THE BLOG

03
Mar

Operation Choke Point Explained Simply

Operation Choke Point was implemented more than 24 months ago and yet it is still not understood. The implications of enabling an administration in Washington D.C. to unilaterally destroy businesses deemed legal by state legislatures and their constituencies is reprehensible. Here’s a very short video produced by “The Daily Signal” explaining “what all the fuss is about.”

You’re industry may not yet be targeted by Washington bureaucrats, but don’t think you can escape. If a New York Mayor [Bloomberg] decides 32 ounce colas are not in your best interest and bans them – lacking citizen support for his foolishness – it’s not a huge leap for an FDIC or DOJ employee to decide your pizza servings have too much fat and therefore, you do not deserve a bank account. No bank account? How do you pay your taxes? Payroll? Dough suppliers? Cheese purveyor?

At first blush, these possibilities seem rediculous! Ask a gun shop owner  or small lender who suddenly receives a TL [Termination Letter] from her bank that she has 30 days to “find a new bank.” This is HAPPENING TODAY! The people causing “bank discontinuance” are not elected representives. They are simply employees of government bureaucracies!

02
Mar

State Laws for Payday Loans 2015

Want to know what the 2015 payday loan laws are in your state?

You can waste ours “Googling” search terms sauch as “My State payday loan laws” or “cash advance fees in My State.” Or simply visit National Conference of State Legislators for a substantial summary of where payday loan laws, compliance and legislation stand today.

As a new or existing payday loan or installment lender, you can pay your lawyer some serious cash to track down the basic startup info you need or educate yourself FIRST by using the resource below.

As a consumer, you can save yourself tens of hours by visiting the same resource. Are you being overcharged by your payday loan lender? Can they prosecute you? Can they take your car? Can the lender garnish your wages? Save yourself some time and begin your research reagrding legal loan fees and rates here:

Here’s a link to their website: State-by-State Payday Loan Lending Laws 2015

20
Feb

More Stupid Things Lenders Do

Stupid things payday lenders doMore Stupid Things Lenders do.

John Q. called me this morning. He owns a payday loan and car title lending store. He wants to “tighten up” his operation and open 3 more locations. I advised him to get a loan at “your biggest, baddest competitor in your market in order to copy and emulate their contracts, disclosures, licensing, and sales pitches.” In the past, this advice USUALLY helps. BOY DID I SCREW UP! Turns out John’s “biggest, baddest competitor” was CashCall operating in California. 

PRESS RELEASE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT

Lender CashCall to Pay Restitution, $1 Million in Penalties and Costs to Settle Case with DBO

SACRAMENTO – The Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a settlement with CashCall, Inc. that requires the lender to provide restitution to thousands of California borrowers, reform its business practices, and pay the DBO $1 million in penalties and cost reimbursement.

The DBO alleged CashCall used deceptive sales pitches and marketing practices to dupe consumers into taking out personal loans of $2,500 or more even though the customers didn’t need or want to borrow that much money. Here’s how the alleged scheme worked:

  1. In ads, CashCall said it provided personal loans of “up to” $2,600, $5,000 or $10,000. But when consumers called or visited CashCall’s website, they were told the firm did not make loans of less than $2,600.
  2. If consumers informed CashCall they wanted a loan of less than $2,600, CashCall told them they could just give back the amount they did not want in the form of a prepayment. That way, CashCall told consumers, they could net substantial savings on interest payments.
  3. However, CashCall failed to tell consumers that since the loan was for $2,600, the firm could charge unlimited interest rates. On loans of less than $2,500, in contrast, state law generally caps interest rates at about 30 percent. On the loans at issue, CashCall typically charged annual interest of 135 percent or more, and sometimes up to 179 percent.
  4. To make matters worse in these cases, the DBO alleged CashCall often failed to withdraw scheduled monthly payments from customers’ bank accounts. That had the effect of lengthening the loan term and reducing any interest savings.

“CashCall engaged in a large-scale predatory lending scheme,” said DBO Commissioner Jan Lynn Owen.

