US Senate Federal Credit Union raises NSF “courtesy pay” fee
January 28, 2009 | Ohio, Uncategorized, alternatives, industry | Comments (0)Effective March 1, members of the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union will pay $28 per non-sufficient funds transaction. Senators (and their staffs) should know that the fee for a payday loan is typically $15-$17 per $100. Just something to keep in mind if they are at risk for overdrawing their checking account…
Interest…ing
January 28, 2009 | alternatives, industry, personal finance | Comments (0)Interests on credit cards fell slightly from last month.
No fooling
January 28, 2009 | alternatives, industry, personal finance | Comments (0)The Motley Fool is high on pawn stocks.
The Memphis blues
January 28, 2009 | Tennessee, industry, local issues, regulation, states | Comments (0)The Memphis city council passed a zoning ordinance on title and payday lenders.
Editorial writers can’t be educated
January 28, 2009 | Virginia, industry, media coverage, regulation, states | Comments (0)This editorial in the News Advance (VA) demonstrates that these writers don’t get that a 36% rate cap is a ban:
Herring’s bill says that if payday lenders get into open-end loans, they can charge no more than 36 percent interest. Other legislators have offered bills that would prevent payday lenders from getting into open-end loans at all. That would still leave them charging as much as 360 percent annual interest for a line of credit up to $750.
Notice that there’s no math describing what 36% means ($1.38 on a $100 loan).
A “long shot” in Kentucky
January 28, 2009 | Kentucky, industry, media coverage, regulation | Comments (0)The “blue grass” state is tackling all kinds of problems. Payday lending legislation not high on the agenda according to this article.
“Reasonable regulation”
January 28, 2009 | South Carolina, Spartanburg Herald Journal, industry, media coverage, regulation | Comments (0)That’s the take of the Spartanburg (S.C.) Herald-Journal on the South Carolina legislation:
The bills would raise the limit of a payday loan from $300 to $600, but it would limit consumers to carrying only one such loan at a time. It would establish a database to track payday loans and require lenders to check it to verify that a customer is eligible for a loan.
The legislation would put an appropriate curb on payday lending. Recent economic history has shown that such reasonable regulation, particularly of credit markets, can be necessary. But the bill is not an overreaction to the business.
We’re all for “reasonable.”
N.D.
January 28, 2009 | North Dakota, industry, media coverage, regulation, states | Comments (0)No, not Notre Dame, North Dakota. A bill was introduced there to lower fees on payday loans:
The measure says the limits on payday loan fees should be reduced from 20 to 15 percent.
It seeks to cut maximum loans from $500 to $250, and put a $300 limit on the amount of money someone may borrow from a single payday lender. Now, the limit is $600.
We think when they say cut the limit from 20 to15%, they mean the fee on $100 would be cut from $20 to $15.
South Carolina update:
January 28, 2009 | South Carolina, industry, media coverage, regulation, states | Comments (0)Reform bill passes subcommittee, still on “fast track.”
Payday Loans: One Option for Unsecured, Short-Term Credit
January 27, 2009 | alternatives, industry | Comments (0)New information from CFSA on the size of the unsecured, short-term credit market.
***
Consumer Demand for Unsecured, Short-Term Credit is Undeniable. Millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet, with nearly half living paycheck to paycheck. Rising unemployment rates have caused more families to transition from two-income to one-income households and hourly jobs and overtime payments are being scaled back significantly.
Market Alternatives. Consumers facing a necessary expense and caught short between paydays must often choose between costly and undesirable options: pay the bill now and face bounced check or overdraft protection fees; pay the bill late and incur late penalties; borrow from friends and family; or take out a loan from an unknown Internet lender. Removing one option in today’s environment will only force consumers into more expensive, less desirable and unregulated alternatives.
