- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
In my country there is. Like most terms and conditions trained solicitors can't make head nor tale of them. As I have said in my country, which I took pains to make the distinction that I was comparing the UKs pay day lenders which you clearly missed there is no truth in lending laws, whatever the hell that is. There is life outside of the USA bub.
Its nice of you to assume that by having a police force the population is to stupid to protect themselves, by having any regulation ever and having government at all means you basically think that the population is stupid and idiotic. Fantastic logic...no wait there is no logic there at all.
Generalizing all who use these predators?
You have. Your issue with the lenders is that they're "predators". Which means you've decided that nobody is responsible enough not to protect themselves against these "predators".
And you haven't made any compelling argument to regulate them any more than they already are regulated except to say "they're predators!".
But we aren't talking about your country.
You have. Your issue with the lenders is that they're "predators". Which means you've decided that nobody is responsible enough not to protect themselves against these "predators".
And you haven't made any compelling argument to regulate them any more than they already are regulated except to say "they're predators!".
Morning Cephus....Really? I don't recall seeing my name in the OP...All I am doing is debating on a message board about a business that I feel is highly unethical. I don't see where that means that I personally have to have the entire solution worked out...
But, I will say I do agree with some of the points that you and Tres lay out, they are valid...Such as no one forcing these people to take out the loans...That is a good point and I am hesitant to get into the business of 'saving people from themselves', however, I just don't like these places...
"People who use payday loans are struggling financially, and they usually have trouble covering ordinary livingexpenses from month to month. Most are paying bank overdraft fees, most carry credit card or other debt, andalmost all have credit scores that are at the lowest end of the scale.
Policy discussion in recent years has focusedon whether payday loan customers need more access to credit, and what rate of interest is appropriate for such loans. These are valid questions, but there is insufficient evidence to know whether consumers are better off with or without access to high-interest loans (even if the loans have affordable payments).
There is, however, sufficient evidence to conclude that conventional lump-sum payday loans harm consumers compared with loans that have affordable payments. It is clear that the lump-sum payday loan has inherent structural flaws that make it unaffordable and dangerous for consumers, and that new policies to eliminate this failed product are warranted."
that's debatable...Many, in fact I would say most don't fully understand how to budget, and spend day to day, therefore, understanding the long term effect on their bills is not too much of a thought at the time of taking out these products.
that is true, and I am conflicted about my own position on this, but in the end I stand on ethical practices, and this industry is void of ethics. I know first hand.
All I can say is that if I were ever in that position (again) I would hope that someone would help me ward against people, con men really, out to drop the anvil on my head...
Are you in the business Cephus? I just wonder. Because, although my arguments in here are often on the political right because I am a believer in personal responsibility, but, and this is about the only but, when I see clear advantage being cast on one group of people with little resource to correct the problem, I think it is a horribly unethical thing to do....But, I do want to say that I don't have good answers on how to fix it, I just know that it is destructive.
That's right Cephus, at one time in my life I was pretty irresponsible with money. I didn't make enough and made poor decisions with credit, along with being young and partying too much. That took us into bankruptcy. We lost everything.cont.
You're the one who chose to go there without researching. You're the one who apparently didn't keep up your end of the bargain. Now you're blaming the industry for your own failures? Seriously?
No, but I did set up a payday advance place, I have seen the industry from the inside, I have dealt directly with many customers who come to such places and not a single one ever gets into it unknowingly. There is a distinct code of ethics in place, at least in my experience, but you have to deal with the realities. For every customer who comes in and rolls over a loan, the choice is between rolling it over and having the customer go into default and just not pay it back at all. It is a lie, at least in my experience, that payday places push customers to roll over loans. They do not. It's a matter of desperation, not of business design. The fact is, once the client has your money in hand, they have all of the power. There is virtually no legal recourse because these people have no money. Suing them is going to be an automatic victory for the store owner. Collecting on that judgement is virtually impossible. Again, what is your solution? You have none. You've just got an emotional grudge and that's no way to run public policy.
That's right Cephus, at one time in my life I was pretty irresponsible with money. I didn't make enough and made poor decisions with credit, along with being young and partying too much. That took us into bankruptcy. We lost everything.
Since, I was at least smart enough to get the counsel of a family member that woke me up, and after some real pain and ten years we built back up to a 750+ score and own a home and have savings.
Not everyone has that family to fall back on. Nor, do they wake the hell up. All I can tell you is my experience. No one ever offered the option to pay back the loan in three payments, and they absolutey did consistently offer roll over to distressed situations. I didn't find out about extended payback until my wife worked at one.
