Home > Managing Debt > Should a 300% Interest Rate Be Legal?

Comments 0 Comments

Is there anyone out there who still believes that payday lending is a respectable business? That it’s OK to charge stratospheric interest rates—often four, five or more times the amount that’s originally borrowed—to cash-strapped consumers who typically re-borrow the identical loan over and over again during the course of a year? That it’s reputable to ding these same customers—who are twice as likely to overdraw their accounts—with $30 and $40 fees every time they bounce a check?

Apparently, the payday-lending industry does. So do their most vocal congressional supporters.

According to a recent Washington Post article, both have worked up a lather about government regulators who are allegedly pressuring banks to phase out their relationships with payday lenders. Apparently, it’s beside the point that those who are complaining the loudest also happen to be the same folks who routinely reject the imposition of any form of enhanced accountability.

It’s important, however, to understand the financial and operational accommodations that are make-or-break in this line of business.

As lucrative as payday loans might be for the lenders, the deals still have to be bankrolled. The lenders also need help in extracting repayment amounts from their customers’ future paychecks—the most critical risk-management element of the payday-lending business model.

It is for these two reasons in particular that lenders who operate in this subset of the financial-services industry rely on the banking relationships they work hard to cultivate—affiliations that the banks are very happy to have in place, too.

For banks, payday loans are the gift that keeps on giving. To start, there’s all that spread: the difference between the triple-digit APRs that payday lenders charge the borrower and the single or double-digit rates the banks assess to fund these loans. Next, there’s the matter of the float: income the banks earn on the fluctuating balances both the payday lenders and their customers have on deposit from day to day. And then there are the overdraft fees…

Thanks to the regulators, though, financial institutions that once upon a time were proud to stand behind their payday-lending protégés are now looking to put as much distance as possible between them.

A regulatory problem arises, though, in the power play between federal and state authorities.

National banks—such as those that have been most active in this arena—are federally regulated. In contrast, nonbanks (which is what most payday lenders are) are governed by a hodgepodge of state-specific usury laws that calculate interest rates and fees six ways to Sunday.

A Simple Solution

The good news is that this mess is pretty easy to sort out.

Congress can institute a national usury limit that balances, on one hand, legitimate costs that are associated with originating and servicing these types of short-term loans, with, on the other, a charge in the form of an annual percentage rate. That way, consumers would be better able to assess their alternatives; at the same time, lenders would no longer have anything to gain from shifting costs between rates and fees in an effort to skirt one statutory limit or another.

Lawmakers can also designate a single regulator—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be the most logical choice—to oversee these types of loans. This would go a long way toward eliminating the regulatory turf battles and conflicting directives that ensue when more than one agency is involved.

At that point, payday and other short-term lenders would have a decision to make: They can either transition to a more fairly priced and structured financial product for those who need it, or they can pack up their kiosks and storefront operations, and call it a day.

As for the banks, should they elect to fund those lenders who agree to play by the rules—or, even, pursue this business on a direct basis—they would be able to do so without fear of regulatory retribution.

Either way, this should bring the griping to an end.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Managing Debt:

Image: almagami

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team