Obama praises payday lender rules, vows veto of limitations

[highland145]

The basic question you wanted answered was, would I put my own capital on the line and the answer is yes I absolutely would given the conditions that I listed. Again, the sheer number of them makes it appear that it's almost hard not to make money in that niche.

Across the country, that may well be true....for a short time more.

You, MT and VG having the ability to run an office and collect...nope. Not saying you couldn't, saying you don't know the business.

It just isn't as simple as asking a guy to give you $125 on the $100 you gave him on Monday.

Still waiting on MT And VG to reply.

 

[highland145]

And yall keep asking "who would the get the money from otherwise".

That's the point I'm trying to make. Who would they get it from?



Let me tell you. The guy on the corner, unregulated, $25 on $100/week. Fact.

MT and VC would pay these guys.

 

[Darwin333]

I thought that they were banned from being near bases. Regardless, maybe the fucking military should pay them more that illegal emigrant wages.


I'm not a payday supporter. Depending on the state, the borrower can't get out. But I'm real happy to bust on people that talk shit but wouldn't put their own $$ for the payday borrowers. Hypocrites.

I appreciate your point and I get it, like I said I would absolutely put my capital behind it if I didn't think that the business model was morally wrong. Lets make no mistake, their business model is NOT lending money to people until their next payday. Their business model in every state that hasn't reigned them in is to keep people paying the fees and rolling over the debt, at insanely high rates, for as long as they possibly can. IMO, especially considering their target consumer, that is a predatory practice. Since I can't shave with my eyes closed I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror everyday and intentionally taking a person in a shitty financial situation and as my business model putting them into a much shittier financial situation is not something I could ever be proud of.

 

[highland145]

I appreciate your point and I get it, like I said I would absolutely put my capital behind it if I didn't think that the business model was morally wrong. Lets make no mistake, their business model is NOT lending money to people until their next payday. Their business model in every state that hasn't reigned them in is to keep people paying the fees and rolling over the debt, at insanely high rates, for as long as they possibly can. IMO, especially considering their target consumer, that is a predatory practice. Since I can't shave with my eyes closed I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror everyday and intentionally taking a person in a shitty financial situation and as my business model putting them into a much shittier financial situation is not something I could ever be proud of.

See above posts.

And I agree. Before opening my own consumer finance office, I had the opportunity to open a payday advance. Told the investor that wasn't something I could live with. 390%APR.

35% for dead beat credit, I could.

 

[Darwin333]

That's the point I'm trying to make. Who would they get it from?



Let me tell you. The guy on the corner, unregulated, $25 on $100/week. Fact.

MT and VC would pay these guys.

And my point is that the industries core customers that generate the majority of their profits would be better off financially not getting the money in the first place.

For the record, local governments do virtually the same exact thing with tickets/fines and I am against that as well. I'd actually be more interested in seeing the Feds reign them in first than payday loans. With the .gov it's literally a debtors prison in which they can and will throw you in jail or take your license which most times means that a person either can't work to even think about paying off their fine or they must break the law and risk more jail/fines/fees. I am consistently against anything even resembling debtors prisons.

 

[MovingTarget]

lolol

Seriously, who would they get $$ from otherwise.

Edit: Would you lend them?

Simple questions and no answers.

No answers? Seriously? You may want to reread my post. Let me break it down a bit: You have an implied premise that them getting any money is a foregone conclusion.

Q: Where would they get the $$ from otherwise?

A: They wouldn't be getting the $$, period.

I realize that that may mean defaulting on unsecured debt such as a credit card. It may also mean having certain utilities turned off, or many other terrible scenarios.

Having these "payday" lenders around only prolongs and exacerbates the types of scenarios above. The only difference is that the financial hole that is dug is much, much deeper. If a person truly can pay back a loan, then proper underwriting will show that, and that person can get money with less usurious interest rate.

I do suppose I owe you an answer to your other question. No, I would not open one of those places if I had the means/opportunity to do so. I've seen one too many friends/relatives taken advantage of by those places. It would be morally wrong for me to run a business so predatory, no matter how much money I could make.

 

[highland145]

And my point is that the industries core customers that generate the majority of their profits would be better off financially not getting the money in the first place.

QFT They should borrow from someone else.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So Darwin, MovingTarget and VG, would you put up your own $$ for the payday customers?

Good quote. Maybe I'll get an answer.

What do you want an answer about? Am I in the banking business? I don't lend my money to *anyone*.

 

[Darwin333]

See above posts.

And I agree. Before opening my own consumer finance office, I had the opportunity to open a payday advance. Told the investor that wasn't something I could live with. 390%APR.

35% for dead beat credit, I could.

It would appear that our opinions on the subject are much closer than we both thought.

35% APR isn't unreasonable in the least for very risky loans imo. Heck you can keep going a bit and it would still be within the realm of reason.

 

[highland145]

No answers? Seriously? You may want to reread my post. Let me break it down a bit: You have an implied premise that them getting any money is a foregone conclusion.

Q: Where would they get the $$ from otherwise?

A: They wouldn't be getting the $$, period.

I realize that that may mean defaulting on unsecured debt such as a credit card. It may also mean having certain utilities turned off, or many other terrible scenarios.

Having these "payday" lenders around only prolongs and exacerbates the types of scenarios above. The only difference is that the financial hole that is dug is much, much deeper. If a person truly can pay back a loan, then proper underwriting will show that, and that person can get money with less usurious interest rate.

I must have misread your posts completely and I apologize.

The above is what I was used to and expected growing up.

 

[highland145]

It would appear that our opinions on the subject are much closer than we both thought.

35% APR isn't unreasonable in the least for very risky loans imo. Heck you can keep going a bit and it would still be within the realm of reason.

I think most are close when they get to the basic points.

Had a young lady apply for a loan. Said she had no credit but 2 years on her job. Might be doable for $400.....After spending $7 for her credit report, turns out she was just charged off for $700, 12/2014, at another loan company.