= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

How Do You Reinvent the Payday Loan? Scrap It

Recently, American Banker's Jeanine Skowronski asked an important question that is on the mind of consumer advocates, borrowers, bankers, entrepreneurs and policymakers alike: Can the payday loan be reinvented?

As advocates opposed to payday loans, we have been worried about the new players that have been entering the payday lending market. From entrepreneurs to online lenders to big banks, payday lending seems to be the darling of profiteers as of late.

Traditional payday loans offered at corner stores can cost customers up to a 429% annual percentage rate on a two week loan, according to the State of California's Department of Corporations. Most borrowers need to take out another payday loan to pay off the last one, immediately landing them in a cycle of debt. A few banks offer direct deposit advance products that are structured exactly the same way as storefront payday loans, albeit at a slightly lower, but still triple digit APR.

Startups in this space are not changing the structure of these loans either. Rates listed on the website indicate LendUp, at its most affordable charges a 214.13% APR, meaning that the customer must pay back $294 for a 30 day loan of $250. Similarly, the most affordable Spotloan product requires that a customer pay back $52 every two weeks for eight months to pay off a $300 loan, for a grand total of $832.Yes, the cost to the consumer is lower than a storefront payday loan, but is that the standard we should be using?

Any short-term, high-cost, lump sum payment loan guarantees repeat business from borrowers because the populations who are using these products will not make back the income they need to pay them off in one pay period, or two, or three. In fact, most borrowers go through nine payday cycles before they can pay off one of these loans. Vulnerable populations are targeted, and they end up using these products because they have no other choice when faced with income shortfalls.

Skowronski's article details the ways new players are seeking to drive down the cost of payday products using big data. Why are there so many new players in this relatively outdated field? Because payday lending has become increasingly profitable for both storefront payday lenders and banks since the economic recession threw millions of more people into lower income strata.

The efforts from startups to drive down the costs of payday lending might be more effective in the long run, but it seems that there is another question underlying the one posed by Skowronski: How can the banking and financial services industry responsibly serve consumers who are living on small income margins?

No one can refute the legitimate need for small-dollar credit in low and moderate income communities across the country. There are already models out there. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has already tested small-dollar loans under $2,500 lent at a maximum of a 36% APR and paid back over 90 days or more. These loans were found to be feasible for both borrowers and lenders, had a default risk similar to other types of unsecured credit and helped the lenders build and retain profitable, long-term relationships with consumers. The model can be and has been replicated on small scales across the country. As such, the question of what loan terms will work is moot. Instead, what remains to be seen is what loan terms lenders will agree to offer these consumers.

The bottom line is the underserved suffer from cash flow deficits that are a reflection of low wages and an ever increasing cost of living. The major socioeconomic factors contributing to these trends merit separate public policy approaches and regulatory changes that are not necessarily in the purview of the products offered by financial institutions. However, if these institutions are going to target this market and they want to do so responsibly, they need to provide small-dollar products that spread the cost of an income shortfall over a period of time and at an affordable cost of a 36% APR. The traditional payday loan structure should not be the standard by which innovation in this credit space is measured.

Liana Molina and Andrea Luquetta are with the California Reinvestment Coalition, a consumer advocacy group.



(8) Comments



Comments (8)
I believe competition to "payday loans" is a better alternative to "scrapping" payday loans altogether. Payday loans can be helpful when used responsibly. Competition will bring down the rates, fees, etc. I was unaware of the "FDIC small dollar loan project", but have come up with a patented (US 8,135,640)solution that meets the small dollar loan template objectives. So I am happy to have run across the article. Thank you.
Posted by A.J. | Thursday, March 14 2013 at 12:43AM ET
TLS and ToThePoint are 100% correct. The highly subsidized FDIC small dollar loan project ( ) was a complete failure. Read their final report. It's the old story of mis-stating facts often enough and they become believable; at least to those of us too lazy to do the work.
Jer Trihouse
Posted by Jer - Trihouse Consulting | Monday, March 04 2013 at 11:23PM ET
Getting rid of the industry isn't going to help anyone participating. The people getting in trouble need better financial awareness, because there should more, and not less, access to credit. If we are choosing to dispose of the payday lending industry over a few controversies then Wall Street should be disposed of, as well.
Posted by medenaud | Monday, February 18 2013 at 8:26PM ET
Let me join in TLS post with the observation that the authors have blantantly mistated the FDIC small dollar loan project.

The project, whose principal objective was to show that small dollar loans could be made at 36% APR or less and then dropped in the final report because it failed on that point,demonstrated that banks could not acheive either scale or profitability, even when they moved the top range from $1,000 to $2,500.

The project was a progressive advocacy objective forced unto banks through the FDIC's COME-In that is heavily weighted with non-profit advocates and community activists.

These groups are now using the American Banker name and this article to promote this incorrect information to further their campaign against commerically sustainable lenders.
Posted by tothepoint | Thursday, February 14 2013 at 10:06AM ET
The authors are poorly informed. There has not been a successful 36% APR small dollar lending program that has not been subsidized or part of a CRA program. The default rate on these short term, small dollar loans are so high that they can not be sustained. Moreover the interest on a $300 30 day loan at 36% would only be $8.37. No bank for whom I've worked can originate, underwrite, fund, track and collect that loan for such an amount, little alone pay for staff, overhead, regulatory compliance and taxes.

I wish one day these advocate groups would pool their money and originate loans as they propose without subsidies or grants. Perhaps after they have they have gone through the process of operating a financial institution and meet the myriad demands upon them, they could come to us with wisdom and experience.

PS. Without needing to refute all the authors' false assertions, in California, it is illegal to renew a payday loan. Loans must be paid off in full prior to a new loan being originated.
Posted by NWFinServ | Wednesday, February 13 2013 at 6:59PM ET
In an ideal world I would love to see these companies outlawed, but as this is not an ideal world there will always be people who are so desperate for money that they will borrow it from anyone who will lend it to them. At least with payday loans there is some sort of contract and regulation. Better that then people go to a loan shark who will threaten physical violence to a person's family if the loan is not paid.
Posted by tommy0 | Wednesday, February 13 2013 at 9:52AM ET
Why is it that people like the authors, who oppose payday loans, want to kill them? They talk about the FDIC Small Dollar Loan product, yet few of these loans have actually been made. That's because they don't meet the consumers' needs. Both products are in the marketplace, yet consumers keep choosing payday loans of their own free will. So naturally, their idea is to....scrap them? How does that help? These people never seem to think this stuff through.
Posted by Clark Reilly | Wednesday, February 13 2013 at 1:30AM ET
Great article! This would be a great way for banks to regain trust with their customers and with out country.

What if Wells Fargo led the way and said it would cap it's direct deposit payday loans at 38% APR? They'd still make money, wouldn't be putting poor people into even deeper cycles of poverty, and would restore some trust in banking institutions.
Posted by SPC | Tuesday, February 12 2013 at 1:25PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.