In response to an article that ran last weekend, Mr. Hunter said this:

“The News used the loaded word “predatory” to describe the short-term lending industry and said lenders “force people who are least able to pay into a cycle of debt.”

For years, the industry has been trying to determine why anyone, particularly well-educated and worldly journalists, would have this unfounded impression the short-term lending industry is exploitative in any way. Perhaps this perception remains from the years before the passing of the 2003 state law that regulates the payday loan industry and protects consumers from cyclical debt.

Before that time, there were some “loan sharks” out there who did, in fact, live up to the reputation the industry can’t seem to shake. This misperception might also stem from media reports over the years stirred up by industry opponents using PR tactics to further their political agenda.

But here’s the punch line: It’s just not true. In this case, perception is not reality. The reality is that hardworking Alabamians occasionally need to borrow a couple hundred dollars to serve an urgent need. They are more than willing to pay the one-time fee of 17.5 percent the law allows to borrow that money.

I challenge the members of the City Council and The News to walk into any payday loan store in Birmingham and talk to a few customers. Take out a loan, perhaps. Don’t just believe what you read or what you hear. Find out from real people who use our products. I think you’ll be surprised by the truth.”

And we just wanted to applaud you.

In her post, Hillebrand said: “Payday lending operations—including those that operate online and those that target people residing on reservations—continue to be a concern for both communities.”

We wanted to remind our readers that CFSA Best Practices require that all our member companies that offer payday advances through the Internet must be licensed in the state in which the customer resides and that they comply with all applicable state laws. As a condition of membership, members must abide by all CFSA Best Practices and pledge their commitment to them annually.

In a statement on Native American partnerships with payday advance companies, our Board Chair D. Lynn DeVault said this: “CFSA believes that our strict set of Best Practices is a business model that ensures strong consumer protections while preserving access to short-term credit.”

“The fact remains that for the many years that I sat on this committee and considered bills concerning payday lending, the bottom line is we ask DFI every year for the number of complaints they received. There were none, none. Repeatedly year after year we could find no evidence of complaints [through] DFI. Now that has certainly changed in the last year, because now DFI reports that the Washington law that limits eight payday loans per year, now they’re turning to unlicensed Internet payday lenders and here are the complaints. Hundreds of them. Not one before the law, now all of these after the law. … Now I would rather have my constituents doing business with a licensed regulated entity that DFI can control. But we have no way of regulating out of state or out of country [lenders].”

Several stories this week have surfaced on this issue, and for a Friday we thought you might want to watch some video coverage. As mentioned in the story, the latest report out of the DFI in Washington shows that, of the licensed entities of which the DFI tracks, consumers paid $122 million dollars less in payday loan fees than they did in 2009. But what we want to know is whether or not these numbers include unregulated entities? Does the DFI accurately portray the full lending picture in Washington?

Such restrictions on payday lending would merely force consumers to use higher cost providers, some of which are unregulated and unlicensed. In the wake of the Washington state restriction, some regulators and legislators said that they have seen an increase in consumers turning to unlicensed and unregulated lenders who may operate beyond the reach of state regulators.

Unlicensed lenders are not accountable to the state either through state examination or compliance standards. DFI’s enforcement chief said that even if the agency can get a subpoena to go after an illegal lender, it’s difficult to get a response and difficult to enforce the subpoena because the lender is either out of state or in another country.[1]

Today, payday advance stores fill an important need for small dollar, short-term credit for banked, working Americans in communities throughout the country. Millions of customers across the country have used payday advances responsibly and appreciate having somewhere to turn when they need quick access to credit. Analysts estimate payday advances are used by 19 million American households.

We strongly encourage consumers who need access to credit to do business with CFSA members who are required to be licensed and regulated. A member that offers payday advances through the Internet must be licensed in the state where the payday advance customer resides.

As an example, in October, 2010, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) warned consumers of the danger of unlicensed payday lenders.

“When a consumer takes a loan from an unlicensed lender, there is very little we can do to protect them, and often little we can do to the company if they don’t adhere to our laws, especially if they are located outside of the United States.”

As a reminder on CFSA Best Practices:

• CFSA members always provide the most transparent application forms and fee descriptions. We strongly support applying these to all other short-term lenders, both bank and nonbank.

• Members are required to disclose the cost of the service fee in both dollar amount and as an APR on loan documents and informational brochures. In addition, members must post fees in large type on posters in all store locations to ensure that customers know, in simple terms, exactly what the fees are before, not after, they enter into a transaction.

In light of these simultaneous debit card rewards decreases and fee increases, the question that’s being asked: Should consumers be looking for checking account alternatives? This article encourages consumers to consider prepaid card accounts. Why? Because they are not subject to interchange fee caps and can basically serve the same purpose as a checking account.

“The surprise is, no matter how much government tries to regulate and legislate away this small loan market, it keeps coming back,” says Moebs. “People want and need a funding safety net.”

AND CONTINUED FROM THE STORY:

“Regulators should get out of and stay out of the short term money needs of consumers — they cause more problems than solutions. Instead of trying to tell consumers what they need and how to manage their money, let the market do it,” says Moebs, whose clients include banking and savings institutions.

“The huge mistake that many make when looking at overdrafts, payday loans and pawn loans, is trying to measure it by large loan standards — namely APR. It’s like bringing a baseball speed gun used to measure the velocity of a pitch to measure the speed of a college or NFL football player. Overdrafts are measured by fee amounts, not rates.”

Like the mythical bird the Phoenix, Moebs says, ODPs are becoming reborn. The economic research firm reported that ODP revenue at the end of the second quarter of 2011 is up over $700 million at both banks and credit unions. Additionally, the average number of overdrafts per household increased during the same period.

“From our study of usage, behavior, and prices of over 2,500 depositories and a million checking accounts, Americans not only want ODPs but are using overdrafts with increased frequency,” said Mike Moebs, CEO and economist of Moebs.

The combination of the credit card act and the recession triggered card issuers to raise interest rates by about 2 percentage points, notes Nessa Feddis, VP and senior counsel at the American Bankers Association.

“If the bureau imposes further restrictions, the additional regulatory burden could [result in] higher interest rates and fees,” Feddis said. The agency does not have the power to cap either.