Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Payday lending is a debt trap. But regulatory ‘solutions’ may be even worse.
Payday lending is a debt trap. But regulatory ‘solutions’ may be even worse.
Jan 11, 2025 5:43 PM

What’s the biggest problem with payday loans?

The obvious answer would seem to be “high interest rates.” But interest rates are often tied to credit risk, and so charging high interest rates is not always wrong. Another answer may be that the loans appear to be targeted toward minorities. But research shows that the industry appeals to those with financial problems regardless of race or ethnicity.

No, the problem with payday loans —what makes them a debt trap — is “rollovers.”

A study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the U.S. government’s consumer protection agency, found that four out of five payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 14 days. 40 percent of borrowers take out only one loan, about 15 percent take out two loans in sequence, and 45 percent take out three or more. But 14 percent of borrowers take out more than 11 loans in a row.

The CFPB is considering proposing rules that would end payday debt traps by requiring lenders to take steps to make sure consumers can repay their loans.

All lenders making covered short-term loans would be required to adhere to one of two sets of requirements. The first set would “prevention requirements” which the CFPB says:

[W]ould eliminate debt traps by requiring lenders to determine at the outset that the consumer can repay the loan when due – including interest, principal, and fees for add-on products – without defaulting or re-borrowing. For each loan, lenders would have to verify the consumer’s e, major financial obligations, and borrowing history to determine whether there is enough money left to repay the loan after covering other major financial obligations and living expenses.

Under this set, the requirements include:

• Lenders would generally have to adhere to a 60-day cooling off period between loans.

• The consumer could not have any other outstanding covered loans with any lender.

• To make a second or third loan within the two-month window, lenders would have to document that the borrower’s financial circumstances have improved enough to repay a new loan without re-borrowing. They would have to verify, for example, that the consumer’s e had increased following the prior loan.

• After three loans in a row, all lenders would be prohibited from making a new short-term loan to the borrower for 60 days.

The second set would be “protection requirements,” aimed at protecting against debt traps by “limiting the number of loans that a borrower can take out in a row and requiring lenders to provide affordable repayment options.”

These protections would include the following restrictions:

• The loan could not exceed $500, last longer than 45 days, carry more than one finance charge, or require the consumer’s vehicle as collateral.

• The consumer could not have any other outstanding covered loans with any lender.

• Rollovers would be capped at two – three loans total – followed by a mandatory 60-day cooling-off period.

• The second and third consecutive loans would be permitted only if the lender offers an affordable way out of debt. The Bureau is considering two options for this. The first would require that the principal decrease over the three-loan sequence so that it is repaid in full when the third loan is due. The second would require the lender to provide a no-cost “off-ramp” if the borrower is unable to repay after the third loan, to allow the consumer to pay the loan off over time without further fees.

• The consumer could not be more than 90 days in debt on covered short-term loans in a 12-month period.

I’ve previously written about my own experience with payday lending and getting caught in a debt trap. In hindsight, would I have still used a payday loan? Absolutely. I did it because I was desperate. And the payday pany was more than willing to take advantage of my desperation. But the alternative was even more dire.

What would I have done if the payday lending option didn’t exist? I don’t know. But if these CFPB regulations are put in place, consumers who find themselves in similar financial straits may soon find out.

“This is rulemaking that could remove an entire product,” says David Newville, director of government affairs at the Corporation for Enterprise Development. “I think most reasonable people who are outside of the core industry recognize that the payday loan, the traditional payday loan, is not a good product. But at the same time, they have reservations: If this goes away, what will happen if there is nothing to fill the void? Will borrowers turn to loan sharks?

This is also my primary concern about these proposed regulations. I hate “predatory”lending and would love to see the underlying business model of most such lending services disappear. But until we have a better model to offer people with short-term financial problems, payday lending may be the best solution for people who have no other options.

