Thank you for visiting Credit Access Business.com !

Thank you for visiting Credit Access Business.com !

by The CAB Man Texas on August 1, 2011

Are you a Texas CSO that is hungry for more information on the new license you’ll need by January?  You’ll need to evolve your CSO into the OCCC’s “Credit Access Business” model and we want to assist you in doing so.

Michael Brown may have contacted you or will be contacting you in regards to our Credit Access Business services.  Our areas of focus are Compliance, Capital, and Collections.

CAB Consulting and Brokerage Goals:

#1 – Learn more about your business and its unique needs.

#2 – Create a step by step plan to get to you compliant.

#2 – Provide you with options for operating Capital and 3rd Party Lenders.

#3 – Improve your Collections processes, and buy your Bad Debt.

We recently attended the OCCC stakeholder meetings and Austin and are informed on what is to come.  CAB Consulting and Brokerage is contacting CSO’s in Texas right now to share what we know, learn their needs, and discuss how we may be of service.

Please contact Michael Brown at 214-293-8676 to learn more today.  Or, email Michael at cabconbrokerage@gmail.com.

Thank you again for visiting Credit Access Business.com!

 

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Next post:

The infamous and continuously failing Texas Payday Loan City Ordinance.

The infamous and continuously failing Texas Payday Loan City Ordinance.

by The CAB Man Texas on August 22, 2017

Since Texas cities began passing the infamous and continuously failing Texas Payday Loan City Ordinance there has been a decrease of 1,300 or so licensed locations inside the State.  According to the most recent OCCC licensee totals, this represents a 37% market shrink.  The results have been a shuttering of businesses in Texas, a loss of thousands jobs, a loss of real estate rents, and decrease in property tax revenues.  Rates have increased 12% in Ordinance cities and demand for unsecured short term credit has largely remained the same.  This is a cold hard truth that was laid out in City Council meetings when we were asking for a “No” vote on the Ordinance.  Is an “I told you so” in order here?

2017 has been a rough year for the Ordinance though, many cities are now bucking the trend and have voted the Ordinance down.  As well, the City of Austin got the double slam-dunk in their simultaneous loss to Speedy Cash and Advance America City Ordinance lawsuits in April.  Those two cases were around a year in the making I wonder if the taxpayers of Austin feel good about the time and expense the City put into an issue that results in a .000153% complaint to loan ratio for Texas residents?  I live in Austin and things are tight budget-wise in this City, despite all the stories you hear about growth it has some problems that should be commanding the attention of city leadership other than the payday industry.

So here comes the next whammee – I was reading over the OCCC’s 1st quarter MSA report for 2017 and it says that 10 of the 2,200 reporting licensees generated 33% of the single payment loan volume, and get this, those 10 licensees were OUT OF STATE!  As far as installment loans go in Texas, 16 OUT OF STATE licensees funded over 37% of the 271,189 installment loan and refinance transactions in the 1st quarter of 2017.  Yes, these are out of state online lending companies who are licensed to do business in Texas but are not within the jurisdiction of any City.  That makes them free to let the market decide and boy did the market ever decide.  On either of the products mentioned – the out of state licensee group was the largest “market” in Texas.  The next biggest markets down were Houston and Dallas but it wasn’t even close to the out of state operators.  Check out the report for yourself below.

Here is a link to the MSA report: http://occc.texas.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/cab-q1-msa-2017.pdf

Imagine if the Payday Loan City ordinance did not force the closure of all of those locations in Texas!  All of that businss would be taking place here in Texas.  Kudos to the online guys who are meeting the need but for obvious reasons we need to work to get those customers back!  I bet the OCCC wishes they had that extra $800,000 per year in licensing revenue.  And how about that $300,000 per year in contributions to the Texas Educational Endowment fund that is now lost?

The full ugliness of the Payday Loan City Ordinance is now beginning to show in the light.  Please pass this information along to your City Council the next time this issue comes up in your market – we are positioned to deliver the facts to them quickly and efficiently so that they can have the full story and move on to the next issue which will be much more meaningful, no doubt!

This blog post was written by Michael Brown, President of CAB Consulting and the Texas Organization of Financial Service Centers.  He can be reached at 214-293-8676, or Michael@CreditAccessBusiness.com.

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Bank Fees are rising and so is use of Alternative Financial Services – coincidence?

Bank Fees are rising and so is use of Alternative Financial Services – coincidence?

by The CAB Man Texas on August 14, 2012

I was reading this CNN Money.com article today: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/13/pf/bank-fees-rise/index.html

This is an issue that I am very familiar with and the result is more customers for Texas Credit Access Businesses.

Monthly service fees on accounts with balances below $5,000 are the banks targets for the monthly service charges, which certainly fits the low and middle income profile of the typical payday consumer. And, don’t forget that NSF and Overdraft fees at many banks are have drifted up into the $35-$40 range.

Options like pre-paid debit cards are becoming more attractive compared to the bank branch, and in many cases the pre-paid cards offer more ideal online account management and smart phone capability, all with lower monthly service charges.

Consumers are learning there are more convenient and less costly options out there, and a migration towards cutting edge alternative financial services is happening. Shape your business accordingly, get creative, and stay convenient!

I refer to the information below very often in conversations – it is published by FISCA and illustrates the real deal on banking related charges versus payday advances – the APRs are less in many cases! Be sure and have these statistics ready the next time the APR topic comes up – and then nail it.

$100 Payday Loan (14 days) = $22.88 Fee (596% APR)
$100 Overdraft Protection = $29.00 Fee (756% APR)
$100 Bounced Check = $54.87 Fees (1,431% APR)

Sources:
(1) Bankrate.com, 2007 Courtesy Overdraft Study – based on average first draft
(2) Average NSF fee $28.23 (Bankrate.com, 2007 Checking Study), based on average first NSF charge, and average merchant return check fee of $26.64 (2006 CFSA fee survey).

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Website Design to Ensure Compliance with the O.C.C.C.

Website Design to Ensure Compliance with the O.C.C.C.

by The CAB Man Texas on April 3, 2012

C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage works with Texas Credit Access Businesses on their licensing, compliance, operations, and third party lender needs. Recently they partnered with Orangebook Website Design to offer Texas CAB’s dynamic websites at a discounted price.

Per its Rules for Credit Access Businesses, the O.C.C.C. asks that certain documentation (Consumer Disclosures, Licenses, Fee Schedules, and Notices) not only be displayed in-store but also on websites through which Texas CABs advertise their services. Orangebook Website Design has been educated on the regulations and will redesign or build a new website for your business that ensures compliance in the internet marketplace.

Orangebook Website Design is offering Texas CABs a greatly reduced price for a new website build. Orangebook Website Design has reduced the list price for a 5 Page website from $975 to $745 for C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage referrals.

5 Page Features ($745)

  • Complete Custom Web Design (No Templates)
  • Home Page Flash Intro
  • Unlimited Design Revisions
  • Contact Page with Contact Form
  • Search Engine Friendly Web Site
  • Social Media Links to Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace
  • Dedicated Contact Personnel for Your Project
  • Free Online Payment Interface
  • You Own Your Web Design – Onetime Cost for Web Design

An 8 Page website originally priced at $1,540 is now reduced to $1,185 for C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage customers.

8 Page Features ($1,185)

  • All Features Listed for the 5 Page Website Design
  • Unlimited Photo Galleries
  • Video Upload
  • Unlimited Slide Shows
  • PDF File Download

Website redesigns start at $595 and include all the features of a new website build. E-Commerce Websites are available at a reduced rate of $1,775, and, in addition to all the listed features for website design, includes a Shopping Cart System.

Website Hosting services are also available through Orangebook Website Design:

Basic Hosting ($37.50 a month)

  • 24/7 Web Maintenance
  • Unlimited Changes
  • SEO
  • Contact Management System

Premier Hosting Services ($89 a month)

  • Development of a Marketing Plan
  • Organic SEO
  • Content Development
  • Web Analytics and Analysis (evaluate weekly/monthly web traffic)

Orangebook Website Design provides personal website design services and has a portfolio of current websites, which include a wide variety of industry. Contact Orangebook Website Design at 949-715-5676 to further discuss the C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage Website Design Discount.

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Can CSO-CAB’s Offer Multi-Payment Auto Title Loans for more than 180 days?

Can CSO-CAB’s Offer Multi-Payment Auto Title Loans for more than 180 days?

by The CAB Man Texas on April 12, 2012

A client of mine and I are seeking opinions on the 180 day limit on CAB multi-payment auto title loans Per Texas Finance Code Chapter 393.201 (Form and Terms of Contract) and Chapter 393.001 (3).

Chapter 393.201 states that a credit service contract is between a CSO-CAB and a consumer, and that the services to be performed under that contract listed under 393.001 (3) must be completed within 180 days.  Many operators interpret this rule simply, and say “this means we can’t participate in multi-payment loans for more than 180 days.”

But, my client is thinking that the promissory note component of the contracts is between the Third Party Lender and the consumer, is not related to the rules just cited, and so 393.201 should not apply.

Why?  The client’s CSO-CAB services to the customer are almost all completed on day 1 of the loan.  After that such services as taking payments on the loan, forwarding the payments to the lender, and guaranteeing the loan, are services provided by the CSO-CAB to the lender, and not the consumer.  So, again 393.201 should not apply because these are not the service listed under 393.001 (3).  The service of assisting and obtaining loans for the consumer as per the credit service contract are done well within the 180 days.

#1 priority for client is to abide by the rule of the law…please provide your comments on this we are seeking OCCC and industry opinion.

There are many benefits to my client and the consumer for loan programs that are beyond 180 days.  Let’s dig a little on this.

As always, check in with Michael Brown via email at cabconbrokerage@gmail.com or call 214-293-8676.

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Let’s get prepared for an OCCC Examination!

