Matthew Glans of the Heartland Institute had this to say in the Akron Beacon Journal about Ohio legislation:

The Ohio legislature, like many governing bodies across the country, apparently believes it is a better economic steward than the market. Legislators are considering new laws that would limit the ability of consumers to choose what lending services are right for them. By placing an interest rate cap on short-term or payday loans, the state is essentially dooming these businesses to failure. The end result of the ban will be lost jobs and a lost outlet for emergency financing for those who are now hurting the most.

In a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, researchers found that states with bans on payday lending experience an increase in bounced checks, higher rates of bankruptcy and more complaints related to collections. Payday loans are admittedly risky and can be misused, but the inherent risk the borrowers create necessitates a fee to use these loans. The market works to determine what these rates and fees will be; if they are overly burdensome, the customers will not use the service.

Legislators need to be careful not to stifle consumer choice in the name of consumer protection.

Tim Miller of Center for Consumer Freedom has a very sensible opinion piece today in the Christian Science Monitor.  From the piece:

One consequence of payday lending restrictions is that they force would-be borrowers into alternatives that are far more costly. Georgia, for example, has outlawed the practice – mistakenly, as a Federal Reserve Bank of New York study indicates.

The study found that bounced-check fees grew by $36 million and Chapter 7 bankruptcy filings rose by almost 9 percent in Georgia after payday lending was banned. What’s worse: Bouncing checks and wrecking your credit rating, or paying a lender $15 for a $100 advance on your paycheck?

Given these facts, it’s clear that those guilty of exploitation are not the short-term lenders, but politicians who are trotting out the poor to score a political victory.

The whole piece is well worth the read.  

Hidden Consumer Loans: An Analysis of Implicit Interest Rates on Bounced Checks by Mark A. Fusaro, Department of Economics, East Carolina University, finds that the median interest rate on bounce protection loans is in excess of twenty times that of payday loans. 

Fusaro writes, “Payday lending attracts attention for its high interest rates, but bounce protection loans are much more expensive. When the amount borrowed is low and the time outstanding is short, the effective interest rate paid on this loan can be quite high.”

Additional findings include:

• People of all income levels overdraft equally often
• Customers using bounced checks as personal loans account for twenty percent of overdrafts
• Service charges are a profitable income source for banks
• When a bank pays overdrafts, customers overdraft 50% more

Study highlights

According to Bankrate.com, the answer is ChexSystems, a company which holds your bounced check information for five years, providing data to other banks and lenders who asses whether you’re potentially a ”valued customer or a liability.”  Eighty percent of financial institutions use this service.

Of course, avoiding bounced checks is the number one reason consumers take out payday loans.

Terry Kibbe of the Consumers Rights League has a guest piece today in the Denver Post that picks up on recent research by Don Morgan of the NY Federal Reserve. 

Money quote: ”Morgan also questioned the validity of the research from the Center for Responsible Lending saying the Center ‘overstated the number of problem borrowers.’ He noted that banning payday loans actually leads to more people bouncing checks, filing for bankruptcy and fighting with collectors. After payday loans in Georgia were banned in 2004, Morgan found, “bounced checks in the Fed processing center in Atlanta jumped by 1.2 million, a 13% increase.”