement” (military member declaration) MUST be provided to the loan applicant PRIOR to becoming obligated on the transaction, must be signed by the loan applicant indicating she is not a covered borrower and must be substantially similar to the following statement:

“Federal law provides important protections to active duty members of the Armed Forces and their dependents. To ensure that these protections are provided to eligible applicants, we require you to sign… “I AM a regular or reserve member of the Army… OR, I AM a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces… OR I AM NOT a regular or reserve member of the Army…”

This “covered borrower identification statement” must be completed and signed by the loan applicant FOR EVERY LOAN!

B) Depositing of Checks
In many states and provinces, your payday loan written agreement must describe the manner in which your customer’s check will be deposited and the specific date of deposit.

Your agreement should specify if you may elect to deposit your customer’s check by electronic means, including ACH transactions. As a general guideline, per your agreement, you may deposit a customer’s check one time for the full amount after your bank dishonors the initial deposit of your customer’s check.

C) Internet Businesses
More and more states and provinces are insisting payday loan Internet businesses be licensed in order to serve their residents. I’ve discussed state licensing models, choice-of-law models, Sovereign Nation and Offshore Models, CSO Models, zero-licensing approaches MANY times in the past so we won’t go there now. Suffice it to say, state and provincial Attorney Generals are “dialing for dollars.” So… get up to date on this topic!

D) Prepaid Debit cards
This is a really HOT topic! Pre-paid debit cards will play a significant future in the payday loan industry. Again, I’ve written on this topic many times. For now, be aware that in many locales, a payday loan licensee CANNOT REQUIRE a customer to purchase a prepaid debit card as a condition for qualifying for a payday loan. Charging fees for the initial purchase or use of a prepaid card is frowned upon as well (California for example).

e) Small Claims
In many locales, other than court costs and filing fees, the recovery of fees in excess of amounts prescribed by your payday loan regulations cannot be had. Treble damages for NSF customer checks is typically not allowed as well.

7) Simultaneous Loans
You’ve deposited your customer’s check to close out a previous payday loan and you issue another. The following day you’re notified by your bank that your customer’s check is NSF. You now have two loans outstanding with the same customer. In California, you’ll be fined! What about your state?

8) Third Party Collections
It’s typical for a payday loan licensee to be responsible for ensuring that third party collection agencies NOT collect any amounts from borrowers that exceed what is permitted by the licensees state/province payday loan regulations. THIS IS SCARY! On top of this, licensees must maintain complete records disclosing payday loans transferred to third parties and the amounts those third parties collected from the borrowers!! Or, did you sell your bad debt? Who to?? What does this mean to you??? There are several offshore payday loan collection companies calling me every day to purchase/work bad debt…

9) Rescission and Cooling-off Periods
Do not attempt to collect your fees when your payday loan customer rescinds their loan during the time frame specified by law for rescission or cooling-off periods! It’s a violation!

10) Excess Loan Amounts Collected

Typical scenario:
A borrower pays off a loan in cash AFTER the borrower’s check has been deposited in the bank. Then, the borrower informs you that the bank will return their check NSF. The borrower then pays you an NSF fee of $15 in cash. BUT, the borrower’s check DOES INDEED clear their bank after all. You’ve just collected double the amount of the loan and an NSF fee of $15; not kosher and a violation if discovered!

Another example:
A borrower makes partial payments pursuant to a payment plan and fails to pay off the loan or fails to comply with the terms of the payment plan. You deposit your borrower’s original check for the full amount of the payday loan. Once this check clears, you’ve collected dollar amounts in excess of the loan equaling the total of the partial payments – A VIOLATION!

MORE VIOLATIONS

You allow a borrower to pay a loan off by credit card and charge your customer additional fees for the privilege.

You charge your borrower for postage, labor costs, certified mail fees, telephone calls… for collection activities.

You elect to cash your borrower’s check at their bank and you’re charged for this. You cannot collect these fees from your borrower.

You elect NOT to deposit your borrower’s check due to verification that the borrower’s bank account does not have sufficient funds to cover their check. You cannot charge an NSF fee anyway.

Failure to conspicuously post your license in your place of business.

Failure to conduct your payday loan business under the name contained in your license

Failure to maintain sufficient books and records that allow the licensing department to determine if you’re in compliance with all rules, regulations and maintaining Agreements and evidence of customer checks.

Filing a false Annual Report.

Failure to disclose in advertising that you’re licensed.

Making payday loans for time periods in excess of prescribed law

Failure to disclose all fees in view of the public or in letters not at least 1/2 inch in height.

