The people who need credit the most obviously don't have any. Insisting that the only alternative to missing payments is with obscene-interest loans is like a doctor giving you the option of dying or sticking you with leeches.
The money has to come from somewhere and the interest rate is based on risk. If someone doesn't have any credit, it's most likely because they have no income or had credit and defaulted. This is high risk and should have a high risk accordingly.
The other question is, why can't they get credit from a bank?
I could get a $5000 line of credit at 18 years old..and I had no connections, a low-paying job, and no credit history. The only way you can't get credit is if you continue to misuse the system and become a risk to everyone.
We should be investing in more financial education.
> We should be investing in more financial education.
There would be no payday loans (smallish quantities of cash for short periods) without commensurately high interest rates. There's a very real risk of default, and smaller amounts of cash are not economical to process. (Have yet to see one that allows you to borrow <$100)
Put another way, imagine you're a VC type and want to disrupt payday loans. You do this by loaning money at more reasonable APRs - say something like 15%. On a one week loan at $300, your profit isn't even 25c. Even with economies of scale, even with all the automation and tech SV can muster, this operation won't even pay its own infrastructure bills. One default and you've wiped out weeks of profit.
Removing the option removes a useful and occasionally necessary tool for emergencies.
High interest rates are not automatically abusive just because you'd like them to be.
It's extremely profitable as an industry, if not on margin, on volume.
If it were so risky, they'd not be in it. They're making out very very well.
"Get $300, pay it back plus $30 a week later" is much more relatable. And isn't a bad deal, when you need cash now. Think medical, car impound, etc.
"Missing a payment" isn't even a thing you can have happen on most classes of payday loan. You have to provide a pay stub, and a post-dated check, and the money just gets taken out on the day of.
Regarding leeches: http://www.livescience.com/203-maggots-leeches-medicine.html - when the options are lose a foot or put a couple of sanitary bugs on it, I'll pick the leeches every time :)
That doesn't prevent missing payments; if it did, the risk profile on payday loans would be much different than it is and the costs would be much lower, in line with other, lower-risk, loans that exist in the market. There are several reasons why it is possible to miss the expected payment even with the paystub + postdated check approach.
(1) There's no guarantee that the next paycheck will be the same size as the previous one, particularly with the population (largely not salaried, often without paid leave available, and often with little job security) that needs payday loans.
(2) There's no guarantee that someone else won't reach into the account and take money before the payday lender gets it (including the bank itself, which absolutely will beat anyone presenting a check if there are fees, etc., due.)
(3) Its possible to cash/deposit paychecks other places than the account on which the postdated check is drawn, and people might do so if they have another unexpected expense, and decide paying that is more important than paying the loan.
We don't think about any other product like that. Do you consider your tv cheaper if you pay for it over a year rather than at purchase? Of course not...
It's a comparative figure, which is particularly important for underscoring the consequences of owing money in the long term.
> "Get $300, pay it back plus $30 a week later" is much more relatable.
That's certainly OK to show in the UK, you just also have to show the APR.
> And isn't a bad deal, when you need cash now.
Assuming you can pay pack $330 next week and don't need to borrow $330 to pay $363 the week after...
> "Missing a payment" isn't even a thing you can have happen on most classes of payday loan. You have to provide a pay stub, and a post-dated check, and the money just gets taken out on the day of.
Again in the UK, but this is certainly possible. A post dated cheque can bounce, and should never be given out in the first place (you can cash them at any time).
But it's not comparative -- in e.g. mortgages, they separate out costs (e.g. "closing costs", PMI, inspection) that should rightly count towards the effective interest rate [1]. If they did the same for payday loans, they could (reasonably IMHO) break out the (far more legit) processing costs -- say, $5 in labor, $5 (amortized) for overhead like security, and then you're paying more like $20 for "interest" if you measured by the same basis as a mortgage.
[1] For example, if they loan you $300k for the home at 5% but require $3000 in such costs, then they've really loaned you $297k at ~5.05%.
http://www.ybs.co.uk/mortgages/mortgage-glossary.html
> Overall cost for comparison
> APR (Annual Percentage Rate) - This is a figure which all lenders must quote when referring to mortgages. It is designed to show the total yearly cost of a mortgage stated as a percentage of the loan. It includes items such as the interest rate payable at the start of the mortgage and after the initial rate period has ended, Mortgage Application Processing Fee, Product Fee, Valuation Fee and Mortgage Fee. It is the overall cost for comparison purposes. This figure is intended to help customers to compare the overall cost of different loans.
I'm not sure what mortgage and title insurance are, perhaps they're more US specific things.
External costs (solicitors, taxes like stamp duty, etc) are not included in the figure.
It's a tough area, because they can be extremely useful, but the exact same product can be a lifesaver or an anchor depending on who's using it. And naturally people who are most strenuously for or against tend to focus on the aspect which favors their argument.