Destroying the system with regulations won’t solve the financial problems of those in need. So what will be the effect? Will it prevent rational but desperate people from making systematic mistakes that lower their own financial well-being? Or will it merely push them to seek even worse alternatives. Before we try to “fix” the problem we need to know more about what the solution will cost the poor.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Labor (dis)union
The New York Times reports this morning that “leaders of four of the country’s largest labor unions announced on Sunday that they would boycott this week’s A.F.L.-C.I.O. convention, and officials from two of those unions, the service employees and the Teamsters, said the action was a prelude to their full withdrawal from the federation on Monday.” The withdrawal is the culmination of a period of dissatisfaction with the direction of big labor in the US. The leaders of the dissident...
Textual interpretation
A week ago Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the principles of constitutional interpretation, especially as represented by Justice Antonin Scalia. Fish takes issue especially with the notion that the text can have meaning “as it exists apart from anyone’s intention.” Fish essentially denies that texts are things that can have meanings in themselves, and it amounts to a philosophical denial of realism. Part of Fish’s problem is...
CAFTA/Culture of Life: enemies?
John Paul II gave us all a tremendous gift by endorsing the terms Culture of Life and Culture of Death. But as with all great gifts, we must guard these terms carefully so as not to wear them out with misuse, robbing them of their relevance. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening in the current debate over CAFTA. A group called Catholics for Faithful Citizenship (PDF) claims the following: “Clearly, supporting CAFTA is inconsistent with upholding a culture of...
We must kill religion to save it
There are so many things wrong with this news item from Canada, I hardly know where to begin. But I’ll make perhaps the most obvious point of contradiction. This guy is “worried that the separation between church and state is under threat,” so he wants to initiate state control over religion, especially “given the inertia of the Catholic Church.” I’m not at all familiar with Canadian law. Is there something in Canada similar to the American Establishment Clause? ...
Animal cruelty?
I’m not quite sure what to make of this local story: “Four people are charged for their alleged involvement in killing two bald eagles.” The details of the alleged crimes are as follows: “Prosecutors say two teenagers shot the eagles in the Muskegon State Game Area with a .22 caliber rifle in April 2004 and then chopped them up with a hatchet.” Since the bald eagle, one of the nation’s revered symbols, is an endangered animal, it is protected by...
Great debate
Foreign Policy hosts this exchange on environmental issues and economics. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, gets the first word and Bjørn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, gets the last word. ...
CAFTA vs. ‘Distributive Justice’
The Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment, a Washington-based amalgam of left-liberal religious activists, has asked the U.S. Congress to reject ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Here’s a representative statement: “Religious leaders boldly stood with impoverished people and called today for sustainable development in Central America and respect for the integrity of Creation.” Some of our best friends are impoverished? In this group’s statements, there’s scarcely an intelligible economic thought to be found or, for that...
Labor unions and free association
The Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have broken away from the plaining that the federation has focused too much on political activism in the face of declining union membership and influence. Dr. Charles Baird was a featured guest on yesterday’s edition of Kresta in the Afternoon on Ave Maria Radio, discussing Catholic perspectives on unionism and whether the modern American labor union movement patible with church teachings. Dr. Baird is Chair of the Department of...
The school of fish
The recent blogpost by my colleague Jordan Ballor discusses an op-ed written by law professor Stanley Fish. I am more familiar with Stanley Fish from his days as a literary theorist, and perhaps a quick review of a younger Fish will contribute to the conversation. Fish is known for, among other things, an idea of literary interpretation he called munities’ that suggests meaning is not found in the author, nor in the reader, but in munity in which the text...
The hermeneutical spiral
Mr. Phelps takes issue with my characterization of Stanley Fish’s position as amounting “to a philosophical denial of realism.” Let me first digress a bit and place ment within the larger context of my post. My identification of a position that “words and texts have no meaning in themselves” is really just an aside within the larger and more important question about what measure of authority authorial intent has in the interpretation of documents, specifically public documents like the Constitution....
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved