Home > 2015 > Managing Debt

More Money, More Problems: Will New Online Lenders Survive the Scrutiny?

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment

Suppose you are in the lending business. Which of the following two applications would you favor?

Applicant 1 needs the cash to cover a one-time, unexpected expense. His credit history is good, and he earns more than enough money to repay the debt in full and on time. So whatever you have in mind to charge in the form of interest rate and fees, and the manner in which the loan is to be structured will have to be competitive with what the applicant can easily obtain in the open marketplace.

Applicant 2 is barely able to make ends meet each month. As such, there’s a risk that the loan may not be repaid on time, or in full. His employment situation, however, is stable, and his credit report, while not pristine, is not hateful. Add to the mix a fair amount of desperation, and it appears as if you have the latitude to charge a high rate of interest, a healthy amount of fees and, perhaps, to require a direct-debit repayment plan that coincides with the timing of the prospective borrower’s future payroll deposits, just to be sure there’s enough cash in his checking account.

That second scenario likely encapsulates the credit underwriting, pricing and structuring considerations that underlie many short-term lenders’ marketing strategies for payday, account-advance and bill-pay loans: Collateral that can be tightly controlled (payroll deposits in this instance), and a borrower who is charged as high a price as he or she can tolerate without defaulting on the loan.

In other words, let’s subvert the traditional risk versus reward trade-off by earning outsize profits while taking only moderate amounts of risk.

Of course, the added benefit of this approach is the dependency it engenders. Consumers who are compelled to take out payday, bill-pay and account-advance loans, and small businesses that sign up for merchant-advance loans — which does for small businesses what payday loans do for (or to) consumers, but this time with their accounts receivable — end up diminishing their already inadequate cash flow (hence the need for the loan in the first place). That sets the stage for them to re-borrow the same funds time and again.

It’s no wonder this segment of the alternative-finance marketplace continues to attract so much attention — and capital — from private-equity and venture-capital firms.

More Lenders, More Scrutiny

The risk all these startups run, however, will stem from those who push the envelope, which will in turn inspire policymakers to take actions that will end up hindering the industry segment’s collective ability to continue raising reasonably-priced debt and generously-valued equity investments.

Consider the impact of a federally mandated usury limit that would preempt more lender-friendly statutes that vary from state to state. What if regulators required prospective borrowers to prove at the outset their ability to repay the debt over time, rather than merely permitting them to pledge self-liquidating collateral (automatic payroll deposits and forthcoming customer payments, in this instance) to guarantee their loan’s repayment?

Indeed, what if these firms’ investors and institutional lenders were held equally accountable for any potential wrongful actions (i.e., predatory practices) of the firms they are bankrolling, or if the next economic downturn disproves the secret algorithms that are responsible for all these credit decisions?

The point is, if legislation changes the game — and I’m betting it will — you can expect that a good chunk of the capital that has been gushing into online lending ventures will slow to a trickle. No worries for the investors who will likely cash out ahead of time. They’ll just move on to the next deal. Not so, however, for the hapless shareholders (to whom the investors sold their stakes), the rank and file of the companies that will be forced to retrench or worse, and the consumers and small businesses that have come to rely upon this method of financing.

Perhaps someday this “take as much as you can for as long as you can get it” mentality will give way to a more equitable way of doing business.

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

More on Managing Debt:

Image: iStock

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.

  • Margurete Mensa

    I always love it when an educator, policy wonk, consultant spouts off about what ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ be happening in the real and pragmatic world of marketplace dynamics. It makes me wonder if it’s jealousy that others have successfully managed the risk/reward formula to optimize their return on capital, or that by definition they must adopt a critic’s posture to then enlarge the perceived importance of their own academic opinion. Frankly, it’s hard to tell the point of this piece: is it that capital is liquid, and moves to the point of highest return? Any first year business student knows that. Is it that regulation frames the very essence of financial products and services? Anyone not under a rock for the last 10 years knows that as well. In the end it might appear Mr. Entrepreneur and Business School Board Member is just another anti-payday consumer advocate masquerading as an ‘experienced financial services industry executive’ with an ax to grind, attempting to do the grinding in a (pseudo) context of the capital market cycles and, as usual, offering little constructive input on creative alternatives which preserve consumer choice and fairly reward the capital put at risk. Back to school, Mr. Weiss.

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