“This settlement holds the company accountable for its unlawful conduct and compensates the victims of these unscrupulous practices.”

The settlement resolves allegations filed by DBO last year that CashCall unlawfully deceived consumers, filed false reports with the Commissioner and made false representations to the Commissioner.

CashCall will pay wronged borrowers $125 each in restitution. The final number of eligible borrowers and the ultimate restitution total will be determined by a third-party auditor who will examine CashCall’s files.

CashCall’s preliminary review of its files indicates thousands of customers will receive restitution. CashCall must make the restitution payments within 90 days.

State law caps interest rates on consumer and commercial loans made by non-bank lenders. But the limits only apply to loans smaller than $2,500. The law imposes no interest rate restrictions on loans of $2,500 or
more.

To prevent similar violations in the future, the settlement requires CashCall to reform the way it conducts business.

In all ads that market non-mortgage and non-auto loans to Californians, CashCall now will disclose in a “clear and conspicuous manner” that the minimum loan amount is $2,600. Additionally, when customers say they want to borrow less than $2,600, CashCall now will have to tell them the firm does not make loans for less than that amount, that state law caps interest rates on loans of less than $2,500 at about 30 percent, and that the capped rate is lower than the rate CashCall charges. The firm will implement additional consumer protection reforms required by the settlement agreement.

Link to original press release: DBO

Guys, this is just plain stupid if true. Maybe CashCall decided it’s cheaper to pay the mickey-mouse fine rather than litigate. Who knows! Just don’t do stupid stuff!

11
Feb

Two New Payday Loan Studies Reveal Merits

“Two new Payday Loan Studies Cast Doubt on Need for New CFPB Rules for the Payday Loan Industry.”

Two new payday loan studies were issued recently whose results “fly in the face” of the standard “muck” thrown about by the CFPB, the CRL and the DOJ .

1) A Columbia Law School Professor, Ronald Mann, released a study entitled, “Do Defaults on Payday Loans Matter?” Professor Mann compared the credit score change over time of borrowers who default on payday loans to the credit score change over the same period of those who do not default.

His study revealed:

  • Professor Mann’s study revealed credit score changes for borrowers who default on payday loans differ immaterially from credit score changes for borrowers who do not default.
  • The fall in credit score in the year of the borrower’s default overstates the net effect of the default because the credit scores of those who default experience disproportionately large increases for at least two years after the year of the default.
  • The payday loan default cannot be regarded as the cause of the borrower’s financial distress since borrowers who default on payday loans have experienced large drops in their credit scores for at least two years before their default.

Professor Mann’s findings “suggest that default on a payday loan plays at most a small part in the overall timeline of the borrower’s financial distress.” He further states that the small size of the effect of default “is difficult to reconcile with the idea that any substantial improvement to borrower welfare would come from the imposition of an “ability-to-repay” requirement in payday loan underwriting.”

2)Kennesaw State University Professor of statistics and data science, Jebnnifer Lewsi Priestly, released a second study entitled, “Payday Loan Rollovers and Consumer Welfare.” Professor Priestley evaluated the effects of sustained use of payday loans.  She concluded that borrowers having a higher number of rollovers experienced more positive changes in their credit scores than borrowers with fewer rollovers.  She observes that such results “provide evidence for the proposition that borrowers who face fewer restrictions on sustained use have better financial outcomes, defined as increases in credit scores.” [My dear readers, this is HUGE!]

According to Professor Priestley, “not only did sustained usage not contribute to a negative outcome, it contributed to a positive outcome for borrowers.” She also notes that her findings are consistent with findings of other studies that because consumers’ inability to access payday credit, whether generally or at the time of refinancing, does not end their need for credit, denying access to original or refinance payday credit may have welfare-reducing consequences.

