4 ms·
I think microlending is loan sharking by another name, and that's a good thing. I'm not a libertarian but you still need to consider that outlawing something vo
by netcan 13y ago
I think microlending is loan sharking by another name, and that's a good thing. I'm not a libertarian but you still need to consider that outlawing something voluntarily or even just singling it out as a pariah has tricky effects. It often harms those who are ostensibly being protected.
A few years ago Australian politicians started targeting 'payday loans' and other "predatory lenders." The upshot was that these weasels target vulnerable borrowers with 100%+ APR loans, who are ultimately harmed. 'Vulnerable' is hard to define or measure. Harm is virtually impossible. 'Predatory terms' (interest rates) were the only easy of defining and singling out these guys. Legally it seems to have been hard to target predatory lending so name-and-shame was the main tactic .
A typical loan is a few hundred dollars payable in a few weeks. The ideal borrower goes down a revolving credit hole. For a class-minded political activist this screams evil. It's like the middle class debt trap, beefed up and tailored for the poor and/or dysfunctional. The marketing targets addicts, gamblers, welfare recipients, etc. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The first thing that happened when all this negative attention came about is that banks got out of anything even similar to payday loans. No point in tarnishing their brand for a tiny unattractive business. The guys who stayed in business were the scummiest, the ones who didn't care about brand and didn't care about their business. It became like running a brothel, legal but unsavory. The industry boomed as more legitimate businesses ceded market share to the shadier players.
Realistically, there are two facts that can't be wished away. High risk, low value loans are expensive to provide. People want/need payday loans and they will get them from whoever is giving them. It can't be done at non "predatory" APRs and it can't be shut down. If they had outright outlawed payday loans, then shady businesses would have given way to outright criminals, the leg breaking loanshark cliche.
In comes micro-finance. Nobel peace prize winning, poverty alleviating, enlightened, woman emancipating microfinance. These ran with a lot of support. They attracted great people at far under-market salaries. Motivated employees with a mission and received outright donations from the public. Major banks created microfinance programs as a part of their corporate responsibility, goodwill project.
These amount to a real and substantial summary. Annualized interest rates are still very high. Lower than payday loans and much lower than village lenders and loan sharks they displace but higher than the worst credit card.
Two ends of the spectrum. One on the border region of legality below the decent folk morality threshold. The other, literally a charitable activity.
Interesting to think about. Make something illegal and it runs as a criminal enterprise. Treat it as a predatory pariah and it behaves like a predatory pariah. Treat it as a charitable act, and it behaves that way. In no case does it go away.
- jusben1369 13y agoOn the flip side if you regulated the outsized returns down to a more reasonable size then that would legitimize the business and dissuade the scummy sharks (who are drawn in by the outsized interest). Was that not proposed?
- nemothekid 13y agoThe problem with that is, unless you are running a charity and you are expected to lose money year over year, regulating the returns is just not sustainable. Despite the fact the interest rates are so high, payday loans are not a very profitable business. The reason the interest rates are so high is because they are rarely paid (expectedly). Most of the payday loan companies in the US have profit margins on 6%. Compare that to legitimate banks who have 30-40% margins. Any tighter restrictions would wipe away what little margins they have. Chances are if you did regulate them, it would be same as outlawing them. Legitimate businesses wouldn't be able to keep the lights on, leaving the entire business once again to criminals.
- aestra 13y ago??? Charities aren't expected to lose money. If they did, it wouldn't be sustainable. They are expected to make a small profit, otherwise they wouldn't last. I'd also like to see some sources behind those number. As far as I know you just pulled them out of your ass. Around here there are many payday loan places that advertise on TV with celebrity spokespeople. If they weren't making a big profit, I don't know how they could afford it.
- nemothekid 13y agoI looked into all this roughly two months ago when a user in the financial industry responded to Elizabeth Warren's proposal for the government to handle payday loans. Here he outlines why they don't work - http://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/1wygov/elizabeth_warren_proposes_replacing_payday/cf7tgns http://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/1wygov/elizabet... The next reply goes into their cost effectiveness - http://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/1wygov/elizabeth_warren_proposes_replacing_payday/cf7ukod http://www.reddit.com/r/progressive/comments/1wygov/elizabet... Now if you don't want to believe "some user on Reddit", take into account that those "payday loan places that advertise on TV" are also publicly traded companies. Here is EZPAY's public info at Yahoo Finance - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EZPW+Key+Statistics http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EZPW+Key+Statistics, their return was only 5.60%. Heres where I got that 6%/30% number: https://www.qcholdings.com/mythsaboutlending.aspx https://www.qcholdings.com/mythsaboutlending.aspx