Obama praises payday lender rules, vows veto of limitations

[highland145]

He's the President, not emperor. He doesn't get to create or implement policy just because he feels like it. This is Congress's domain, not the Exec branch.

Fern

He must have missed the memo...executive order queen.

 

[fskimospy]

He's the President, not emperor. He doesn't get to create or implement policy just because he feels like it. This is Congress's domain, not the Exec branch.

Fern

But in cases like this he probably does. Gotta check those laws, bro.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He must have missed the memo...executive order queen.

Not even close

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

 

[highland145]

Not even close



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Cool.


So who do the payday borrowers get their $$ from if they're shut down?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Cool.


So who do the payday borrowers get their $$ from if they're shut down?

Who is planning on shutting them down?

 

[highland145]

Who is planning on shutting them down?

🙄


S.C. did a good job...like I mentioned.




So, who do they borrow from?

 

[Victorian Gray]

🙄


S.C. did a good job...like I mentioned.




So, who do they borrow from?

So, mr. rolly eyes, do you see the federal govt. proposing the same regulations with the same probable outcome as South Carolina?

 

[ttown]

Cool.


So who do the payday borrowers get their $$ from if they're shut down?

They get the couple hundred dollars from the pawn shop in trade for the $3,000 worth of stuff they stole from *you*. That's a much better deal than the couple hundred they would normally get from the couple hundred and fifty dollar check of their own.
That's not even counting that $3,000 worth of your stuff that i'll end up buying for $400, saving me $2,600 that I'll use to spend on other stuff that will stimulate the economy.
Win win win. It's the liberal way -- spreading your wealth to people more deserving, like me.

/sarcasm

 

[nickqt]

How dare some black guy pretend to be the President with an entire Executive Branch of the Federal Government to back him up?

Usurper!

I want my country back!!!

 

[Victorian Gray]

How dare some black guy pretend to be the President with an entire Executive Branch of the Federal Government to back him up?

Usurper!

I want my country back!!!

500% interest rate loans for everybody! Why should the poor have all the fun!

 

[Matt1970]

How dare some black guy pretend to be the President with an entire Executive Branch of the Federal Government to back him up?

Usurper!

I want my country back!!!

500% interest rate loans for everybody! Why should the poor have all the fun!

Like I already said, protect me from myself because I am incapable of telling when a deal is good or bad.

 

[dank69]

🙄


S.C. did a good job...like I mentioned.




So, who do they borrow from?

I think his point is that nobody at the federal level is talking about shutting them down.

 

[highland145]

I think his point is that nobody at the federal level is talking about shutting them down.

Probably but you know, bazinga...😛 There was a firing squad suggestion a few posts ago though.:\


I think that the cfpb would cap the rate at 36% or so. Effectively shutting them down. Still haven't gotten any responses......So who do they borrow from then? I won't touch most of them. Banks would just laugh. Maybe VG would give them a couple of hundred.

 

[MovingTarget]

Probably but you know, bazinga...😛 There was a firing squad suggestion a few posts ago though.:\


I think that the cfpb would cap the rate at 36% or so. Effectively shutting them down. Still haven't gotten any responses......So who do they borrow from then? I won't touch most of them. Banks would just laugh. Maybe VG would give them a couple of hundred.

I hope the CFPB does that and goes much further. Who do they borrow from if these places shut down? Is NOBODY the correct answer? I think that it is not only the correct answer, but an acceptable answer. Honestly, at the kind of usurious rates and business practices they have, even defaulting on a credit card is much better than going to those guys for money. Heck, a significant amount of these stores' business comes from deferring payments, or using one payday/title loan to pay off another. Its a debt trap, pure and simple. Shut 'em down.

But wait, this is Alabama. Of course no meaningful regulations/laws will touch these guys. Our legislature is bought and paid for by these guys.

