Home > Personal Finance > Regulating Non-Traditional Lending: 3 Suggestions

Comments 0 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


Nontraditional lending is booming — payday, bill-pay and auto-title loans for consumers; merchant advances and unsecured loans for small businesses — it now represents hundreds of billions of dollars worth of click-through credit for tens of millions of borrowers each year.

There’s a reason for that.

According to an FDIC survey, nearly one-third of all U.S. households are either unbanked (having no relationship with any bank) or underbanked (having limited eligibility for traditional banking products and services). Small businesses are also fast becoming alternative financial services (AFS) converts as many continue to have difficulties accessing traditional credit products.

AFS loans are typically smaller in size and they remain outstanding for only brief periods of time — from a few days to several months. As such, the amount of interest-related dollars that lenders are able to earn is limited. Often the loans are also unsecured (uncollateralized), which means they would have little if any recourse should the borrower default.

So the alternative lenders’ dilemma is: how to charge enough to keep the lights on and their benefactors (venture capitalists and private equity firms) happy without squandering the goodwill of their customers, and of course, running afoul of the law.

Fortunately for the AFS lenders, the financial stars and planets are perfectly aligned at this time: interest rates are low, yield-hungry investors are abundant, regulatory oversight is slight, and statutory usury limits vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Despite that, some have decided to reach for more.

Is the Cost of AFS Loans Justified?

These loans are often structured in ways that encourage debtors to re-borrow the same amount or more soon after—a practice known as round-tripping. Loan costs are also typically divided into components of interest rates and fees – amounts that may seem modest when compared with the small amounts being financed. For example, a one-month loan that carries a 5 percent rate of interest plus 15 percent in fees is actually the equivalent of borrowing at a more than 200 percent annual rate of interest.

The reason for the split-pricing approach is this: interest is interest and fees are, well, something else. And because the fees are something else, the prevailing view is that they should fall outside the purview of the state regulators and their usury calculations, which means: the sky’s the limit.

Increasingly, however, states are taking a closer look at these tactics. In fact, some have begun to take forceful issue with companies they believe to be engaged in deceptive and predatory practices.

But the reality is, AFS loans do cost more to transact and they do carry more risk. So the rates arguably should be higher than for larger denomination loans to more creditworthy borrowers. But how much is too much, and how can borrowers be better protected from unscrupulous loan companies?

Tackling the Issues With AFS Lending

In a recent interview, Richard Cordray, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spoke about the difficulties federal agencies face in regulating entities that are subject to a state-by-state patchwork of conflicting usury limits.

He’s right and perhaps these three suggestions will assist in curtailing some of the more abusive practices.

To start, lenders that operate in multiple states should be federally regulated. Their loan products should be properly described, rates and terms fully disclosed and all of them compliant with newly enhanced consumer and small business protections. Those that exclusively operate in a single state should be similarly regulated by that state.

Lenders should be compelled to express the cost of their products in Annual Percentage Rate (APR) format — a methodology that translates interest rates and fees into a single metric — so that prospective borrowers will be able to compare and contrast rates and terms more easily. The calculation should also reflect how the taking of a security deposit and/or the premature commencement of a loan will negatively impact interest.

Finally, these APRs should become the universal standard for setting all statutory usury limits as they pertain to small-denomination loans for consumers and small businesses alike.

As long as universal access to fairly priced and reasonably structured credit remains elusive, borrowers who are unable to qualify for a better deal will pursue alternative solutions. The key is to keep the greed in check and the financing channels open. Sensible regulations that are assiduously overseen would help.

This is an op-ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily reflect the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: iStockphoto

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team