U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 03, 2010 08:08 PM UTC

Response to Camera's Editorial Against Payday Lending Reform

  • 6 Comments
  • by: TheBell

(Really, really shouldn’t have spammed us, folks – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Last week, Pols took note of an editorial in the Daily Camera that came out against legislation aimed at reforming payday lending in Colorado. The bill asks lawmakers to allow voters to decide if payday lenders should be allowed to operate far above the state’s 36 percent usury limit. The Camera was good enough to print a response by Rich Jones of the Bell Policy Center on behalf of Coloradans for Payday Lending Reform.

In an editorial last week, the Camera came out against a plan to change payday lending laws in Colorado. It said the legislation is “terrible.”

We strongly disagree, and we don’t believe the facts support the Camera’s conclusion. The paper relied on information that is either incomplete, inaccurate or — most important — not specific to Colorado. It appears some of the data comes from an industry-funded study that has been widely criticized.

Here are the facts about payday lending in Colorado. The average payday borrower makes less than $30,000 per year, 60 percent of all loans are refinance loans and more than a quarter of all loans go to borrowers who took out 16 or more loans in the previous 12 months.

How do we know this?  It is based on data gathered and reported by the Colorado attorney general.  

The attorney general publishes two reports on payday lending. One is an annual report published each November based on information provided by payday lenders. It shows the number of loans issued, the total value of the loans, the percent of loans renewed or rolled over and the number of consumers who took out multiple loans.  

The Camera cited the most recent annual report, but these reports do not paint a complete picture. They do not account for the fact that payday borrowers often use multiple payday lenders.  Thus, they overstate the number of borrowers and understate the number of loans per borrower.  Here’s how.

If a borrower takes out six loans from payday lender A and four loans from payday lender B, the report counts him as two borrowers with ten loans, or an average of five loans. In reality, there is one borrower with 10 loans.

As a result, the Camera incorrectly concludes that borrowers are not using payday loans more than once a month.

There is another report, a more detailed report from the attorney general that the Camera did not use. It is a demographic report based on information gathered during regular compliance examinations. It provides a more accurate picture of borrowers and the loan volume.  

According to the most recent report, published Friday with data from 2001 through 2008, the median gross monthly income for all payday borrowers is $2,189, with 61 percent of all borrowers making less than $2,500 per month.

Moreover, this report shows that two-thirds of all payday borrowers were laborers, office workers or people who receive regular income through payments such as Social Security. Most borrowers are single, a majority of them women, and fewer than 25 percent worked in occupations that normally require a college education.  (The profile cited by the Camera — household income of $55,000 and college educated — appears to come from an industry-funded Georgetown University study that has been widely criticized.)

While some borrowers use payday loans occasionally, the lifeblood of the industry is the repeat borrower. Indeed, the payday business model does not work without them.

In 2008, 60 percent of all payday loans were either refinance loans or same-day-as-payoff loans. However you describe them, it is clear that most borrowers cannot pay their loans by the next payday.

That means that these products fail most of the time. If these were Toyotas — or even toasters — they would be recalled.

The facts from the attorney general make it clear that these loans hurt people. About half of all loans go to borrowers who had 12 or more in the previous year.

When the legislature opened the door to payday lenders in 2000, allowing them to operate outside the state’s 36 percent usury limit, these products were billed as a source of emergency cash. It is clear that it has not worked out that way.

A payment plan provision instituted by the legislature — to fix abuses that quickly became apparent — has not been effective. The payment plan approach has failed for 84 percent of the loans where it was required to be offered.

The Bell Policy Center surveyed credit counselors and social service organizations about the impact of payday loans on their clients. They were in near-unanimous agreement that the loans harmed their clients — and they all agreed that they would never recommend payday loans.

Perhaps the Camera was not aware of the fuller picture of payday lending in Colorado.  We can only hope that by digging a little deeper, the facts will change their mind.

Comments

6 thoughts on “Response to Camera’s Editorial Against Payday Lending Reform

  1. typo in the headline.

    If the Camera data was even close, then one simple rule would fix most of the problems and should not matter to anyone, PDLs or the Camera ed board: no more than one renewal per loan, no more than 5 per calendar year.

  2. Top Payday Loans guides:

    ** compare payday loan franchise

    ** atlanta payday loans

    ** payday loans denver co

    ** compare online payday loans no credit

    ** Payday Loans

    The stimulus money, strangely enough, has made payday loans online eminently more affordable.

    Carrying various defaults, skipped payments, arrears, insolvency, bankruptcy are not a mere problem in the approval now.

    ** Emergency Payday Loan

    ** Online Payday Loans No Teletrack

    ** Payday Loans Phoenix AZ

    ** compare online payday loans bad credit

    Don’t leave the comfort of your home or office because you just need a PC with internet connectivity to get apply with cash until payday.

    ** payday loan online lenders

    ** payday loans houston

    ** Payday Loans For People With Bad Credit

    ** Same Day Payday Loans mmPaydayLoans

    1. Who cashes checks at these places and what type of checks?  Well, its anybody who doesn’t have a real banking relationship (for whatever reason), right?

      The question here pertains to this: these users are the types of people that likely use the payday function.  The other market of users are those who need just a bit of micro finance to bridge the gap of credit damaging NSF charges from their checking account or some other short-term need.  You’re still with me, right?

      Many will argue that the real target market for payday loans are a bunch of white trash welfare mothers and meth dealing illegal alien fathers.  

      Now don’t get me wrong, earning profits from this market segment or the gal that doesn’t want the NSF charge and resulting credit score hit is commendable.  These businesses serve a purpose.

      Results of your actions: If you shutter these businesses (payday lenders), then maybe – just maybe another tool of support for residents of Sanctuary City will force them depart for the warmer confines of Santa Fe or Phoenix.  

      You’ll also develop a local street-level black market for micro finance. That is bad for citizen’s.

      The upside though is you’ll drive out the illegal alien crowd.  

      Unfortuanately, you’ll also hurt the gal wanting to avoid a NSF charges and hurt her credit score.  

      Whichever way you go, good luck.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

33 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!