Banking

Montana Wants Money for Nothing

When states vote for cheap payday loans, they wind up with no loans at all.

|

On Tuesday, Montana voted overwhelmingly to cap interest rates for payday loans at 36 percent annually. Similar caps passed in the last election cycle in Ohio and Arizona, limiting the amount companies can charge when making small loans to customers. The ballot results make Montana the 18th state to institute such caps.

Many of the three-quarters of Montana voters who approved the cap likely thought they were voting for cheaper short-term loans. But that's not what will happen in the Big Sky State. When the rules of the game change, so do the players. Instead, the passage of the rate cap means the state's payday lenders will pack their (money)bags and hit the road.

When Arizona's payday loan rates were capped at 36 percent in June, payday lenders immediately started checking out. Joe Coleman, president of the Financial Service Centers of America, told USA Today that Montana will be no different: "As has been the case in other states, because of the numerous costs involved, virtually no operator can offer the product at that rate, and all of them will almost certainly go out of business," he says.

In Washington, D.C., when the rates payday lenders could charge were capped, some firms continued to offer one-stop banking services to the poor—like check cashing and pre-paid debit cards—while killing the payday loan component of their business. But a far more common reaction to interest rate caps is for payday loan companies to flee the state. (Ironically, the one councilman who saw this coming in D.C. was also the guy who introduced the proposal to cap the rates: Former mayor Marion Barry ended up casting the only vote against, saying "We are putting this industry out of business.")

For supporters of the caps, this is a feature, not a bug. Groups like the Center for Responsible Lending call payday lenders "abusive" and their rates "usurious." The group noted in a triumphant post-election press release that "studies show that payday lending is associated with unpaid bills, credit card delinquency, bank overdrafts, closed bank accounts and bankruptcy." They're right, of course, that people who use payday loans tend to be in financial trouble. They're also right that the loans aren't cheap. Without regulation, annual rates for payday loans range between 200 and 400 percent interest annually. That sounds outrageously expensive. But those figures don't reflect the way people actually use the loans. Borrowers typically pay between $10 and $20 for $100 in quick cash. They give the payday lender a post-dated check set for a week or two in the future in exchange for money today to pay for car repairs, doctor's visits, or other expenses.

Booting payday lenders doesn't eliminate the need for quick cash, however. And caps like the one Montana just passed may make life much harder for people living on the margins.

Academic research on the subject supports these anecdotal findings. In Oregon, a 2007 law effectively capped rates at $10 per $100 and imposed a minimum borrowing term of one month (as opposed to the more typical one- or two-week loan for $15 per $100). At the end of  2006, six months before the cap kicked in, Oregon's Consumer and Business Services Department reported 346 licensed payday lenders. Seven months after the cap, that number had fallen to 105. In September 2008 it was 82. In a December 2008 working paper, Dartmouth economist Jonathan Zinman concluded that former payday customers in Oregon ended up using less desirable alternatives such as overdrafts and utility shutdowns, and that "restricting access caused deterioration in the overall financial condition of the Oregon households." In summary, "restricting access to expensive credit harms consumers."

And when payday loan companies leave, people deal with cash shortfalls in other, less desirable ways. When payday lenders left Georgia in 2004, households "bounced more checks, complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher rate," Federal Reserve research economists Donald P. Morgan and Michael R. Strain found in a February 2008 study. And they found similar results after the payday lenders cleared out of North Carolina in 2005 as well.

Montana learned something from the 17 states that have already capped rates. If you take away one way to get quick cash, people will find another. The same ballot initiative also limited car title loans on similar terms, after seeing a boom in popularity of these higher-stakes loans—if you fail to pay, they take your car—in states that have previously instituted caps. But no amount of legislation will abolish the need for quick cash. All it can do is limit the options people have available to meet that need.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

112 responses to “Montana Wants Money for Nothing

    1. Who wouldn’t want that?

      1. Straight chicks?

        1. BOR-ing!

    2. Montana:

      Where men are men;

      Chicks are scarce and

      The sheep are nervous.

      1. Leave that lawyer (AAW) out of this, of the thread will disappear.

  1. Clearly what we need is a seven day waiting period for getting quick cash.

    1. And a background check that includes psychiatric evaluation.

  2. We have to protect our idiots!

  3. “studies show that payday lending is associated with unpaid bills, credit card delinquency, bank overdrafts, closed bank accounts and bankruptcy.”