Let’s get prepared for an OCCC Examination!

by The CAB Man Texas on July 29, 2013

CAB Consulting has been helping small and mid-size Texas Credit Access Businesses navigate the new CAB licensing model ever since its passage just over 2 years ago. Having served almost 200 locations during that time, CAB Consulting could be a great resource for your company. Does your business need a compliance review? Do you feel your business is prepared for an OCCC examiner to walk in your door?

Audit Alert: OCCC examiners are actively traveling the State right now and they typically show up at your door un-announced. Several clients have been examined this month. CAB Consulting clients will be fully prepared for an examination and will know exactly what to expect.

What other needs might your business currently have? The principal of CAB Consulting, Michael Brown, would like to work with you on your Payday or Auto Title loan store to make operating improvements, increase compliance, grow confidently, and become more profitable.

CAB Consulting can deliver a wide array of results to your business, call 214-293-8676 today to learn more, or visit www.CreditAccessBusiness.com for information!

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

ft August 10, 2013 at 7:31 am

Michael, the auditors showed up today! Our contracts are a mess, we overcharge on the lender fees, the APR’s are wrong… wish I’d have listened to you and have your team audit my stores first :o(

Reply

Anonymous August 10, 2013 at 7:35 am

Hate to see it happen to you, FT. Hopefully the set backs aren’t catastrophic. Let’s schedule a intervention the following week.
Michael

Reply

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Huge blow dealt to the “Payday Loan Ordinance” in Texas (and more to come!)

Huge blow dealt to the “Payday Loan Ordinance” in Texas (and more to come!)

by The CAB Man Texas on March 21, 2017

Around March 1st a huge blow was dealt to the “Payday Loan Ordinance” in Texas.  The news came out that an Austin court had ruled in favor of Credit Access Businesses in (2) lawsuits related to the ordinance where the City of Austin was sued.  In those cases, the court ruled that the ordinances were “preempted” by State law in several ways. Preemption is something that we as a group have been after for a very long time and we are pleased to see that our industry got its day in court.  The consumer advocate groups who have been pushing the ordinance on cities should be on notice that the truth is starting to get out.  All that has happen is for the cities to enforce the ordinance.

Many of you may not know the truth, which is that the cities have not been enforcing their ordinances.  This is a deliberate tactic to avoid being sued by Credit Access Businesses. It is also likely that they have no staff or budget to allocate to the endeavor which is worth mentioning as well.  Each city is given a payday loan city ordinance “playbook” that gives them the tactics and methods for enacting the ordinance along with how not to get sued.  If they do not enforce then the payday companies have no legal grounds to sue on because they have not actually been “harmed.”

Well, the City of Austin went beyond its rights and decided to go in and examine and cite two Credit Access Businesses – Advance America and Speedy Cash.  This was the first instance that I know of where a city has enforced and cited a company for not abiding to the ordinance.  So, the first time a city goes in and enforces an ordinance what happens?  They get sued and lose!  This simple scenario is one that should resonate with all cities who have passed an ordinance and with those who are looking at it.  Austin happens to have its act together and enjoys a pretty decent legal budget – if they can lose then anyone can lose.

Cities should know that there is now a very real legal risk for them – their city councils will be embroiled in lawsuits and will have to consider retaining outside legal counsel to defend themselves.  Council members who know that they have been charged with real responsibilities such as protecting water, investing in infrastructure, maintaining police strength, and providing general safety for their citizens know that they are way outside the lines when telling someone how much money they can borrow and how long they can have to pay it back.  It seems incredibly absurd to me.  For many of you it would be like having the city tell you that you can only have a car that costs $10,000 or less and you must pay it off in (6) payments. Also, you can only have one car!  It is literally the same thing.  What if you have the cash to simply pay $40,000 for a car?  What if you have a spouse that you want to buy a car for?  That example plus a hundred more can be made – and what it does is blow a gaping hole in the practicality of the “Payday Loan City Ordinance.”  That is where the whole thing should have stopped years ago.

But now the cold hard truth has landed on the desks of anyone involved in this matter – the court has ruled in favor of Credit Access Businesses.  Cities now need to decide what they are going to do.  They need to be asked publicly, “Are you going to enforce this ordinance?”  If they say “No,” then won’t that mean they are effectively rolling back the ordinance?  If so, Credit Access Businesses will be able to go back to offering the kinds of credit that consumers in the ordinance cities need and want.  Won’t this be an improvement over being told they must drive 15 minutes down the road or get on their smartphone to request a loan from an unlicensed unregulated offshore lender in the Bahamas?

What if they say “yes, we are going to enforce the ordinance?”  Then Credit Access Businesses will be given the chance to defend themselves like Speedy Cash and Advance America did. What they will simply do is execute a transaction that violates the ordinance, then take that one transaction down to the City and “self-report” the violation.  At that point the city must act and if they do cite the Credit Access Business then they will turn around and sue the City.  What lies ahead will be a court decision that will resemble that of the court orders in Austin.

