Friday, May 25

Oswego Lake Access Issue Heads to Federal Court

Lawsuit says the city has a responsibility to “protect and preserve the public’s right of access to and use of the Lake.”

News A federal judge may decide if Oswego Lake is open to the public. A lawsuit filed this morning in U.... More

May 24, 2012 01:16 pm by Martin Cizmar  | Comments 7
 

Oregonian's Sister Paper To Cease Daily Publication; Updated

News In another sign of the difficult financial realities for print newspapers, the New Orleans Times-Pic... More

May 24, 2012 09:20 am by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 1
 

Oregon Senators Back Bill Aimed At Citizens United

News Speaking of money in politics… U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is among those speaking on the Senate... More

May 23, 2012 11:08 am by Corey Pein  | Comments 0
 

Schools Miss Out on $40 Million in Energy Savings

News An audit by the State of Oregon has found school districts missed out on $40 million of potential en... More

May 22, 2012 03:10 pm by CODY NEWTON  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · News · Rich Man, Poor Man:
March 15th, 2006 NIGEL JAQUISS | News
 

Rich Man, Poor Man:

The People Behind Oregon's Hottest Growth Industry.

20 Comments
     
Tags:
Luanne Stoltz and Maryann Olson share some things in common: Both are white women in their 50s who live in Portland and have undergone career changes. And both have taken advantage of Oregon's freewheeling payday-loan business. In fact, without payday loans, neither woman would be where she is today.

The similarities stop there.

Stoltz, 53, taught math at Aloha High for 20 years. Seven years ago, she retired from teaching and began making payday loans. Now, she owns two stores called Anyday's Payday, on Southwest Barbur Boulevard and Southeast 82nd Avenue. Stoltz also owns a Jaguar and lives in a West Hills home worth nearly $1 million.

Stoltz is a leader of one of Oregon's fastest-growing industries—making short-term loans to people with few financial options.

State figures show that the number of payday-loan stores in the state has doubled, to 365, in the past five years. Much of that growth has come from out-of-state companies flocking to Oregon, where, unlike in many other states, there is no cap on the interest rates lenders can charge.

For instance, Advance America of Spartanburg, S.C., which is the nation's largest payday lender with 2,598 shops, had no presence in Oregon in 2002. But, by the end of 2004, Advance America owned 42 payday stores here.

All told, in 2004 (the latest year for which the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services has figures), the state's payday lenders made 768,123 loans.

That's about one loan for every three Oregonians between the ages of 18 and 65 and nearly three times the number payday lenders made here in 1999.

Clearly, that demand exists for payday loans. "Customers thank me every day for the service we offer," Stoltz says. "It's really a very satisfying business."

Olson's experience leads her to a different conclusion.

A former nurse, Olson, 58, now lives in an adult foster home in the Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhood in outer Southeast Portland with four others.

She hobbles awkwardly with the help of a walker and special shoes that cost more than $200. She says multiple sclerosis has twisted her feet, making one leg an inch and a half shorter than the other, and prevented her from working since 1986.

Two years ago, Olson's custom shoes wore out. She says she could not afford another pair. Nor could she borrow from friends or family. With no income other than a $643 monthly Social Security disability payment, she had few options. "Nobody wants to lend somebody like me money," Olson says. "I understand that."

Nobody except payday lenders.

Olson then did what many payday borrowers do—she connected the bright neon signs offering easy money with her own dire straits.

Here's how she descended into what critics of payday lending call a "spiral of debt."

In January 2005, Olson says, she went to Rapid Cash at Southeast 122nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard and asked to borrow $150. She signed a promissory note and handed over a check postdated for two weeks later for $176.76—the original amount plus interest. That amounts to an initial annual percentage rate of 465 percent—although the rate would climb with penalties.

After two weeks, when the $176.76 check was supposed to be cashed, Olson says she did not have the money in the bank, so she paid another $25 to extend the loan for another two weeks. Two more times, she did the same thing. That meant that after six weeks she had paid $101.76 for the use of the original $150. "Every time I wanted to get rid of the loan, something else came up," Olson says.

At the end of three extensions or "roll-overs," Olson had to pay up. So she did what a lot of payday borrowers do: She went to another payday lender to pay off Rapid Cash. When Olson exhausted her three roll-overs at the second lender, she found a third. And later, a fourth and a fifth and a sixth. "I paid some of them off, but then I had to keep borrowing to pay off the old ones," Olson says.

Eventually, Olson says, she ended up owing six payday lenders nearly $1,900, all for one pair of shoes.

Olson admits she did not pay attention to the rate she was paying at first. "Being desperate as I was for the shoes, I wasn't as concerned about the rate as I should have been," she says. "Not until this got out of control did I really look at the forms."

In the end, the money Olson borrowed on her first payday loan cost her 12 times what she originally borrowed.

Olson's experience may be worse than most but is hardly unprecedented. A study done last year by the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group found that when all the fees are included, the average annual percentage rate for payday loans in Portland is more than 500 percent.

Stoltz does not dispute such calculations, although she and other payday lenders say it is misleading to represent the cost of a short-term loan on an annual percentage rate because borrowers typically don't keep the money for more than a few weeks—an argument critics say is irrelevant.

"It's absolutely ridiculous," says Angela Martin, a public-policy advocate for the Oregon Food Bank. "The use of annual percentage rates allows consumers to compare the costs of different types of borrowing and is the most basic tenet of fair lending practices."

Some people might argue that payday lenders charge exorbitant interest rates because the risk of lending to people with poor credit histories is great. That risk-reward calculation is the reason people who have previously declared bankruptcy often pay far higher interest on credit-card debt than do those with good credit.

Yet statistics collected by the state show that payday borrowers nearly always pay their debts.

In 2004, for instance, state figures show that payday lenders collected on about 96 percent of the loans they made in Oregon—which means the payday borrowers default at about the same rate at those with college loans (4.2 percent, according to federal Department of Education figures) even though they pay interest rates 50 to 100 times higher.

Nonetheless, Stoltz says the focus should be on the service that payday lenders provide rather than interest rates. Borrowers would not have signed up for nearly three-quarters of a million payday loans last year, she says, if they were unhappy with the product.

Others have a different view.

Groups ranging from OSPIRG and the Oregon Food Bank to Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, the labor union SEIU and Our Oregon, a union-backed workers'-rights group (all of whom are teaming up on a proposed statewide ballot measure that would, amont other restrictions, cap annual interest rates at 36 percent) have criticized an industry they say exploits people who have no alternatives.

Many other states, including Washington and California, have capped interest rates or applied various restrictions. Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, have recently driven payday lenders out altogether.

Periodically over the past decade, elected officials in Oregon, mostly in the Legislature, have tried to rein in payday lenders. But in the past couple of months, local officials have gone after the industry with the zeal of collection agents.

Two weeks ago, the Portland City Council voted to place some of the first real restrictions on the industry in Oregon, including giving borrowers a 24-hour window to cancel their loans and allowing the establishment of payment plans instead of the current all-or-nothing repayment system. (Local officials lack the legal authority to cap interest rates.)

Gresham passed an identical measure last week, and Troutdale will soon consider a similar resolution. Even Oregon House Speaker Karen Minnis (R-Wood Village) seems to have gotten religion.

Minnis faces a tough re-election battle in an East County district chock-full of payday lenders. Democrats blame her for killing anti-payday legislation last session, but she is now making noises about addressing payday loans in a special legislative session.

Minnis gets more payday loan-related political contributions than any other lawmaker, according to the Oregon Money In Politics Research Action Project. Her spokesman, Chuck Deister, says the speaker is acting now to bring a statewide solution rather than a crazy quilt of local rules. He adds that payday contributions have not influenced his boss. "Nobody has purchased the speaker's vote," Deister says.