    Studies show that chemotherapy is associated with cancer.

    1. Studies show that prosperous people are associated with high dining and medical expenditures.

      1. Studies show that bears shit in forest.

  4. Where the heck do the poor turn when the righteous are so intent on protecting them from themselves that they take away every option available?

    When I was in college I used one of these loans to fix my motorcycle. I truly appreciated them being there and had no problem paying the price they charged me. There were sure no liberals or politicians standing around offering me any money.

    1. no one believes you had a motorcycle in college

      1. the johnson isn’t so major either.

    2. If there was any justice, they would just hang around the liberal parts of town and mug the people there.

      1. Your city has “liberal parts of town”? Is the whole place segregated along ideological lines? Do you have street gangs named the Donkeys and Elephants that dance and have knife fights? If so, I want to visit there.

        1. Just go to the cities with gun bans.

    3. Where the heck do the poor turn when the righteous are so intent on protecting them from themselves that they take away every option available?

      Crime?

      1. We support this legislation.

        1. Because Fat Tony’s interest rates aren’t usurious, and he has very kind repayment plans.

          1. Low, low short-term rates of one knuckle per week.

            Longer-term loans as low as a kneecap per month.

            1. At least Fat Tony doesn’t force you to apply for the loans.

            2. No, that’s apparently the government’s job…

        2. We support loansharks.

  5. You have to be a subscriber, but the most recent Wilson Quarterly had a review of this book:
    http://www.wilsonquarterly.com…..m?AID=1743
    Interesting review; the guy mentioned all the standard talking points of horrible interest rates, etc.
    And then he dropped the hammer: His family had gone through hard times, and pulled through only because they had access to cash from a pay-check loan store.
    And he also trashes the author for the author’s claim that getting your arm broken by a loan shark isn’t any worse than paying the going rate.

  6. Love the Dire Straits reference up there. That was the first thing that entered my mind when I saw the title of this article.

    1. Yeah, “money for nothing”…most of these posters have never needed $150 to make it to the next pay check…shame on them!

  7. My cousin in India once made a point to me years ago, it reminds me of this article.

    He would get annoyed when people from “1st world” countries would come to India and shut down sweat shops. He told me that it’s terrible that 8-yr-olds work and can’t get an education or play all day or do other things that kids do. But the reason that these kids are sent to sweatshops is so they can eat. There is no safety net in India. No parent would ever send their kid to work all day unless it was absolutely necessary. When these sweatshops are put out of business, families suffer.

    1. I replied (this was in 1998) to some self-righteous douchebags who were talking about how horrible child labor in the 3rd world was: “they have to eat, would it be better if they worked as prostitutes?”

      I got no response.

      1. BP, CLEARLY, us well-to-do’ers should be paying so 3rd-world-crotch-fruit can eat. Why do you hate teh childen??

        Of course, they gotta wait till I save up enough for my compulsory insurance.

        1. That’s not how it works. First you pay for 3rd world “aid,” then if you have the money you pay for mandatory insurance; if you can’t afford it, then they fine you… and you have to pay for mandatory insurance.

  8. You see, here we call them “pay day loans” and lenders are ripping people off. In Africa and the third world we call it “micro lending” and it is the humanitarian thing to do. Although micro loan outfits haven’t always escaped the loan sharking moniker either.

    1. How DARE you LOAN money to those in need. Everybody (read: morons) knows you’re supposed to just give them money.

      Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day….so you just keep giving him a daily ration of fish and he can eat forever. Not too large a ration though or the fuckers will just get obese.

      1. “Lend”, not “loan”.

        1. *checks a dictionary just to be sure…yup*

          Wtf?

  9. With that percentage of the vote, people never thought this through. I bet no one gave them any positives to ponder before the vote.

    1. There were 3 or 4 amendments like that in Florida this past election. One says voting against it is a slap in the face to troops that have served overseas. Then the teacher’s union comes out and says raising the class-size average would adversely affect “teh children” so we obviously can’t vote for that.

      Just when you think people might be showing a glimmer of hope in the cognitive department, those theories are crushed when smart legislation is thrown out in favor of dumb laws.

