And we love it.   Read the evisceration of a new Center for Responsible Lending study here.

Responding to the Center for American Progress report below,  a reader writes:

While the final paragraph does carry a slight shade of “non-partisan” moderation, the rest of this report takes the usual “let us tell you” angle on most every critical word choice and sentence construction throughout– liberally cribbing from often faulty and overworked CRL data to build a conveniently adverse picture of the industry.

The addition of “consider restrictions carefully” at the very end is a smug throw away. A filler line used to imbue a sense of equity, when the rest of the article carries none. After reading all this data– likely intended to fuel recent legislative efforts– what converse “considerations” are there for the reader to think about? Few if any, reasons for “consideration” are even mentioned here.

Were I unfamiliar with payday loans, the truths of the product and the millions of grateful and appreciative users of this service, I could see how simple it would be to line people up on the shortsighted and knee-jerk personal-politicking of the payday loan hate wagon. This “report” paints one skewed view in just the hue needed to further the “ban payday loan” agenda, and almost totally neglects the other– the sad and standard tone in the majority of many payday loan discussions these days.

What I don’t understand is this: why is there such a general resistance to any kind of compromise/Washingtonian meeting in the middle over this issue?

This current environment of short-sighted, uncooperative, condescending and irrational rancor over payday loan services is going to have me squirting blood out of my eyes, confined to a Federally funded mental ward or having a public Jim Cramer crazy moment by Spring’s end.

Pass the Advil, please.

Yes, pass the Advil.

Senate approves licensing bill.  As we said before, hard to argue with this one.

PDLindustryblog has some interesting thoughts on the Washington State law and South Carolina.

An analysis by the Center for American Progress (an organization founded by the same folks who founded the Center for Responsible Lending), Who Borrows From Payday Lenders?,  looks at the demographics of payday lending customers and concludes ”these findings largely echo figures available on payday lending industry websites and studies published by private researchers.”  Turns out (surprise!) that payday lenders have a good idea of who actually uses their service.   

Of even more importance is their concluding paragraph:

Restrictions on payday loans, though, will have to be considered carefully. Only a minority of payday borrowers indicated that these were loans taken out for convenience reasons. The majority of these loans were borrowed for several reasons: no other options were available, a family had to cover basic consumption needs, and for emergency purposes. Restrictions on payday loans thus will have to be balanced with more savings opportunities and other, lower-cost credit opportunities for families who now rely on payday loans.

Well said. They may want to talk to their friends over at CRL and let them know that flat-out banning payday loans may not be in the best interest of families.

Good story on how consumers of venting over overdraft protection:

Most banks and credit unions automatically sign customers up for what they call overdraft “protection,” that allows — rather than blocks — purchases and ATM withdrawals that overdraw their bank accounts. For this service, the institutions charge customers fees ranging from $10 to $38 per overdraft, according to a study released last November by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Some 86% of banks the FDIC surveyed had overdraft programs in place in 2006, and three-quarters automatically enrolled customers in such programs. The survey also found overdraft fees were most common among young adults, ages 18 to 25, and low-income accounts. A separate analysis from Mike Moebs, who runs Lake Bluff, Ill.-based Moebs Services, a research and consulting firm, shows banks and credit unions earned $36.7 billion in consumer overdraft revenue last year, about three-quarters of their total service charge income.

In his op-ed published today in the San Angelo, Texas newspaper, Dennis Weese writes, “In a perfect world, all Texans could make ends meet. Unfortunately, we can’t.”

At bloggernews.net, Larry Meyers has some unkind things to say about Senator Durbin’s 36% rate cap bill:

Sen. Durbin claims this is “good for the consumer”, but he ignores the litany of non-partisan, non-biased studies proving that consumers fare worse when such credit is restricted, as has happened in numerous states recently. He also ignores that fact that almost 100,000 people will be put out of work! Think about that. Here we are in a recession, and Durbin is deliberately proposing to put one hundred thousand people on the unemployment line. SHAME ON YOU, Senator.

Yes, the Durbin bill will force consumers to bounce more checks while bounced check fees are not covered by the cap.  Nice if you’re a bank.  Crummy if you’re a consumer.

New Hampshire is doing another 36% rate cap law. 

In Washington State, the govenor signed a tough “collections” law.  From the story:

Key points of SB 5164; Download entire bill as passed by the legislature.

- Forbids threatening to take any legal action against the borrower which the licensee may not legally take.

- Unless invited by the borrower, a licensee may not visit a borrower’s residence or place of employment for the purpose of collecting a delinquent small loan.