CABs are already sufficiently regulated by the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner.  We have 20-30 page contracts for a $300 loan!  We adhere to a long list of federal and state rules and regulations (all in our contract package) and our complaint percentages on the state and federal levels are fractional on a complaint to loan basis.  I believe in Texas the complaint percentage is .000153% (yes that is three zeroes!).  Our CABs abide by a 90-point CAB Examination checklist that we obtained from the OCCC.  TOFSC members tune in to a weekly conference call every Wednesday where we talk about CFPB and OCCC compliance, share ideas, and try to safeguard our businesses.  We are small business owners banded together to try and survive the ordinances.  In the last (4) years CABs have shrunk from over 3,500 in Texas to about 2,200 that is a 37% decrease in CABs.  That is thousands of jobs lost, thousands of leases broken, a significant loss in tax dollars for cities, and a loss of livelihood for many.  All of that and the demand has not decreased (check OCCC data and consumer reports for online inquires in ordinance cities the data is there if you want to do some homework) although there has been a 37% decrease in stores.

TOFSC Members are tuned in to this issue and we are ready to fight to save our businesses and to bring the access to credit back to consumers in ordinances cities that is desired.  Cities should prefer that legal, licensed, and regulated businesses serve their citizen’s needs.   C’mon cities – let’s bring it back to the CABs and let the cities focus on their big priorities!

See the links below for the court orders.  For media inquiries – feel free to call Michael Brown at 214-293-8676, or email me at Michael@CreditAccessBusiness.com.  Michael is the President of the Texas Organization of Financial Service Centers (“TOFSC”) which is a trade group comprised of small to mid-sized Credit Access Businesses in Texas.  As well, he is President of CAB Consulting, a consulting firm that offers startup, licensing, compliance, and operating guidance to payday businesses in Texas and other states.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2eRFUSSFqhzaXJfa19FbmRuRmc

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2eRFUSSFqhzWjUwZkxRaWMwVjQ

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

Senate Bill 1247 from Senator John Carona

Senate Bill 1247 from Senator John Carona

by The CAB Man Texas on March 7, 2013

SB 1247:

This bill was authored by Senator John Carona, and is “relating to certain extension of consumer credit facilitated by credit access businesses, providing a civil penalty.” This 18 page bill is the longest one so far in the session relating to CABs. See below for an organized break down in simple language.

Debt collection:

No threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce that employ threats of violence, or false accusations.

Must not state that a customer is willingly refusing to pay when the debt is being disputed and notification of dispute has been made in writing.

Cannot threaten to sell the debt or place the debt with a collections agency, an assert that this will somehow subject the customer to less desirable collection activities, unsavory collectors, etc.

No threats that the debtor will be arrested for nonpayment, or threats to file a charge, complaint, with no real violation of criminal law.

Cannot threaten that nonpayment will result in repossession or sale of the vehicle with proper court proceedings.

Cannot reference the fact that the consumer previously signed certain certifications, and what penalties might arise from breaking those certifications. (references a new section of Texas Finance Code, Chapter 393.630)

Limits on re-financing:

A “CSO” cannot broker a loan in any other form except a “deferred presentment transaction” or a “motor vehicle loan” that meets the recently evolved definitions of those terms. (Sections 393.634 through 393.637). Make note that this addresses CSO’s not Credit Access Businesses (“CABs”).

Any refinance by a “CSO” of a payday or title loan may not include an increase of the loan. This would be important for CABs who are offering “line of credit” style loans, loan increases, credit lines, add-ons, upsizes, etc.

A CSO doing a refinance must be authorized under Subchapter G, and meet all the requirements of Subchapter G that originally apply in this scenario, except for if Subchapter G specifically said it is not authorized.

Notices:

A CAB will be required to post a notice that lets customers know “Extended Payment Plans” are available. The notice will also need to be available as a handout as with the OCCC Consumer Disclosures.

OCCC Consumer Disclosures will remain a requirement, and they will need to be provided prior to performing CAB services. There is a revision to existing OCCC Consumer Disclosures in that the name of the CAB and their license # must now be on the document.

Military Borrowers and their dependents:

The definition of a “military borrower” is fine tuned by stating that the term includes a “covered member” or a “dependent” of a covered member, as those terms are defined by 10 USC Section 987.

Loans to Military borrowers cannot be go over 90 days as a deferred presentment/payday loan and cannot go over 180 days on an auto title loan.

General restrictions:

If a customer gets a new loan within 5 or less days of paying off a prior loan, this is considered a refinance.

CAB loans cannot go over 180 days.

CABs must give the customer a copy of the consumer loan documentation.

CABs must give the customer copies of all required notices (OCCC Consumer Disclosures and Extended Payment Plan).

All of the required notices and disclosures must be provided in Spanish if customer requests, or if the agreement was discussed in Spanish.

The actual executed agreement between the CAB and the consumer must be written in English.

If the customer agrees to it in writing, the customer’s loan may be sold to another CAB. If this occurs the transaction limits remain the same as originally agreed except for the 180 day limit.