  10. After a certain interest rate (say 36%) you have charged enough!

    1. Obama|11.4.10 @ 11:29PM|#
      “After a certain interest rate (say 36%) you have charged enough!”

      After a certain demonstration of ignorance about markets (like 100%) nobody cares about your fantasies.

      1. After a certain demonstration of ignorance about markets (like 100%) nobody cares about your fantasies.

        I like to cut-off my caring around 65%.

  11. I’ve been holding off on purchasing a new Maserati until the poll numbers came back. Thank you John Q. Montana Public!

  12. …and the Jews howl like hell!

  13. WTF? Weren’t there a bunch of comments that got deleted? It looks like an entire sub-thread where MNG made some good points (no, seriously) and there were a few replies, just disappeared.

    1. Was just wondering that myself.

      1. Yeah, I’m kinda wondering too.

        We had a “why MNG isn’t like the other lefty douchebags” thing going and then poof!

        Weird.

        But whatever, it’s a free comment board on the internet for chrissakes. We aren’t editing the constitution.

        YET.

        1. If there’s no proof, it didn’t happen.

    2. Yeah, I do remember making those comments…What gives?

      1. I blame THE COMMANDER…

      2. Yes, I made a reply to MNG. That is also gone. We were discussing the differences between different brands of “leftism”.

    3. It’s obvious that there can’t be any record of MNG making solid points… so someone took it down

      1. It’s obvious that “Free minds and free markets” don’t mean squat around these parts….

  14. Groups like the Center for Responsible Lending fiscally responsible individuals call payday lenders wreckless borrows “abusive”

    FIFY

    1. Hi, Bill, I’d like $5000. Email me your paypal info.

    2. Oh, and Reason, will you publish my article on “Maybe it is time to start kicking people in the balls.”

    3. At this point I’ll just settle for the government returning my tax dollars.

  15. I think there’s honestly some potential for social businesses to offer lower interest rates, but people are wrong to think that such companies are enormously profitable. They’re straight-up insane to think that debit overdraft services from banks or credit unions, or late payment acceptance are somehow different. Yes, the APY is high, but that’s because it’s a small, short-term loan. When making a mortgage loan, it’s large-dollar and paid off over many years, which means you can afford high quality underwriting without impacting the interest rate too much. Your borrowers are paying $1300 a month, and the loan is collateralized with the house itself.

    But you can’t spend much money scrutinizing a borrower asking for $300 with a $45 fee with very little (and potentially fraudulent) collateral. That’s just revenue, and from it you have to pay for operations, offset the losses, your own borrowing, etc.

    1. This has already happened in mortgage lending on closing costs under thew financial regs. Mortgage brokers have caps that make small mortgages unprofitable for them to do. You can’t get a mortgage smaller than $75k now from a broker. Banks don’t have these rules and are filling the void created by the rules they wrote for their competiton, at a higher interest rate natch.

  16. Well, since it was deleted, let me repeat one of my previous comments.

    Are they going to outlaw pawn shop loans as well? Because they have the same interest rates, and they’re just loans against previous paychecks.

    1. All in good time, my friend. You see, this is all part of the process of outlawing capitalism in general.

      1. Don’t pawnshops have to write up a 1099* for every transaction yet?

        (*I know that’s not what that form is for, but I refuse to sully my mind with the recognition of more forms.)

  17. Although Ms. Mangu-Ward makes several excellent points, I can’t escape the feeling that she’s ultimately supporting Don Corleone and his boys.

    1. So?

  18. Don’t worry, the government will fill in the holes.

    Now these people will need something and since the government has effectively cleared out the private industry to provide this service, they can easily come in and take over.

    Now these people will rely on government aid EVEN MORE! The government will give them aid and get them hooked. When we threaten to take away that aid, they will then claim that we hate the poor, when it was really the government in the first place that is doing this (even if the people did vote for it).

    1. Yeah…the government will fill in your hole every chance it gets.

  19. “Many of the three-quarters of Montana voters who approved the cap likely thought they were voting for cheaper short-term loans.”

    Where’s the empirical support for this claim? Industry groups poured millions of dollars into the state advertising the fact that payday lenders would leave rather than offer loans consonant with the new rate cap. Perhaps the more reasonable inference to be drawn from the vote on I-164 is that Montanans would rather live in a state with restricted access to credit. Whether you think this is good public policy or not, there’s no need to insult the intelligence of voters who made their own (fundamentally normative) judgments about the propriety of high-cost small loans.

    “Without regulation, annual rates for payday loans range between 200 and 400 percent interest annually. That sounds outrageously expensive. But those figures don’t reflect the way people actually use the loans. Borrowers typically pay between $10 and $20 for $100 in quick cash. They give the payday lender a post-dated check set for a week or two in the future in exchange for money today to pay for car repairs, doctor’s visits, or other expenses.”

    This is at least contestable, if not demonstrably false, notwithstanding the Zinman study. The Zinman study did not actually establish how payday borrowers were using the loans, or the average length of time those loans were outstanding. (There are a host of methodological problems with the Zinman study, but they’re beyond the scope of this post). It turns out that the APR on a payday loan *is* an accurate measure of its cost because of how frequently the loans are rolled-over/renewed at each successive maturity.

    See generally:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1319751

    http://www.texaslrev.com/sites…..rancis.pdf

    1. I think you overestimate the intelligence of voters.

      1. I think it’s ironic that most of the folks in this libertarian commentariat abandon the rational actor assumption when it comes to voting behavior. Should all of these dolts have access to payday loans if they can’t even weigh the costs and benefits of ballot initiatives?

        1. Drivel.

          Tyranny of the majority does not imply that that majority is irrational. At least in the short term, it might be perfectly RATIONAL for everyone named Barry to vote to have everyone named John be summarily executed and their assets be distributed to the Barrys.

          Rational actors are INDIVIDUALS. Voting can impose the will of some people on everyone. The reason for, say, constitutional limits on what voters and representatives can do is that rational actors can also be brutal oppressors (e.g. rational plantation owners who determined that slavery was in their own economic and social interest).

          1. Um, objection: Nonresponsive.

            1. You asked whether these dolts should have access to payday loans if they can’t evaluate initiatives.

              There’s nothing saying that the dolts who voted for this are the same dolts who get payday loans. That’s the difference between the tyranny of the majority, and individual actors.

              A mob may be stupid or a mob may be smart, but individuals making their own decisions aren’t the same as a mob making their decisions for them.

  20. I just read most of the comments and no one really said the most important thing about all this:

    Getting loans from payday loan centers is REALLY REALLY BAD idea. You gotta be half retarded or desperate to get a loan from these places. Poor people that use these loan sharks are poorer for it. Yes, it sucks to go without a car for a month or losing the phone, but these are LUXURIES. You are POOR. Your finances dictate that you can walk, ride a bike or take the bus, etc. These places are friends to the poor? They’re snakes. I’m incredulous to read comments here suggesting otherwise.

    In defense of capitalism? Please.

    Would you let Satan walk around town buying souls?

    For Chrissake, I know we’re all libertarians here, blah blah blah, but have some goddamn pride.

    1. If you need some cash to keep your car so you can go to work, it’s a better option than losing the car. Reconnect charges for your phone line are also higher than payday loan charges.

      They’re not “friends” to the poor, nor to anyone. But they provide a service that is, in some cases, better than the alternatives a person has.

      Of course it’s stupid to get into the position to need these bastards! But when you’re there, how do you get out?

      A repo’d car and no phone won’t exactly help you earn a living in the real world. Bicycle commuting, apart from being impractical some or much of the time in many climates, tends to be an amusement of the trendy upper middle class, so I’ll have to chalk that one up to “let ’em eat cake.”

    2. BTW there’s a difference between things we find uncomfortable to think about, like the fact that not everyone can afford to be a spandex-wearing urban hipster with a short, pleasant commute in a mild climate, and things that should be made ILLEGAL.

      I find payday loans, car title loans, etc. to be unpalatable. I don’t want to be in that business, and I’d advise anyone who will listen to live beneath his/her means and avoid any debt. That doesn’t mean I think is makes sense, in the big picture, to effectively ban these businesses. The black market will fill the demand, and it is far uglier.

    3. You are a fool. Is it a bad idea to not diminish your savings in order to fix your car which is your only way to maintain your income. Walking to work is not an option to everyone. Maybe you have no credit to get a loan with a low interest rate, either through youth or bad decisions, and you need the money as start up capital. There are a million reason why a payday loan is a good idea. Just because they are not a prime investment to you does not mean that they are a terrible idea for everyone.

      1. One point to add to enforcers:

        People shouldn’t get into the position to need these sorts of loans. But that reminds me of the newest South Park superhero, Captain Hindsight. Once you’re in that position, sometimes the only way out is to get some cash NOW, fix the car, buy new boots, or whatever it takes to go earn your way out of the mess.

        1. Barry, Enforcers:
          The debtor is slave to the lender.

          For the record, I’m not some upper crust fratboy whose parents bought my first house. I’m dirt poor and raising a family in a middle-lower class neighborhood. I ride a bike lot, as do some of my non-trendyesque neighbors. It’s practical.

          A great deal of people that say they can’t ride a bike to work simply don’t want to. It’s lack of desire, not inability. A couple friends of mine use or have used payday loan centers here in Reno not because they needed to, but because the blew all their money on frivolous things.

          I guess I don’t have much of an argument for the criminalization of these places and still call myself a libertarian, simply the ethical one. There are far too many people being foolish with their money and the proliferation of these places prove that.

          Slaves are made in such ways.

          Captain Hindsight’s criticism: I should’ve written that argument with a less angry tone. And I should’ve used either of the slavery remarks the first time around. It would’ve been more effective. My job is done here.

          1. An ethical libertarian is someone who believes that the purpose of government is to decide what purchases someone should make?

            Of COURSE people buy frivolous crap. How, exactly, do you propose to change that without creating a fascist society? And who will decide what is frivolous and what isn’t?

            These businesses are bottom feeders. I don’t have any friends who own and run these businesses, and I probably wouldn’t like them if I knew anyone who does. However, there’s nothing libertarian about wanting to ban everything I don’t like.

          2. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide.

  21. Due to some electronic processing glitches when I was in rural Hawaii, where phone lines are third-world-awful, my debit card was messed up and I “overdrew” several times even though the money was in the account and the charge was approved at the time.

    I learned a few things.

    Once a bank has your money, it’s hard to get it back from them no matter how frivolous their justification for taking it. I don’t use debit cards any more. EVER. I use a credit card, and when I dispute a charge, they have to prove me wrong to get my money, not vice versa. Given that the debit card allowed me to charge against it when the account was “empty”, the supposed hazard of running up a credit card is an illusion. They’ll let you do it on a debit card, too, and charge you a huge overdraft fee for every debit.

    Overdraft charges are exorbitant. If I had to, I’d willingly pay $15 for a $100 payday loan, instead of $29 for a 50 cent overdraft. If someone really needs a payday loan, it’s a better option than any alternative they have — late fees on bills are usually higher, overdraft fees are MUCH higher, and loan sharks charge more AND break your kneecaps.

    Payday lenders, whatever you think of them, are the LEAST scummy players in their market space. That includes regular, “respectable” banks.

  22. Some number of people in Montana, “X,” would make an “optimal” or rational choice to get a payday loan, and they may be worse off without access to it.

    Some number of people in Montana, “Y,” would make a non-optimal choice to get a payday loan, and will be better off because of the denial of access.

    Is X

    1. The question probably can’t be answered with the knowledge we have.

      But if you want to decrease Y without restricting X, you can legislate truth-in-lending laws. Let people pay what they will, but let them KNOW what they’re paying. If they can’t understand when they’re doing something really stupid, their finances should probably be put in a trust, with a conservator who has an IQ above the single digits. If they can understand what they’re doing, they need to be allowed to do what they think is best.

        1. Libertarians don’t tend to believe that ANY law is a panacea.

          There’s a word for people who think laws are panaceas for anything. It’s “idiot”.

  23. Indeed, as a result of I-164, not only payday lending employees will lose jobs, but Montana’s consumers will be left with less desirable credit options like overdraft and credit card fees. While a 36% cap sounds reasonable, payday loans are two-week loans and cannot be offered at the same APRs as annual credit products. Payday lending stores in Montana are closing already. The cap is resulting in the elimination of an affordable credit choice for consumers. Payday advance lenders can not cover the cost of originating a loan, let alone meeting employee payroll and benefits and other fixed business expenses at such a low rate.

    1. “While a 36% cap sounds reasonable, payday loans are two-week loans and cannot be offered at the same APRs as annual credit products.”

      I assume, then, that you’d have no problem with a regulatory scheme that allows high effective APRs (e.g. of 400%) but which severely restricts rollovers/renewals?