So, you helpwd set one up. I hope you made a handsome profit.
Now you can continue to attack me personally, or we can have a conversation. Which is it?
That's a shame. People make mistakes. People also need to be responsible for fixing those mistakes. That's what conservatism is all about: personal responsibility.
That's a shame. People make mistakes. People also need to be responsible for fixing those mistakes. That's what conservatism is all about: personal responsibility. It's a shame how many people don't understand that.
There are plenty of people out there who can counsel you, it doesn't have to be family. In the low income areas, there are plenty of free-of-charge credit counseling places available that people can utilize if they wish. If they don't, it's their own fault. Personal responsibility.
Which doesn't matter, there are plenty of options. And your experience doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to overall reality. What happened to you, happened to you. You got out of it. It was your job to get out of it. Personal responsibility. What it seems is that you're assuming that people are too stupid to get out of things on their own or to figure out how to fix their own problems, with or without help. That's entirely defeatist and antithetical to the conservative philosophy. Just because you had a particular experience doesn't mean that all experiences are the same. You're making assumptions about a nationwide industry based on a single experience you had a long time ago.
Nope, in fact these places make very little profit. I got paid a consulting fee, nothing more.
Nobody is attacking you personally, I'm pointing out that you are acting in a very non-conservative manner, demanding that the state fix problems that you perceive, yet cannot demonstrate actually happen.
You are basing it all on a single personal experience and are reacting entirely emotionally.
Then you're taking all questions as personal attacks.
That is not rational. It is not possible to have a valid discussion with irrational people. So make up your mind, are you just going to react, or are you going to think too?
No longer true (if it ever was). Today's self-styled conservatives believe that personal responsibility is for everyone but themselves. Their actions speak far louder than your words.
Did any conservatives make a peep when the heads of the nation's banks and corporations testified about their role in the 2008 collapse and said "mistakes were made," without naming anything for which they were personally at fault?
For people with bad credit, no collateral, needing money in an emergency, they serve a purpose.
True. I don't see a need to abolish them but the 400% plus interest rates need to be put to check.
Morning Rob...I think to be fair, Tres, and Cephus make a fair point that the original loan typically for a two week period is written for interest of $15 per $100 borrowed, So in a monthly model assuming that the original $100 is rolled over one time, that would equal an interest rate of 30% on that $100. Not horrible for someone with destroyed credit to get money lent to them. However, where I have a problem, is with the qualification process, and with the disclosure on how to get out of the loan. Also, I don't any longer think that abolishing this type of service to poor communities is a bad thing, but I do still think that the number of "roll overs" per se needs to be addressed.
Yep, plenty....
Any public figures among them? Any who actually tried to press charges?
Besides against Fannie and Freddie, please. . . :roll:
True. I don't see a need to abolish them but the 400% plus interest rates need to be put to check.
what is a reasonable interest rate to make it worthwhile to place cash in the hands of the least financially trustworthy members of our society?
what is a reasonable interest rate to make it worthwhile to place cash in the hands of the least financially trustworthy members of our society?
here's reality: they are all of one boxYou are classing all in one box. I would say many are the working poor, a sudden expense, car, medical comes up and where can they go.
The ones that do not pay back are not able to use the services, and i would assume reported to some credit agency, which they all use.
To find the default rate, rate of return for the companies, they would need access to their books.
All business incurs a risk. Hard to justify risk for raping the desperate of their future paychecks at 400%. What's reasonable. Dunno. I know that that is clearly unreasonable.
here's reality: they are all of one box
that box is labeled 'the most financially risky prospective borrowers who exist'
if they were not so labelled they would have access to alternative credit at a more favorable interest rate
these are signature loans. if they had collateral, they could have pawned those assets for quick cash ... which also indicates these debtors to be judgment-proof
servicing and collecting these payday loans is going to be MUCH more difficult than recovering any less risky portfolio of loans
this pool of borrowers has already demonstrated that they are a huge risk as debtors
causing the cost of servicing/collecting those outstanding debts to be very expensive
and the charge offs, where recovery is found not to be cost effective, is also going to be enormous when compared to any other group of borrowers
so, the lender will eat a substantial portion of the principal loaned in aggregate, and will incur high labor costs to collect those accounts that are recoverable
there is no way that someone would expose their cash to such high risk lending unless they were also going to generate a high rate of interest of offset the very high costs of such lending
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?