The sale of the debt is to be treated as a refinance, and a new 180 day term would be granted.

Before working out the loan with a customer, a CAB must consider whether the customer has the ability to repay the loan in full or if they would be able to pay any refinances.

Limits on the # of loans a consumer may have:

This applies to payday loans, not auto title loans.

A consumer may only have 1 loan out with a CAB.

If a consumer wants a loan via a CAB, they must sign a written certification stating that they:

Have no other loans out with any other CAB.

Have not had an extended payment plan with a CAB in the last 14 days.

Have not defaulted on a CAB loan in the last 30 days.

A consumer would not be considered in default until their loan is 10 days past due.

A CAB must verify that the consumer is not falsifying the written certification, to the best of the employee’s ability.

In order to “verify” the consumer is being truthful, the CAB employee would need to consider all information shared by the consumer during the negotiation. The employee would need to closely review the documents and records presented during that process that are traditionally consulted during the normal course of CAB business today. This would likely be CRA reports and bank statements.

A consumer or CAB who violates this section would face a civil penalty of $1,000 for each incident.

The Finance Commission will have some later input on the implementation of CAB operating rules for this section.

Limitations on auto title loans:

The proceeds from a sale of a repossessed vehicle will satisfy all debts of the consumer.

Consumers are not liable for the debt after repossession and sale, unless they have committed fraud when getting the loan.

“Any” fee charged to a consumer for the repossession of their vehicle must be “reasonable.”

Proof of income and proof of vehicle value:

A CAB must require documentation to establish income with one of the following: paystub, paycheck, bank statement, credit report, tax return, W2, letter from employer, or another possible document from the Finance Commission.

CABs will need to keep copies of the income documents.

CABs must establish “retail value” on a motor vehicle for a title loan by referring to a recognized appraisal guide (NADA) or agree in good faith to the vehicle’s value.

Local ordinances pre-empted:

The local ordinances regulating CABs or CAB transactions are “pre-empted” because they are not within the “political subdivision’s standard zoning or police powers.”

Limits on single payment payday loans:

If a consumer’s annual income is $29,437 or less (125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four), their loan cannot exceed 25% of their gross monthly income. This translates to a maximum of $613.

$23,550 x 125% = $29,437/12 = $2,453x.25 = $613 maximum loan amount.

If a consumer’s income is above 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four and they are not military borrowers, they will be allowed to take out loans at a maximum of 35% of their gross monthly income. 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four is $29,437 annually and $2,453 monthly. 35% of that translates to a maximum of $858.

Single payment payday loans cannot be for less than 10 days.

Single payment payday loans cannot be refinanced more than 4 times.

If a consumer refinances a single payment payday loan 4 times the CAB shall offer an extended payment plan.

Consumers will not be offered the extended payment plan if they have had 2 extended payment plans in the last 12 months.

Extended payment plans can be requested on or after the date of the 4th refinance.

Extended payment plans can only be requested on or before the date the payday loan must be paid in full, it cannot be past due.

Limits on multi-payment payday loans:

The sum of all scheduled payments due in a month cannot exceed 15% of the consumer’s gross monthly income if that consumer’s annual income is $29,437 or less (125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four).

$23,550 x 125% = $29,437/12 = $2,453x.15 = $367 maximum monthly payment.

If a consumer’s income is above 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four and they are not military borrowers, they will be allowed to take out multi-payment loans with a maximum monthly payment of 20% of their gross monthly income. 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four is $29,437 annually and $2,453 monthly. 20% of that translates to a maximum monthly payment of $490.

May not be payable in more than 12 installments and the loan agreement for these transactions must specify the number, date, and total amount due with regard to each installment.

Must be payable in fully amortizing, declining principal balance basis, with substantially equal payments.

The first installment payment after the initial loan funding may not be due before 10 days have passed.

Installment payment dates may not be less than 14 days apart.

Installment payment dates may not be more than 31 days apart.

Can only be refinanced one time.

The combined total of days the loan can be extended to via a refinance is 270 days.

Extended payment plans are not required with multi-payment payday loans.

Limits on single payment auto title loans:

Cannot exceed 6% of the consumers annual gross income, if the consumer’s income is below 125% of the federal poverty line for a family of four. That figure is $29.437.

$23,550 x 125% = $29,437×6%= $1,766 maximum loan amount.

If a consumer’s income is above 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four and they are not military borrowers, they will be allowed to take out a single payment auto title loan with a maximum amount of 8% of their gross annual income.

Loan amounts also cannot exceed 70% of the retail value of the vehicle.

Loans and loan payments must be due in at least 30 days, no less.

May not be refinanced more than 6 times.

An extended payment plan must be offered to a consumer before initiating any activities to repossess the vehicle.

Consumer may request the extended payment plan at any time on or after the date the consumer refinances the loan for the 6th time, and on or before the date the loan must be paid in full, cannot be past due.

The extended payment plan must comply with Section 393.638.

Multi-payment auto title loans:

A scheduled payment cannot exceed 15% of the consumer’s gross monthly income, if the consumer’s income is below 125% of the federal poverty line for a family of four. That figure is $29.437.

$23,550 x 125% = $29,437/12×15%= $367 maximum monthly payment.

If a consumer’s income is above 125% of the federal poverty level for a family of four and they are not military borrowers, they will be allowed to take out a multi-payment auto title loan with a maximum monthly payment amount of 20% of their gross monthly income.

Loan amounts also cannot exceed 70% of the retail value of the vehicle.

Must be payable in fully amortizing, declining principal balance basis, with substantially equal payments.

May not be payable in more than 6 installments, and the loan agreement for these transactions must specify the number, date, and total amount due with regard to each installment.

The first installment payment after the initial loan funding may not be due before 10 days have passed.

Payments must be no less than 30 days apart.

Can only be refinanced one time.

The combined total of days the loan can be extended to via a refinance is 270 days.

A CAB may not initiate any repossession activity on customer vehicles before offering the consumer an extended payment plan. Must comply with Section 393.638.

Extended payment plans:

This is referred to as Section 393.638 in various other sections of the bill.

For single payment loans – must be 4 equal installments.

For single payment loans – after the 4 equal payments the balance will be paid in full.

For multi-payment loans – must be 2 additional equal installments

For multi-payment loans – after the equal payments the balance will be paid in full.

For single payment payday loans – the # of days between extended payment plan payments cannot be less than in the original agreement.

For multi-payment auto title loans – the # of days between extended payment plan payments cannot be less than 30 days.

The first payment of an extended payment plan may not be less than 10 days from plan request date.

A CAB cannot charge additional fees or interest or help consumer get a new loan while in the plan.

A consumer may pay the debt in full at any time while in the plan without prepayment penalties.

Debt collection and repossession activities cannot occur while a consumer is in compliance with the plan.

Refinance definitions:

A refinance or renewal of a CAB loan is considered made on the date the CAB loan being refinanced or renewed was made.

The Finance Commission may adopt any rules necessary to implement the restrictions and limits outlined in this bill.

Would goes into effect 9-1-2013.

Click here for a PDF of SB 1247! SB.1247

This website, its blogs, summaries, and comments are not official comments of Texas regulators and lawmakers. CAB Consulting and Brokerage is a privately held firm and has generated these materials as a service to Credit Access Business stakeholders in Texas. For questions, please contact Michael Brown at 214-293-8676 or Michael@CreditAccessBusiness.com.

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post:

C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage — Texas Credit Access Business Resources

Some stores need deeper assessment and others do not because they are excellent performers.  Let’s look at one store and with the desire of loosening up in some areas where perhaps underwriting is too tight.   Dylan and Jeremy at Cashmax call it “turning a knob” or “moving a lever.” Let’s move a knob or lever with this one store and see what happens.

Doing an assessment and would love TOFSC opinions.  First, we are looking back at recent leads that have been sold through a lead buying network, what are others paying (we are going to assume it is a “FinTech”) for the leads they buy from you? After studying the sold lead what are your takeaways? If the smart FinTechs with all the “AI” and “Machine Learning and “Data” who own over half the Texas market are going for approvals with these customers who apply through you, then how can you learn from that and instead approve more for yourself versus letting go of potentially good paying customers?  See below for some key data points from three recent sold applicants.

$88 – Customer A:

No FT ran.

Online app – Google

Time at address: 5yrs

Time at bank: 2yrs

Bank: Bank of America

Time at employer: 7yrs

Employer: Filtration Group

Income: $6,594.77

**Customer was denied for having too many open loans and frequently being negative. He has loans out with Lend nation, Cash Store, Check n Go, TX Car Title & Payday, World Finance, Integrity Funding, and Easy Financial.

Comment: long time at address, bank, and employer, strong income over $6k, tons of loans out and the buyer did not care.  Also, did not care about account being so far in the negative. 

$83 – Customer B:

FT: 111

Online app – Google

Time at address: 2yrs

Time at bank: 2yrs

Bank: A+ FCU

Time at employer: 5yrs

Employer: Travis County

Income: $3,600 (per app)

Comment: customer was denied for having too many open loans. FT shows loans with a total of $4,508 in outstanding balance. On her banking it shows Credit Ninja ($700 borrowed on 09/14) and Cashnet ($800 borrowed on 08/03).

$18.50 – Customer C:

FT: 111

Online: Google

Time at address: 3yrs

Time at bank: 8yrs

Bank: United Heritage CU

Time at employer: 3yrs

Employer: HCA Healthcare

Income: $2,500 (per app but it was verified at $1660.91)

Comment: FT denied due to having too many open loans and too many loans in collections. FT shows 5 loans totaling $897 outstanding balance and 3 loans in collections. However, we cannot find any loans in her banking history.  Lower income and thus a lower sale amount.  But address, bank, and employer were in the same ranges as the other two customers above.  So, is the income the key factor here? Does that trump all other concerns?