Understating APR.

Debiting a borrower’s bank account electronically multiple times for less than the full amount in order to recover the outstanding loan balance.

Exceeding maximum fee prescribed by law.

Charging additional fees for entering into payment plans.

Allowing a borrower to enter into multiple payday loans.

Charging a borrower ACH stop payment fees.

Leaving blanks in Agreements to be “filled out later.”

How much will these types of violations cost you? In California, $2500 per violation per incident! So… if you made just one of these errors 10 times since your last audit, $25,000! That’s a lot of payday loans at $15 per $100 loaned.

Bottom line? KNOW YOUR STATE/PROVINCE PAYDAY LOAN LAWS!And if you’re using the Offshore, Internet or Sovereign Nation Model, May peace be with you!

Comments? Ideas? Attacks? Rants? Tell me!

Jer
Trihouse Consulting
702-208-6736
jer@PaydayManual.com
http://www.PaydayLoanIndustryBlog.com
http;//www.Paydaymanual.com

29
Mar

SEC Halts $47 Million Investment Fraud at Utah-Based Payday Loan Companies

Utah payday loan lender at trial

Utah payday loan lender at trial

Washington, D.C., March 28, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has obtained a court order freezing the assets of two online payday loan companies and their owner charged with perpetrating a $47 million offering fraud and Ponzi scheme.

The SEC alleges that John Scott Clark of Hyde Park, Utah, promised investors astronomical annual returns of 80 percent on their investments in his companies – Impact Cash LLC and Impact Payment Systems LLC. Investors were told their money would be kept in separate bank accounts and used to fund payday loans and other aspects of the companies’ operations. However, Clark instead commingled investor funds into a single pool and used them to make unauthorized investments, pay fictitious profits to earlier investors, and finance his own lavish lifestyle.
Additional Materials

* SEC Complaint
* Litigation Release No. 21903

“Investors were promised extraordinary returns while Clark was actually diverting their money to make such extraordinary personal purchases as a fully restored classic 1963 Corvette Stingray,” said Ken Israel, Director of the SEC’s Salt Lake Regional Office. “Clark recruited new investors through referrals from earlier investors who thought the Ponzi payments they received were actual returns on their investments and sought to share the lucrative opportunity with family and business associates.”

The SEC alleges that in addition to buying multiple expensive cars and snowmobiles, Clark stole investor funds to purchase a home theater, bronze statues and other art for himself.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Clark lured at least 120 investors into his scheme. Besides word-of-mouth referrals from earlier investors, Clark also recruited investors by attending trade shows in various states, attending payday loan conferences, and paying salespeople to locate potential investors to meet with Clark. He paid one salesperson more than a half-million dollars over a multi-year period to locate potential investors and attend payday loan conferences and trade shows.

The SEC alleges that from at least March 2006 to September 2010, Clark and the Impact companies raised funds from investors for the stated purposes of funding payday loans, purchasing lists of leads for payday loan customers, and paying Impact’s operating expenses. Impact did not distribute a private placement memorandum or any other document disclosing the nature of the investment or the risks involved to investors. The SEC’s complaint charges Impact and Clark with fraudulently selling unregistered securities.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Clark routinely altered investor account statements provided to him by Impact’s accounting department to create artificially high annual rates of return. The altered account statements with purported profits were then sent to investors. Account statements to customers showed annualized returns varying from 30 percent to more than 200 percent.

In addition to the asset freeze approved late Friday, the court has appointed a receiver to preserve and marshal assets for the benefit of investors. The SEC’s complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction as well as disgorgement, prejudgment interest and financial penalties from Impact and Clark.

This matter was investigated by Jennifer Moore, Justin Sutherland and Marie Elliott of the SEC’s Salt Lake Regional Office, and the litigation will be led by Tom Melton. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Utah Division of Securities in this matter.

# # #

For more information about this enforcement action, contact:

Kenneth D. Israel, Regional Director
Karen Martinez, Assistant Director
SEC’s Salt Lake Regional Office
(801) 524-5796

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-73.htm

21
Mar

Jer Ayles-Ayler Trihouse on the Road with Payday Loans & More

Sorry everyone! I’ve been “on the road” the past MANY days. It started with the annual CFSA Payday Loan Convention in Hollywood, Florida. Then, I visited clients in Miami, Orlando, Key West (Thanks Steve! That was FUN!), Atlanta, Nashville, Clarksville and finally the 25th Annual Reservation Economic Summit (RES 2011) & American Indian Business Trade Fair in Las Vegas.

Man, The Sovereign Nation payday loan model is HOT! After that Wall Street Journal article, a lot of Tribe’s are wondering, “Why aren’t we doing this?” Looks like more will be…

The Payday Loan Offshore Model is making more and more sense as well. More than few significant players are entering this space.

I’ve got a LOT of comments and insight in AFS (payday loans, check cashing, currency exchange, money transfer, car title loans, tax refunds…) products and services coming so stay tuned!

Jer@PaydayLoanIndustryBlog.com

702-889-9555

25
Feb

Tales from the Payday Loan Trenches

A guy I know, we’ll call him Bob, opened a payday loan store roughly 3 years ago in a state having decent payday loan legislation in place. Now at the time, Bob knew doodly-squat about a payday loan business! His brother in-law had mentioned the fact that he had to go down to the local payday loan store and make a payment on his loan.

Bob decided to tag along with his brother-in-law. Needless to say, my friend Bob was blown away by what he saw! A 450 square foot office with 6 customers waitng to either get a loan or make a payment.

Bob did his research and opened his first location. Roughly a year and a half later, he opened a second in the same town.

So… today, Bob calls me. He wants to “run some numbers by me.” I say, “Sure Bob, go ahead. I’ll give you my 2 cents worth.”

Bob’s two stores are “netting $50,000 a month before taxes.” He’s got a default rate of less than 3%. (Bob’s a little maniacal. He visits his late payers at their home! 3 years on the job are required to qualify for a loan from him.)

Bob asks me, “Are my numbers good?”

“Are they good?”, I say! “Damn%^&* they’re good!”

Bob’s so deep in the trenches running his biz he’s got no idea! He wants to know how he compares with his payday loan brethren! When he called me he admitted he was behind the counter in his store!

Bob’s not going to the CFSA Convention. Bob’s never been to a FISCA Convention. He’s never heard of OLA. Bob’s running his payday loan biz and making good money doing it. $50,000 a month net before taxes! With 2 stores and a 3rd on the way!! In 3 years!!!

Sometimes I get so wrapped up in MY DEALS (Sovereign Nation Model, Offshore Model, smart phone aps, call centers, lead providers, consulting… ) I forget what it’s like to actually run a store. It’s been a while!

My point with this is that it’s still doable. There are guys like my friend Bob who are doing their research, entering the biz and making great money!

Bob just needed a little positive feedback! He’s so damn busy running and building his business he’s not able to sniff the air. He doesn’t have time to network or find out what’s the latest and greatest new widget/strategy/solution.

Bob’s just patiently plugging away making MONEY! Bob’s like hundreds of other payday loan, car title lenders and check cashers. They’re staying under the radar and building wealth! AND working HARD!

Bob, all I can say is, “You’re doing great! Now back to work!”

And Bob, keep up with the industry by reading my ramblings :o)

PS: Yeah, I know. The consumer protectionists and the legislators are gonna jump all over this! They’re going to say Bob is making too much $$ or charging too high a fee to his customers. Like Bob told me, “Tell them it’s guys like me whose taxes and licensing fees pay their salaries.” Tell them, “My customers are just glad I’m here for them when they need me.” And finally ask them, “How many actual payday loan customers complained about me or the industry?”

And yes, I did make up the “brother-in-law” part of this story. But the numbers are reported EXACTLY!

Comments? Thoughts? Attacks? Ideas?

Jer
Jer@PaydayLoanIndustryBlog.com

22
Feb

Texas CSO Credit Services Organization – Payday Loans

On Tuesday, February 22, the Texas Senate will hear testimony on Senate Bill 253 to discuss the CSO Credit Services Organization payday loan model.

In Texas, it’s estimated there are more than 3,700 payday loan lenders. Two new pieces of legislation — Texas SB 253 and Texas HB 410 — have been introduced as a way to limit this short-term lending. Both of these bills seek to redefine “Credit Service Organization” to exclude payday loan stores.

The two bills that have been introduced in the Texas legislature re-define “Credit Service Organization” to specifically exclude payday loan stores. This would limit the fees that these payday loan and car title loan stores can charge based on an annual percentage rate.

If this issue is critical to your success, you, your customers, and your employees MUST contact your representative and educate them! TODAY!!

The payday loan Industry estimates that roughly between 3,200 and 6,500 of the 7,800 employees at payday loan stores in Texas could lose their jobs. Not only that, but redefining the Texas Credit Services Organization would reduce consumer access to small, non-collateralized loans and shutter hundreds of stores in retail strip malls.

Texas payday loan lenders have voiced their reservations about Texas SB 253 and HB 410. They have said they do welcome further regulation and oversight. Payday Loan and other short-term credit products are not typically offered to consumers by banks, credit card companies and credit unions.

Texas lawmakers have expressed concern over the interest rates charged by payday loan and car title lenders.

The sponsor of SB 253 has posted the following Bill Analysis:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/analysis/html/SB00253I.htm
BILL ANALYSIS Senate Research Center
S.B. 253
82R1518 ATP-F
By: Davis
Business & Commerce
2/18/2011-As Filed

AUTHOR’S / SPONSOR’S STATEMENT OF INTENT
Current law defines a credit services organization (CSO) and permits such organizations to receive payment for the service of obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer.  Texas law governing CSOs was originally adopted in 1987.  The intent, according to the House Research Organization bill analysis, was “consumer protection legislation that would address the problem of certain credit-repair services taking advantage of consumers.”

Though intended as a consumer protection measure to address problems with credit-repair services, the laws governing CSOs are currently being used by payday, auto title, and other consumer loan businesses to obtain extensions of consumer credit for consumers.  According to the secretary of state, there were 3374 registered CSO locations in Texas as of October of 2010.  By operating under the CSO laws, these businesses can avoid the rate and fee caps that govern consumer loans under Chapter 342 (Consumer Loans), Finance Code, under which all other lenders function.  Using the CSO model, these businesses obtain loans for customers through third-party lenders.  The lenders often provide the loan at 10 percent interest, the statutory limit on loans made by unlicensed lenders.  The CSOs then charge the customer a fee to arrange and to guarantee the loan.  Typically, the fee ranges from $20 to $30 for each $100 borrowed and customers must pay these fees every loan period, usually every two weeks to one month, until the loan is paid off in full.  These loan charges amount to an annual percentage rate that often exceeds 500 percent, and the recurring high fees can cause a mounting cycle of debt.

The activities and fees of CSOs are not regulated by the state through licensing or agency oversight, which prevents the ability of the state to collect consumer data or properly investigate and respond to complaints.  Federal legislation is already in place to restrict short-term payday and car title loans for active military personnel; however, as payday and auto title loan businesses are operating as credit services organizations, the Texas state agency that oversees consumer lending does not have the authority to ensure compliance with the federal law.

This business model was challenged in federal court, alleging usurious interest rates.  In 2004, the United State Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd. 378 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. Tex. 2004), that the fees charged by CSOs in connection with obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer do not constitute usury, because neither the Credit Services Organization Act (CSOA) nor other provisions in the Texas Finance Code expressly attribute the fees charged by CSOs to the loan interest rate for usury purposes.

S.B. 253 seeks to reverse the effect of the Fifth Circuit ruling in Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd. and to clarify that lenders providing extensions of consumer credit cannot evade Texas usury laws by simply using loan brokers or brokers registered under CSOA.  It amends Chapter 302 (Interest Rates), Finance Code, to expressly prohibit third-party fees for arranging or guaranteeing consumer credit and deems those fees as interest for usury purposes.  It also prohibits a CSO from obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer.  These measures respect the intent of usury limits in state law, promote financial stability for families, and ensure a fair playing field for consumer lenders in Texas.

As proposed, S.B. 253 amends current law relating to the regulation of activities with respect to certain extensions of consumer credit.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1.  Amends Subchapter A, Chapter 302, Finance Code, by adding Section 302.003, as follows:

Sec.  302.003.  PROHIBITION ON THIRD-PARTY FEES TO ARRANGE OR GUARANTEE CERTAIN EXTENSIONS OF CONSUMER CREDIT.  (a)  Prohibits a fee paid or to be paid to a third party to assist a consumer in the transacting, arranging, guaranteeing, or negotiating of an extension of credit from being contracted for, charged, or received by a creditor or third party in connection with the extension of credit if the extension of credit is secured by a non-purchase money security interest in personal property or is unsecured, and the proceeds of the extension of credit are used for personal, family, or household purposes.

(b) Provides that the amount of a fee contracted for, charged, or received in violation of Subsection (a) is considered interest for usury purposes under state law.

SECTION 2.  Amends Section 393.001(3), Finance Code, by redefining “credit services organization.”

SECTION 3. Amends Subchapter D, Chapter 393, Finance Code, by adding Section 393.308, as follows:

Sec.  393.308.  OBTAINING EXTENSIONS OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROHIBITED.  Prohibits a credit services organization from obtaining an extension of consumer credit for a consumer or assisting a consumer in obtaining an extension of consumer credit.

SECTION 4.  Effective date: September 1, 2011.