      “Payday advance lenders can not cover the cost of originating a loan, let alone meeting employee payroll and benefits and other fixed business expenses at such a low rate.”

      Cut to the chase. Can payday lenders be profitable if there’s a restriction on rollovers?

  24. This is tough. My libertarian sense of “let people get into whatever contracts they want” runs into my sense of “but people are being blatantly taken advantage of”.

    1. You can’t fix stupid. And you certainly can’t regulate away stupid.

      Again, banning these places, or the business models that make them profitable, will not make stupid people smart, or irresponsible people prudent. It will simply force the business underground.

      If drug laws worked, we wouldn’t have a profitable sector running rehab clinics. People want drugs, and they turn to the criminal underground to get them.

      High-risk loans are no different.

      You can’t fix stupid. It sucks, but people will do stupid things to themselves.

      1. Barry, just so I’m clear: Do you support regulatory interventions in the free market when the market produces negative externalities/spillover effects? Or is your position something like “there is no justifiable basis for government intervention under any circumstances.”

  25. I held a conversation with someone on campus who was handing out fliers to vote for this. I told him basically what this article said.
    All of the posters said, “Don’t you think 400% is too high?” And of course all I could think was, “The people who are getting the loans don’t think so.”

  26. While I’m all for stupid people wrecking their lives; these lenders don’t do anyone any good. 36% seems like a good ceiling.

    1. You certainly seem to have the “stupid people” part of the equation nailed down….

    2. 36% for a two-week loan of $300?

      (1.36)^(14/365)-1 = 1.19%

      300 * 0.019 = $3.55

      Which means that if 1 in every 85 borrowers doesn’t pay you back and his collateral is no good, it’s impossible to even hold onto your capital. Add in overhead and your ability to take a loss intensifies.

      Meanwhile, you’re getting $30 and $40 overdraft and late fees for that missed $300 payment.

      So, question, why do you think the industry charges the amount it does? If it’s a gold mine, why aren’t there more competitors entering to bring down the price of credit?

  27. Poor people suck, which is why they’re poor. By allowing them to get payday loans, at any price, we just prolong their suck. By denying them this sucky option, pretty soon they’ll all be rich like the rest of us, and will stop sucking all the time. Everybody wins!

  28. When Congress enacted legislation in 2006 to cap payday lending to military families, part of the effort from those pushing it was to let families in trouble turn to relief organizations and use no-interest loans. The reason why military families wouldn’t use them prior is because nobody wants their command to have the perception they have money issues and are irresponsible. But going to a payday lender often proved much worse than going hat in hand to a relief agency, since payday loans often spiraled out of control and resulted in a loss of security clearance and ineligibility to continue one’s career.

  29. Many of the folks share my feelings.

    Figure out how much comes in every month and figure out and balance that with how much goes out. easy.

    These customers want instant gratification and no amount of legislation is going to fix poor money management coupled with “Needing” something now.

    Some Short term loans are more responsible than others, but in the end – it’s up to the consumer.

  30. Many of the folks share my feelings.

    Figure out how much comes in every month and figure out and balance that with how much goes out. easy.

    These customers want instant gratification and no amount of legislation is going to fix poor money management coupled with “Needing” something now.

    Some Short term loans are more responsible than others, but in the end – it’s up to the consumer.

    We need better options and more education – not banning options.

  31. Many of the folks share my feelings.

    Figure out how much comes in every month and figure out and balance that with how much goes out. easy.

    These customers want instant gratification and no amount of legislation is going to fix poor money management coupled with “Needing” something now.

    Some Short term loans are more responsible than others, but in the end – it’s up to the consumer.

    We need better options and more education – not banning options.

  32. Providing Personal Finance News like Insurance, Loan, Debt, Business, Pension, Payday Loan and other Debt Settlement Blog.

  33. Well, I am sure there are should be laws and regulations for payday loan lenders, some of them charge crazy interest rates which are impossible to pay off. Everything should have a limit, the same is with interest rates. Payday loan lenders take more risk because the loans they offer are unsecured and you have to face just a minum requirements to get approved. Consumers also should think well before getting a loan, quite often I hear negative references just because people take out loans and do not ask anything about rates of interest, so in the end they are unpleasantly surprised because they have taken a wrong loan and failed to repay.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.