Another one of our generous members shared his opinions on lead sales and how quoting lower first-time loan amounts can hinder growth”

“Typically, a loan selling for greater than $50.00 is auto approved with VERY little underwriting with Fintech. The issue you may run into is loan amount. The consumer most likely will not be interested in a loan less than $500, and sometimes the amount of fees will drive them away. But I would most definitely always reach out to them. Sometimes a local company makes them feel more comfortable, and you can close the deal. Regardless, a lead that sells for greater than $50.00 is a very good lead and most definitely worth your time to reach out.

Going further with the assessment: pull the last (3) months of denial reasons, break that out by month, by store.  Look at what the largest set of denial reasons is per store.  Perhaps loosen up in one of the largest areas of denial.  Maybe go one or two layers on the 2nd and 3rd most common denial reason and.  Loosen slightly implement the lever move with the lowest perceived risk.  Might that lever be “too many loans out” if the income is there? How far will you go on a negative balance?  Also, per the comments above, go back and look at the leads that have sold over the last (3) months over $50 to study again and see what patterns exist.   

Would love to hear from our clients, TOFSC members, and industry friends on this.   Send feedback where you can!

{ 0 comments }

On August 28th, CFSA and CSAT filed “Amended Complaints” that were focused on the payment provisions of the CFPB rule.  I read a thorough summary from Jeremy Rosenblum at Ballard Spahr.  This is some good stuff! I mean, who doesn’t love when someone uses the terms “arbitrary and capricious?  That’s when us laypersons really know there is some serious lawyer-ing going on!   

The amended complaints have some teeth which were good to see strike home and sink deep.  And, the inclusion of debit card debiting in the payments provision got its fair share of attention.  I for one hope that continues, maybe even gets put at the top of the list.  Without thinking deeply, I can say that if that facet were removed from the rule I would be breathing easily on the entire topic.  I know that others with a different business model may differ, but it is by far ours and our customer’s favorite payment method for convenience reasons, and also because it does not cause NSF charges if the payment returns.  It does not seem likely that the industry will have to “go live” with these provisions as they are now, by November.  There is still much to be worked though in this legal process which has been long and winding. With all of the questions at this point how can it be known what the rule will look like anytime soon?  Operators still need fair time to install the proper procedures and notifications and that window is now far too tight for a November go live date. 

 
See below for some takeaways from Jeremy’s blog post:

“Trade Groups File Amended Complaint In Texas Lawsuit Challenging CFPB Payday Loan Rule.

In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs (our industry) allege that the Rule violates both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA).  Starting with the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law that the Director of the CFPB who adopted the Rule was unconstitutionally insulated from discharge without cause by the President.

The Amended Complaint argues that a valid Rule requires a valid notice and comment process from inception and not mere ratification of the final result by a properly serving Director.

It further asserts that ratification of the payment provisions is arbitrary and capricious because the payment provisions were based on a UDAAP theory expressly rejected by the CFPB in its revocation of the underwriting provisions of the Rule and the CFPB has failed to explain how a lender can commit a UDAAP violation, consistent with the theory of the revocation of the underwriting provisions, when the consumer is free to eschew a covered loan based on a generalized understanding of the risk of multiple NSF fees.

The Amended Complaint takes issue with the payment provisions based on a number of additional alleged infirmities, including the following:

The CFPB provided a lengthy period for the industry to comply with the original Rule but failed to provide any compliance period for the ratified Rule.  Thus, the current Rule differs from the original Rule it purports to ratify in a key respect.

The 36% APR trigger for covered installment loans is fundamentally at odds with the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly prohibiting the CFPB from establishing usury limits.

The alleged harms the payment provisions are designed to forestall are caused by the banks holding the consumers’ deposit accounts and not by the lenders who initiate payments declined due to insufficient funds.

The Bureau acted arbitrarily and capriciously in extending the payments provisions to multi-payment installment loans, where consumers have lengthy periods of time between installments to respond to failed payment-transfer attempts (and where, we would note, consumers are already free under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act to decline to authorize loan payments through recurring electronic fund transfers).

The Bureau also acted arbitrarily and capriciously in extending the payments provisions to debit and prepaid card transactions, where failed payment-transfer attempts typically do not, if ever, result in fees.  (We have repeatedly expressed the view that this key aspect of the Rule is indefensible.)

The CFPB evidence supporting the payment provisions was insufficiently robust and reliable, especially with respect to storefront and installment loans since the CFPB relied upon evidence about online single-payment loans.

The timing requirements for notices under the Rule arbitrarily prevent consumers from scheduling earlier payments.

The CFPB did not consider whether enhanced disclosures could have adequately prevented the perceived consumer injuries.

We believe that the Amended Complaint represents a powerful attack on the payment provisions of the Rule.

We have only one point we would emphasize to a greater extent:  There is no apparent link between the UDAAP problem identified in Section 1041.7 of the Rule—consumers incurring bank NSF fees for dishonored checks and ACH transactions after two consecutive failed payment transfers—and the burdensome notice requirements in Section 1041.9 of the Rule.