Rather than wading too far into what promises to be a bruising political fight, WW decided to take a closer look at situations of the people who are on both sides of the fight: the lenders and the borrowers.

BORROWING TROUBLE

The rise of payday lending in Oregon parallels an increasing reliance on the Oregon Food Bank, which distributes emergency food boxes containing a three- to five-day supply of food to those in need.

SOURCES: OREGON FOOD BANK: OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS SERVICES


In 2004, the principal amount of the average payday loan in Oregon was $335, according to the state Department of Consumer and Business Services.

The Oregon Food Bank is working closely with payday borrowers who need help. The Food Bank hotline for payday loans is (800) 777-7427, ext 230.

Car-title lending, another avenue to quick, expensive cash, is far less common than payday lending. In 2004, Oregonians took out only 22,350 such loans, according to state figures.

At least 27 states have placed some kind of interest-rate cap on payday lenders, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
03.14.2006 at 11:00 Reply
Rich Man, Poor Man:The real problem here is that nobody is teaching people financial responsibility. One would think that parents should teach their children these matters, but like cigarettes; parents who smoke have children who smoke. The schools are the obvious choice for teaching finances, but unfortunately with "No child left behind" there isn't any initiative to teach anything useful. Like financial responsibility.—Responsible Doug

 

03.14.2006 at 11:00 Reply
Rich Man, Poor Man:"Two years ago, Olson's custom shoes wore out. She says she could not afford another pair. Nor could she borrow from friends or family. With no income other than a $643 monthly Social Security disability payment, she had few options. "Nobody wants to lend somebody like me money," Olson says. "I understand that."Friends and family would not loan her the money for her custom shoes? Obviously they felt there was too much risk! So the nice payday loan company took a chance. She kept their money for months depriving them of the ability to make other use of their money. When adults borrow money they must pay it back in a timely fashion. Had she paid the money back two weeks later, it would have cost her $26.76; seems reasonable to millions of existing payday loan consumers.The media, regulators, and the consumer affairs protectionists need to wake up! Consumers want short term, quick and easy loans.Finally, North Carolina and Georgia regulators performed no favors for the residents of their states. They banned a product used by hundreds of thousands of consumers, threw thousands of payday loan company employees into the unemployment lines, and forced their constituents to use offshore call centers and payday loan Internet web sites! Now some company in Costa Rica has all their personal information-including their social security number!And let us not forget, the real reason the payday loan product was banned in Georgia is because GILA (Georgia Industrial Loan Association) did not want their high interest loan products to have to compete against the payday loan product!If we could simply allow the consumer to determine what products make sense and allow competition to determine price, 800% APR's would not exist.Jerry Ayles—Jerry Ayles

 

03.14.2006 at 11:00 Reply
Rich Man, Poor Man:I would like to know if Maryann Olson paid off her $1,900 debt. Your story doesn't say. Perhaps I can give her some money--not all of it--to help pay off the debt. Please let me know! —Bruce A. Bornholdt, Attorney at Law

 

03.14.2006 at 11:00 Reply
Rich Man, Poor Man:Usury is usury, and those lenders will find a special place in hell awaiting them when they die.—Foodstamp Fanny

 