 

[highland145]

I hope the CFPB does that and goes much further. Who do they borrow from if these places shut down? Is NOBODY the correct answer? I think that it is not only the correct answer, but an acceptable answer. Honestly, at the kind of usurious rates and business practices they have, even defaulting on a credit card is much better than going to those guys for money. Heck, a significant amount of these stores' business comes from deferring payments, or using one payday/title loan to pay off another. Its a debt trap, pure and simple. Shut 'em down.

But wait, this is Alabama. Of course no meaningful regulations/laws will touch these guys. Our legislature is bought and paid for by these guys.

lolol

Seriously, who would they get $$ from otherwise.

Edit: Would you lend them?

Simple questions and no answers.

 

[Darwin333]

The fact that you believed you formed a well thought out response to me is just so sad.

A gas station might jack up the rate because they can sell gasoline in the short term following a specific event like a hurricane quicker than a competitor can construct a new gas station and undercut the price.

If I could undercut them and make $15 a gallon I'd be in the business of buying tanker trucks that could be hooked up to portable pumps, a generator and a cash register/CC reader and I'm in business. That took me all of 30 seconds to come up with.

But you never did truly answer the question, should they be able to jack the rate up to $20 when the demand is through the roof such as the example I gave you? Supply and demand right?

If you can create a better lending service for people in the payday loan industry, you have had, what, 20 unobstructed years to build up a competing business and rake in a nice living for yourself. So what has stopped people from offering cheaper alternatives? Perhaps the industry isn't so profitable as you think it is. Perhaps the high rates are necessary because (1) they are very short term loans, (2) overhead costs must be covered, & (3) you have losses due to defaults lending money to one of the riskiest segments there is.

I have lots of friends who are entrepreneurs, if there is any industry making very high profits as you believe payday loan companies are, they would be all over creating a competing business. Cable companies are predatory because it's not cost-effective for a competitor to run all new, redundant, wiring throughout a region for their services. There is no such limitation preventing multiple payday loan services from competing for your business. There is no barrier to entry from high startup costs. All you need to create a competing business is a sum of cash and paperwork. Set your fees a little lower than the competition and the customers will come to you.



There are more payday lending facilities in the United States than there are McDonald's! Ironically you started your post bashing me but couldn't put in even a tiny bit of research yourself before going on a tangent that "if it's so profitable everyone would be doing it". If there are more of anything than there are McDonald's in the country you can bet your ass that it's lucrative.

Or perhaps all these people are lending out money to the group of highest risk borrowers in the hopes of making a measly 5% return. You are free to have your own opinion, but I'm gonna go with a smidgen of common sense and say they are raking in far more than that.

And at the end of the day, it's not the loan company who is at fault for the person needing a loan.

No one is arguing that it is the loan companys fault that they needed the first loan. We are arguing if reasonable restrictions/regulations should be placed on them just like every other business has to deal with. I can use every argument that you just did on the big banksters and we all saw how lax regulations and lack of enforcement worked out for us...

 

[Darwin333]

Use of the word "bankster" is a good predictor of dreadlocks on white kids AND professional underemployment.

Not fully understanding and agreeing to the facts behind why they are called banksters is a good predictor of willful ignorance or outright stupidity.

 

[highland145]

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

Not fully understanding and agreeing to the facts behind why they are called banksters is a good predictor of willful ignorance or outright stupidity.

Good quote. Maybe I'll get an answer.

 

[Darwin333]

That's the hook but they can't, a lot of times, get installment loans so that they might have the ability to get out. I'm at ~35% and I won't lend most of them.

S.C. has done a couple of good things in this area. A customer can only have 1 payday at a time in the entire state and there's a 24hr cooling off period between loans so they have to pay the loan off before re-borrowing. Internet loans negate this.

But keep in mind that, here, the lender has no recourse other than screwing their credit. Judgements mean nothing if the customer has no real property and there's no garnishment.

That's a decent start and you are right about the recourse which obviously must be considered when implementing rules and regs.

Personally I'd like to at least see them enforce some sort of rule that the borrower must pay a certain percentage of the principle each cycle. Lets call it 20% for the sake of argument, at least that way the borrower doesn't get stuck in a perpetual cycle forever.

 

[Darwin333]

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

Good quote. Maybe I'll get an answer.

If I had the spare time and lack of morals, yes I would absolutely open a payday store with my own money in the current market and regulatory climate.

Like I said, there are more of them than freaking McDonald's which tells me that it's a pretty damn lucrative business to be in.

Edit: My turn for a question, do you think it is right that these payday lenders prey on our military members and their families more than just about any other demographic? You go to any .mil base and drive around, you will lose count of the number of payday lenders very quickly. Perhaps all of our troops should just find better jobs or shouldn't have been irresponsible enough to sign up for the .mil in the first place?

 

[highland145]

That's a decent start and you are right about the recourse which obviously must be considered when implementing rules and regs.

Personally I'd like to at least see them enforce some sort of rule that the borrower must pay a certain percentage of the principle each cycle. Lets call it 20% for the sake of argument, at least that way the borrower doesn't get stuck in a perpetual cycle forever.

Granted that was 2 days ago...and here, there is no borrower trap.


Knowing you're working your way through the thread, I'll shut up for now.

 

[highland145]

If I had the spare time and lack of morals, yes I would absolutely open a payday store with my own money in the current market and regulatory climate.

Where you're at, maybe. Not here. Do you have the ability to collect the $$? Have you been in this business? Know the rules/regs?

Heck, S.C. wouldn't even give you a license if they didn't know you.

The point is that you wouldn't lend them because you couldn't collect. You don't know how or have the ability.




And are movingtarget and VG going to invest with you?

 

[Darwin333]

🙄


S.C. did a good job...like I mentioned.




So, who do they borrow from?

Not sure if it was S.C. or not but the industry pulled some pretty crazy shit to avoid having to follow regulations in states that passed them. Instead of calling or registering their business as a payday lender they would register as some other bullshit and since they weren't registered payday lenders they didn't have to follow the regs.

They are even teaming up with Indian tribes to get around regs because the tribes are considered sovereign aren't bound by the states regulations.

With that said, I applaud S.C. I am not, nor have I ever, advocated for shutting the industry down. I'm simply advocating the smallest amount of regulation necessary to prevent them from purposely and knowingly (it's in their training literature so I'd call that intent) putting people/allowing people to get into a death spiral of debt. Hell even if it was just "Assuming weekly payments were all made on time, after the customer has paid 300-400% of the original amount lended the principle must then be forgiven". That seems very reasonable to me and anyone should be happy with making that kind of money.

BTW, all caught up now bud, appreciate it.

 

[Darwin333]

Where you're at, maybe. Not here. Do you have the ability to collect the $$? Have you been in this business? Know the rules/regs?

Heck, S.C. wouldn't even give you a license if they didn't know you.

The point is that you wouldn't lend them because you couldn't collect. You don't know how or have the ability.




And are movingtarget and VG going to invest with you?

That wasn't the question and honestly I don't know the answers to all of the new questions.

I simply know that by the sheer volume of the stores that it is in fact a lucrative business to be in. If it wasn't there would be far fewer of them as most would have went out of business by now or decided it isn't worth it. Instead I see new ones popping up all the time and the old ones aren't going anywhere.

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.

And yall keep asking "who would the get the money from otherwise". Do you really think that loaning someone who is obviously rather poor and has crap credit $1,000 and them paying $200 a week for 2 months and still owe the entire principal is truly helping them out? They would have been better off not paying whatever bill they had due. Their financial hardship was not helped from getting the loan, at least imho with the way the service is ran in most of the country. S.C. might be the exception so this might not apply to you/your state but in general it does.

 

[highland145]

Edit: My turn for a question, do you think it is right that these payday lenders prey on our military members and their families more than just about any other demographic? You go to any .mil base and drive around, you will lose count of the number of payday lenders very quickly. Perhaps all of our troops should just find better jobs or shouldn't have been irresponsible enough to sign up for the .mil in the first place?

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.