Professor Priestley also found that a majority of payday borrowers experienced an increase in credit scores over the time period studied.  However, of the borrowers who experienced a decline in their credit scores, such borrowers were most likely to live in states with greater restrictions on payday rollovers.   She concludes her study with the comment that “despite several years of finger-pointing by interest groups, it is fairly clear that, whatever the “culprit” is in producing adverse outcomes for payday borrowers, it is almost certainly something other than rollovers—and apparently some as yet unstudied alternative factor.”

Now the question for you, Reader: Will these two academic reports be considered by the fine regulators at the CFPB? Will these reports see the light of day? Or will our opponents: the banks, the credit unions, CRL, pawn, BHPH, RTO… overshadow our efforts with lobbying and political contributions that exceed ours? Will our 14M+ clients jump in the frey and tell the CFPB to “Let our people be free to choose?”

U.S.residents are hoping the CFPB gets this right. A loss of access to small dollar credit products would have a devastating effect on our economy. Families unable to borrow a few hundred dollars to buy medicine, fix the car in order to keep their job, or buy some groceries to last until the end of the week will not be better off than they are today.

We have little expectation that the CFPB will consider these studies.  It’s a shame the CFPB has not had the wherewithal to launch their own research studies.    A data driven regulator as our expectation. It appears this may not be the case. Too bad!

Jer@PaydayLoanIndustryBlog.com

30
Jan

Car Title Loan Lenders Settle with Federal Trade Commission

Whatever your car title loan, payday loan, installment loan business… practices are, DISCLOSE THEM fully and simply. Do not deceive your customers or your employees.

Car Title Loan Stores  Settle Charges They Deceptively Advertised the Cost of Their Loans.  Businesses Failed to Disclose Qualifications for “Zero Percent” Loan Offers.

The Federal Trade Commission has taken action for the first time against two car title lenders, reaching settlements that will require them to stop their use of deceptive advertising to market title loans.

In administrative complaints issued against two title lenders, First American Title Lending of Georgia, LLC, and Finance Select, Inc., the FTC charged that “the companies advertised, both online and in print, zero percent interest rates for a 30-day car title loan without disclosing important loan conditions or the increased finance charge imposed after the introductory period ended.”

“This type of loan is risky for consumers because if they fail to pay, they could lose their car – an asset many of them can’t live without,” said Jessica Rich, director, FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Without proper disclosures, consumers can’t know what they’re getting, so when we see deceptive marketing of these loans we’re going to take action to stop it.”

Car title loans are high cost installment loans with payments due over several months. The annual percentage rate of a car title loans easily exceed 300 percent. Fees add up fast and failure to pay on a timely basis results in a “repo;” forfeiting the vehicle.

The FTC charged that First American Title Lending, operating 30+ locations in Georgia, advertised a zero percent offer (in English and Spanish) and failed to disclose that the borrower had to meet specific conditions to receive that rate.

  • The borrower had to be a new customer
  • Repay the loan within 30 days
  • And pay with a money order or certified funds, not cash or a personal check.
  • If a borrower failed to meet those conditions, the offer did not apply, and he or she would be required to pay a finance charge from the start of the loan.
  • The company’s advertisements also failed to disclose the amount of the finance charge after the introductory period ended.

The FTC alleged Finance Select, doing business as Fast Cash Title Pawn, failed to disclose that:

  • Unless a loan was paid in full in 30 days
  • The zero percent offer did not apply
  • And that a borrower would have to pay a finance charge for the initial 30 days of the loan in addition to any finance charges incurred going forward.

Fast Cash, which has five locations across Georgia and two in Alabama, also failed to disclose how much the finance charge would cost a borrower after the 30-day introductory period was over.

As part of the proposed settlements with First American Title Lending and Fast Cash Title Pawn, the respondents are prohibited from:

  • Failing to disclose all the qualifying terms associated with obtaining a loan at its advertised rate;
  • Failing to disclose what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends;
  • And misrepresenting any material terms of any loan agreements.

In addition, First American Title Lending is also prohibited from stating the amount of any down payment, number of payments or periods of repayment, or the amount of any payment or finance charge without clearly and conspicuously stating all the terms required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.