THE BLOG

15
Nov

Payday Loan Lenders Get Hassled Over Disclosure-Again!

All industries have a few knuckle heads in their midst. No surprise, this includes the payday loan industry. There are some very basic requirements we in the industry must adhere to. Disclosure of loan terms, the APR (Annual Percentage Rate), the payment schedule, the amount financed, the total of payments, and any late fees are the very least.

Adherence to Fair Debt Collection Practices are another area that we must be aware of and adhere to.

So, along comes a few payday loan internet fools who fail to comply with these rules causing harm to our Industry when we don’t need it! These people, if guilty, simply blatantly ignored the rules and safeguards put in place for consumers at a time when we don’t need any additional heat!

Here’s the Press Release from the Nevada Office of the Attorney General:

ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES CHARGES AGAINST INTERNET PAYDAY LENDER CASH TODAY, LTD.

Company is Also Known as Leads Global Inc. and Rovinge International, Inc.

Carson City, NV— Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today the State of Nevada and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have charged 10 related Internet payday lenders and their principals, based mainly in the United Kingdom, with violating federal and state law by not disclosing key loan terms to U.S. consumers and using abusive and deceptive collection tactics.
Leads Global, Inc. and Rovinge International, Inc. are Nevada corporations which maintain mail drops in Reno, Nevada to conceal the fact the real operation was located in the United Kingdom.
“Internet payday lenders must know that Nevada will not allow deceptive lending practices to exist in this State,” said Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. “These lenders will be charged and prosecuted.”

According to the complaint filed by the State of Nevada and the FTC, through websites such as www.cash2today4u.com, the defendants offered consumers loans of $500 or less within 24 hours without requiring a credit check, proof of income, or documentation. Consumers who applied for a loan on their website were required to submit an online application that asked for their bank account and Social Security numbers.

The complaint said Cash Today, Ltd. representatives called consumers who applied for loans through the website told them that they qualified for a loan which had to be
repaid by their next payday. Typically, the loan was in the amount of $200. Consumers were charged a loan fee ranging from $35 to $80. During the phone call, the Cash Today representative said the loan was not fully repaid by the required date, it would be extended automatically for an extra fee that would be debited from the consumer’s bank account “until the loan is repaid.” Consumers were required to provide the payday lender access to their bank accounts for payment of the fees.

The payday lenders did not disclose key loan terms in writing, such as annual percentage rate, the payment schedule, the amount financed, the total of payments,
and any late payment fees. The complaint states consumers who asked for written disclosures were told that the transaction was verbal only. Some consumers were told written disclosures would be sent to them after the phone call, but were never received.

After repaying the original loan amount, and sometimes hundreds of dollars in excess of the loan, many consumers terminated the lenders’ access to their bank accounts, often by closing the accounts. Once access to accounts was denied, consumers received abusive and deceptive collection calls by the payday lender aimed at regaining access to consumers’ bank accounts.

According to the complaint, Cash Today, Ltd. falsely claimed that consumers were legally obligated to repay the loans, even though the loans did not comply with payday lending laws in many consumers’ states and the defendants were not licensed to make consumer loans in those states. The defendants falsely threatened consumers with arrest, lawsuits, property seizure, or wage garnishment, and repeatedly called consumers, coworkers, and employers at their workplace, using abusive language and disclosing consumers’ purported debts.

The corporate defendants are: Cash Today, Ltd.; The Heathmill Village, Ltd.; Leads Global, Inc.; Waterfront Investments, Inc.; ACH Cash, Inc.; HBS Services, Inc.; Lotus Leads, Inc.; First4Leads, Inc.; Rovinge International, Inc.; and The Harris Holdings, Ltd.; each also doing business as Cash Today; Route 66 Funding; Global Financial Services International, Ltd.; Interim Cash, Ltd.; and BIG-INT, Ltd. The individual defendants are Aaron Gershfield, Ivor Gershfield, and Jim Harris.

The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act by using unfair and deceptive collection tactics, including falsely threatening consumers with arrest or imprisonment, falsely claiming consumers are legally obligated to pay the debts, making false threats to take legal action that they cannot take, repeatedly calling consumers at work, using abusive and profane language, and disclosing consumers’ purported debts to coworkers, employers, and other third parties.

Cash Today, Ltd. has been charged with violating the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z by failing to make required written disclosures, clearly and conspicuously, before consummating a consumer credit transaction, including the amount financed, itemization of the amount financed, the finance charge, the annual percentage rate, the payment schedule, the total of payments, and any late payment fees. In addition, it is charged with violating Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Act by not disclosing loan terms, making false representations in collecting debts, and selling loans to consumers without licenses.

Again, these guys are fools (if guilty). The majority of their transgressions are basic ignorance of the minimum disclosure and collection procedures demanded of business today!

If you want to make certain you’re doing things correctly, learn here:
Payday Loan Industry.com

13
Nov

Ohio Banks Offer Payday Loan Product Legally!

There is an informative article over at pdlindustry.blogspot.com and at Port Clinton News Herald regarding payday loan type products offered by banks in Ohio; Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Fifth Third out of Cincinnati.

It’s interesting to note that after the defeat of the Ohio payday loan initiative banks continue to offer a payday loan type of product legally.

A customer can get an advance for up to 50 percent of their regular monthly direct deposits up to $500 for a fee of 10 percent – a maximum of $50. The APR on this type of loan could easily exceed 400% depending on the number of the days the loan is outstanding!

Julia Tunis Bernard, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said the bank has offered its product since 1994.

“Direct Deposit Advance service is available to customers with established Wells Fargo checking relationships and recurring direct deposits,” she said. “It is designed to help customers get through an emergency situation – medical emergencies, a car repair, emergency travel expenses, etc. – by providing short-term credit quickly. It’s not intended to solve longer-term financial needs.”

I wonder if she copied that verbiage off a payday loan web site?

While Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Fifth Third all offer their advances for periods up to slightly more than a month, their policy is to automatically pay themselves back upon the first direct deposit of $100 or more.

So if you borrow $200 three days before payday because of an unforeseen emergency, the bank would take $220 upon direct deposit.

Actually, this 10% rate is the same as the payday loan legislated rate mandated in Florida!

I guess payday loan companies simply need to beg for help from Washington D.C., join the ranks of the banks, and join the pig trough for TARP $$$.

12
Nov

Oregon Payday Loan Consumers Worse Off Without Them

A new survey conducted by Dartmouth College reveals residents are WORSE off without access to payday loan products!

Data on 400 payday loan consumers collected before and after the imposition of an interest-rate cap in Oregon indicates that the payday loan rate cap resulted in a severe downgrade in the financial condition of the Oregon households. These survey results indicate that restricting access to expensive credit harms, rather than helps, consumers.

The study was conducted by Prof. Jonathan Zinman in an effort to evaluate the effects of interest-rate and loan-term restrictions imposed by the State of Oregon in 2007.

Prior to 2007, payday loan companies in Oregon typically charged payday loan borrowers $15 per $100. Effective July 1, 2007, the maximum finance charge that can be imposed on Oregon borrowers is $10 per $100, with a minimum loan term of 31 days. The effective APR earned by lenders was reduced substantially as a result of the new payday loan regulation.

As a result of this new legislation the majority of Oregon payday loan operators left the state. Of course, payday loan lending volume fell dramatically as a result.

The Dartmouth Study revealed payday loan consumers were forced to find alternative sources for temporary financial help that is more expensive than payday loans; overdrafts and late bill payments.

The Dartmouth Study focused on the effects of the Oregon cap rate by comparing changes in key financial components of Oregon household finances before and after the effective date of the cap, using equivalent households in Washington state as a “control.” The study covers changes from June 2007 to December 2007.

The Dartmouth Study revealed that, “relative to their Washington counterparts, the Oregon households were far more likely to experience a change for the worse in the key financial outcomes measured by the survey: job status and respondents’ assessments of their recent and future financial situation”.

The conclusions of the payday loan Dartmouth Study reveal that restricting access to payday loans harmed Oregon respondents over the term of the study.

“These results suggest that access to credit, even if expensive, can help some people make productive investments and help others manage their cash flows through emergencies,” Prof. Zinman said. “There’s more work to do to reconcile these results with findings from other studies that suggest access to expensive credit can exacerbate financial distress.”

The data collection for the study was funded by a grant from Consumer Credit Research Foundation, which did not participate in the analysis of the data or the drafting of the study.

The actual payday loan dartmouth study is available:
Study.

12
Nov

Payday Loan Job Losses in Ohio

Check ’n Go payday lending chain said Tuesday that it will close about half of its Ohio stores over the next several months.

CNG Financial said it will close 36 of its 71 stores in the state, eliminating up to 75 jobs. The company didn’t specify which sites would be shut down, but a spokesman said closures would be based on lending volume.

The Cincinnati-based company has seven Central Ohio payday lending shops.

Sixty four percent of Ohio voters cast their ballots in favor of Issue 5, which supported a law capping interest rates for payday lenders at 28 percent a year. The payday lending industry fought a $13,000,000 battle to repeal portions of the law, House Bill 545, saying the interest rate cap and other limitations would drive many of them out of the state. Payday lenders tried in vain for a rate that allowed them to charge a 391 percent APR.

Texas-based Cash America (NYSE:CSH) announced that it would shut down 43 of its 140 shops in Ohio.

Remaining Check N Go stores will offer loans permitted under the Ohio Small Loan statute, as well as check-cashing services. CNG operates more than 1,300 Check ’n Go locations in 31 states.

01
Nov

Arizona Payday Loans Vote Yes #200

Arizona payday loan consumers urge a VOTE YES ON 200!

Concerned about access to small consumer loans and fear that government will continue to encroach on their freedom of financial choice, Arizona voters urge everyone to vote yes on 200.

Even if you have never used a payday loan and have zero plans in the future to do so, Arizona consumers urge all voters to allow the individual to make the choice; not government!

A Yes Vote on 200 will allow the payday loan product to exist in Arizona. A No Vote on 200 will force Arizona payday loan consumers to use Internet payday loan web sites.

Payday loan Internet web sites typically charge $20 – $40 per $100 borrowed. Arizona payday loan stores charge $15 per $100 for a two week period.

Recently the Prescott Courier endorsed Proposition 200! Read more here:
Arizonans for Financial Reform