03.14.2006 at 11:00 Reply
Rich Man, Poor Man:People who want to ban payday lending are against freedom. They want to make it illegal for one person to say to another, "I will lend you $100 today if you will pay me back $101 tomorrow."Merchants should not be told by the government how much they can charge for their products or services (unless, of course, we're talking about a company that has received government assistance so it can be the only one that supplies an important service to a community, i.e. a cable tv company).If you go into business, do you want the government telling you how much you can charge for each product you sell or each service you perform? This is an important principle and even if you wish you could get payday loans cheaper you should oppose the regulations that have been implemented in Georgia and North Carolina, because if we let them get away with that they'll keep trying to regulate everything that anyone can say or do.These "reforms" are being instigated by "consumer activists" and politicans who, in my opinion, basically want to make a name for themselves as defenders of the poor, while they take away what is in many cases the best option that low-income people currently have.The dishonesty of these people is seen in the tactics that they use. First, they convert payday loan fees into an annual percentage rate (APR) and complain about the "triple-digit interest rates," but this is a completely unscientific way to analyze the situation. This can be seen very clearly by the following example:Someone whom you don't know comes to you and says, "I have an emergency and need to borrow $100 today which I can pay you back when I get paid tomorrow. I'll pay you back $101 so you'll make a profit. We'll sign a contract and you can call my employer to verify my employment and you can also check my references. Unfortunately I can't use a credit card to borrow the money because I have bad credit."Now would you go through the trouble of entering into a contract and checking references - and risk losing $100 - to help this person with bad credit, for just a $1 potential profit? I very much doubt it. But if you were a saint and did decide to help this person, you could then be accused of being a predatory loan shark according to the arguments that payday loan critics make, in attacking the livelihood and impugning the reputations of payday lenders, because that would be a 365% APR.This example clearly shows that translating short-term loan fees into an APR is unfair, unscientific, and absolutely misleading.Then the critics refer to payday lenders as loan sharks, which is completely untrue because loan sharks are people who threaten their clientele with violence if they don't pay back the loans. Payday lenders of course do nothing of the kind.They like to talk about "predatory lending," but this is an inaccurate and unfair analogy because a predator, obviously, is a creature that leaves its prey no choice, whereas payday lenders don't force anything on anyone and for the most part are honest and upfront about the deal they are offering.Why do payday lenders charge as much as they do? For the same reason that dogs lick their genitalia - because they can. They're human beings who want to earn a good living just like we all do and like all merchants they charge what the market will bear. And the reason that the free market hasn't brought payday loan prices down, ironically, is because it's a fairly new industry and the critics, accusing payday lenders of being loan sharks and inspiring politicians to create unfair regulations, are keeping new companies and people from entering the business. If the free market should work anywhere it's in the field of small loans because it's a simple business that very many people can enter with little specialized knowledge or equipment. On the Internet now you can get payday loans for as little as $10 per $100 borrowed, which is considerably less than the maximum rate that many states, in regulating the industry, have set.Sure, some people get themselves into trouble with payday loans. Some people also get themselves into trouble with wine, fast food, sweets, and lots of other good things that can be misused and abused by foolish people. But we don't make it illegal for people to sell and buy these things, we just realize that foolish people have to learn from their mistakes.Payday loan critics can help these people without calling for authoritarian legislation that makes it a crime for one person to say to another, "I'll lend you $100 today if you pay me back $101 tomorrow." They can warn people to stay away from the most expensive lenders (and those that won't let people pay a portion of the amount due on payday if they can't pay the whole amount) and steer them to cheaper companies. They can go into the business and charge less. They can lobby the government to offer cheap payday loans. They can push for legislation that ensures the signer of a payday loan contract is well aware of all the major terms of the agreement and that prohibits all kinds of deceptive advertising (if such legislation isn't already in place). But authoritarian legislation that eradicates the freedom of a merchant to choose the fee he charges for his services - and the freedom of a consumer to decide what services he wants to employ - is NOT the answer and will create more problems than it solves.For more information see the article "In Defense of Payday Lending" by Tom Lehman, Assistant Professor of Economics at Indiana Wesleyan University, which can be read at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=454Also, in accordance with their article at:http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/14072984.htm?source=rss&channel=thestate_businessTheState.com has a poll on the payday loan issue:http://forums.thestate.com/kr-surveys/Messages/?msg=41Should South Carolina follow North Carolina's lead in restricting payday lenders?Yes 188 votes (7%)No 2641 votes (93%) I hope North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who separheaded the fight to evict payday lenders from the state, loses his reelection bid in November over this issue. That would teach ambitious politicans and muddlesome meddling "consumer activists" to leave the free market alone.—Jon Schultz

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close