To our mind, these elaborate notice requirements are arbitrary and capricious for this further reason.”

Here is a link to the article – thank you Ballard Spahr! https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2020/08/31/trade-groups-file-amended-complaint-in-texas-lawsuit-challenging-cfpb-payday-loan-rule/

{ 0 comments }

Tax Prep Season is here let’s get after it!

January 9, 2020

We are nearing the end of the Holiday Season’s high demand period that coincides with the beginning of Tax Season.  Many CAB Consulting clients and TOFSC Members offer Tax Preparation services, and some will be doing it for the first time this year.   I know many who are ready to get after it so let’s […]

Read the full article →

OCCC set to report to Finance Commission Friday

December 18, 2019

The OCCC is all set to report to the Finance Commission this Friday, December 13th.  Below for the key take-aways for CABs offerring payday, installment, and title loans in Texas.  The report will compare September-October 2018 vs. 2019.  The Septermber-October 2019 part of the OCCC “fiscal year to date 2020”). ·         Examinations are down across the […]

Read the full article →

OCCC is having a special stakeholder meeting on the questions posed to the Attorney General recently about CSO’s.

December 3, 2019

See below for a recent email sent out to OCCC stakeholders: “On December 9, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., the OCCC will hold a stakeholder meeting on credit services organizations and attorney general opinion KP-0277. A stakeholder meeting notice is available at: https://occc.texas.gov/publications/attorney-general-opinions. On this webpage, click the link labeled “Stakeholder Meeting Notice.” The meeting notice provides […]

Read the full article →

Helping Green Dot and other pre-paid card holders get funded on loans…good or bad idea?

November 21, 2019

Lending to Green Dot Card Customers – is this a good or bad idea?  Many feel these and other pre-paid card accounts carry too much risk because the card holders are not as “married” to the card versus the commitment assumed is had with a traditional bank with local branches.  We had one TOFSC member […]

Read the full article →

Keeping an eye on FinTech Lending

November 15, 2019

Why should Texas CABs keep an eye on FinTech Lending?  We need to watch and learn, let’s evolve our businesses by watching their successes and failures.  Where you can, implement their techniques that work, into your CAB’s capabilities! Think marketing, underwriting, process flow, etc.. These recent OCCC MSA report statistics show that FinTech now owns the […]

Read the full article →

OCCC will be reporting to the Finance Commission Friday, October 18th.

October 22, 2019

The quarterly Finance Commission Meeting will be this Friday, mostly information will be reported for September to August 2018 vs. 2019…that is their fiscal year. OCCC will report that: ·         Examinations were down in 2019, went from 638 to 475. ·         CABs went to the bottom in terms of acceptable level of compliance…due to lower examination volume.  […]

Read the full article →

What is a FinTech really? Be one.

October 7, 2019

Seems like over the last year that the industry buzzword has been “FinTech.”  According to BuiltIn.com “”Fintech” is a portmanteau (combination of two words to create a new one) of financial” and “technology.”  It is the application of new technological advancements to products and services in the financial industry.” For those of us in business […]

Read the full article →

The “Lend 360” Conference is coming up in Dallas on the 25th here are the summary details.

September 24, 2019

The “Lend 360” Conference is coming up in Dallas, September 25-27.  Since it is in our back yard versus Florida or California wanted to discuss it a bit and give you some information for you to better decide on whether you will or will not attend.  Many of our vendor and TOFSC sponsor companies will be […]

Read the full article →

Payday Loan Boot Camp Sessions are underway!

Payday Loan Boot Camp Sessions are underway!

by The CAB Man Texas on July 16, 2012

Recently I joined up with Jer from Tri-House and Danny from Paid 2 Day to offer the “Payday Loan Boot Camp.”  These sessions are held in Orange County, California and are conducted in both a store and classroom environment.  The intent of the Payday Loan Boot Camp is to share important knowledge, direct startups on how to get their businesses started the right way, and to provide actual direction on how to run the business day to day.  Existing operators might want to consider sending new hires to the Boot Camp to let it serve as part of their training.

The Boot Camp gives operators the chance to un-plug from the everyday grind and really focus on what we are there to deliver.  Themes of the Boot Camp revolved around these essentials: Knowledge, Insight, Manuals, Regulations, Licensing, Documentation, and Hands-On instruction.

Day 1 of our first Boot Camp was last Thursday.  We focused on a high level view of the industry along with development of company startup strategy based on its market.   Day 2 was centered around operating the business, software, processing transactions, and “live store” activity.

Once we have established our relationship through the Boot Camp process, you will also always be able to count on follow up consultation as needed.

This Camp has been shaped for the Payday Loan startup, but we are also planning other focused camps for Auto Title loan education and instruction, and Texas CAB compliance.  If your organization could benefit from these kinds of sessions, or if you have some other specific company goals you would like custom delivered in the Boot Camp setting please contact Michael Brown at CAB Consulting and Brokerage at 214-293-8676 to discuss!

Leave a Comment

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Previous post:

Next post: