Acquisitions of Short-Term Loan Portfolios

Acquisitions of Short-Term Loan Portfolios

by The CAB Man Texas on November 10, 2011

Since July of this year C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage has been working hard to learn the new laws in Texas, understand the rule making process, tell the story to stakeholders in the industry, and grow relationships.  Things have gone very well so far, and I have observed how the role of a consultant evolves from simply sharing information, into that of a co-worker, a trusted resource, and a connector of parties looking to meet a need.   C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage’s goals are centered on exactly that, helping clients meet different needs.

Over the last 3 months my focus has been and continues to be on Credit Access Business licensing, notices, and disclosures.  I have been working with our clients and assisting them while on their path towards January 1st in many ways.

Until now I have not done any acquisitions, but earlier this week I was contacted by a gentleman in Laredo who has several businesses, one of which is a retail short-term loan operation.   He has made the decision to sell his loan portfolio and has requested my assistance.    I have preliminary information on the sale opportunity and have begun contacting local businesses in Laredo about it.  Also, via this blog and other channels I am reaching out to my contacts to gauge interest.  If an acquisition of his portfolio is something you would like to explore, please contact me with questions!

C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage

Michael Brown

Tel: 214-293-8676

Email: cabconbrokerage@gmail.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:

Texas CSO > CAB Rules Committee Meeting O.C.C.C – Meet Michael in Austin Oct 21, 2011

Texas CSO > CAB Rules Committee Meeting O.C.C.C – Meet Michael in Austin Oct 21, 2011

by The CAB Man Texas on October 20, 2011

UPDATE: Meet with Michael Brown in Austin at the Texas O.C.C.C. Finance Committee meeting October 20th and 21st. Michael is available for consultation: 214-293-8676. The topic at the committee meeting is, “Consumer Disclosure Form for Credit Access Businesses” and accompanying rules.

You can’t make the meeting? Reach out to Michael afterwards.

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:

House Bill 1886

House Bill 1886

by The CAB Man Texas on March 6, 2013

This bill was authored by Farias, and is “relating to requirements applicable to certain CSO’s and certain extensions of consumer credit. This is about restricting payday and auto title loans.

The bill is quite extensive, a total of 12 pages in all. It first begins by redefining a deferred presentment transaction to also include loans paid back in installments. As well, there is emphasis in the bill regarding the CSO statutes on motor vehicle title loans and their definition. A “motor vehicle title loan” means a loan in which an unemcumbered motor vehicle is given as security for the loan.

Moving on in the bill there are more items that address many existing rules and regulations such as: No prepayment penalty, FDCPA, No criminal charges, Military, Lender info and interest, Itemization of charges, CAB charges, OCCC info. There is nothing really new in the bill from that point until it gets to the matter of Consumer Disclosures will now be required to be available in Spanish as well as English. In Section 6 of the bill, CSO’s are addressed. Section 6 says CSO’s may not arrange or get paid for any kind of loan for a consumer that is not a deferred presentment transaction or a motor vehicle loan. The bill goes further to include additional existing rules and regulations until the Section 393.625 and Military borrowers. It adds additional language stating that CABs may not assist consumers in obtaining loans over 90 days for deferred presentment, and over 180 days if for a motor vehicle title loan.

In Section 14 of the bill there are restrictions and limits, fees, and loans. The bill states that the total amount due on a deferred presentment loan + interest + CSO-CAB fees cannot exceed 20% of the consumer’s gross monthly income. The bill then also states that the total amount due on a motor vehicle title loan principal + interest + CSO-CAB fees cannot exceed 3% of the consumer’s annual gross income, and cannot exceed 70% of the retail value of the vehicle. The monthly gross income rule in this bill would result in a decrease in the average loan amount that many Texas consumers typically receive via CABs. By adding the CAB fee and lender interest to the number that is applied to the gross monthly income, loan amounts in Texas could shrink 20-30%. Next, comes the address of refinances, which would be limited to 3 in the case of single payment loans, and each refinance would have to include at least a 25% paydown towards the principal on the loan so that the loan is paid in full in four or fewer payments. And, there’s a “cooling off period” of sorts, where loans made 7 days or less after a recent payoff, are considered refinances.

Act would go into effect on 9-1-2013.

Click here for a PDF of HB 1886! HB.1886

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:

Credit Access Business License renewals due by no later than December 31st

Credit Access Business License renewals due by no later than December 31st

by The CAB Man Texas on December 28, 2016

Credit Access Business (“CAB”) License renewals with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (“OCCC”) are due by no later than December 31st.

You absolutely positively cannot miss this deadline. If you do, you will likely lose your license and have to re-apply for a new one. That is not the biggest problem – if you do not renew then you do not have a license, you have an expired license.  And, during the time that you operate with an expired license you could be forced to return all of the fees you collected.

Use OCCC’s online portal called “Alecs” to do the renewals.  It takes a matter of minutes to login and do it!

Here is the link to the website:  https://alecs.occc.texas.gov/

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:

El Paso City Council Passes Ordinance (again?)

El Paso City Council Passes Ordinance (again?)

by The CAB Man Texas on January 8, 2014

Yesterday the El Paso City Council voted to pass the Payday Loan Ordinance for the second time (did it last Jan also). This is another case where Consumer Advocate groups have dominated the conversation and as a result more regulation is put into place that takes away options for consumers. I am concerned that this ordinance will actually result in more defaulted payday loans and auto title loans.

By limiting the # of payments consumers can make on these loans, you lock them into higher payments, and without the option to refinance any longer the loans will go into default with higher frequency. Defaults result in NSF fees at the bank, and also in repossession of the vehicle in case of auto title loans. El Paso caved to pressure and put something into place that is half-baked. Just because other cities have done similar does not make the passage of ordinances the final solution. Will see how it impacts the businesses, they will move outside of El Paso city lines, or come up with a product that is outside of the rules within the ordinance. Consumer demand will be met.

Let me hear from you on this, every client I know is flexible on regulations but the project needs to be based on data and definition of the true problem. The industry and consumers would be better suited by one set of rules set by State lawmakers.

Michael Brown is a President of CAB Consulting and Brokerage; he specializes in the Payday and Auto Title Loan Industry, call or email him anytime! 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:

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:

House Bill 3033

House Bill 3033

by The CAB Man Texas on March 8, 2013

HB 3033:

This bill was authored by Rodriguez of Travis County, and is “relating to the confidentiality of information contained in credit access business license applications.”

HB 3033 wants to amend Section 393.604 of the Texas Finance Code, which is the section of the code that outlines what information will be needed for the application with the OCCC for a Credit Access Business license.

The proposed amendment would make the information contained in the CAB applications public. In late 2012, Texas Appleseed attempted to access Third Party Lender application information contained on Schedule B of every CAB application. Schedule B contains the name, phone #, and address of the Third Party Lender(s) for each licensees location.

There was some push back by CABs and Third Party Lenders to the Texas Appleseed request, and the release of some of the information is still pending. It is apparent that the information is being sought after through legislative methods rather than simply viewing the contracts that are in use with consumers.

Would go into effect on 9-1-2013.

Click here for a PDF of HB 3033! HB.3033

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:

House Bill 3019

House Bill 3019

by The CAB Man Texas on March 8, 2013

HB 3019:

This bill was authored by McClendon, and is “relating to certain extensions of consumer credit facilitated by a credit access business for certain military personnel or their dependents.”

The bill aims to sharpen the language and definitions related to CAB transactions with members of the Military and their dependents. HB 3019 wants all CABs to be compliant with the spirit of 10 USC Section 987 and any regulations adopted under that law.

There is some language in the bill dedicated to those who are “covered members” or a “dependent” of a covered member, and that to those which 10 USC Section 987 applies there are new limits on how they may be loaned to. 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. The 90 & 180 day rules for payday and title loans are the same across the board for covered members, members of the military, and dependents of military, and members of the reserve component of the US armed forces. A “dependent” is defined in the bill as a spouse or child of the member.

Would go into effect on 9-1-2013.

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:

Investment Opportunities in the Payday Loan Industry

Investment Opportunities in the Payday Loan Industry

by The CAB Man Texas on September 23, 2011

With over 3,000 registered payday loan businesses and an overall population of 25 million people, Texas represents one of the most prolific markets for payday lenders in the industry.

Not only that, but there are many large metropolitan clusters in Texas surrounding the large cities Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.  There’s a saying in Texas that when the weather is hot, there’s nothing else to do but shop and eat. A typical street corner in Dallas has at least two banks and two fast food restaurants, so consumers are invited to get money and spend money just about every waking moment. Texas highways and byways are set up to prime the capitalistic consumer engine and breed success in the retail business. Intercity freeways are gigantic advertising corridors for anyone who wants to hang out their shingle, making this market a hotbed for business owners.

One such business that has been the beneficiary of that formula is the payday loan industry.  What formerly was a little known product based in check cashing stores or pawn shops, has grown into a professional, regulated, and mainstream industry.  In 2010, it was at $40 billion.

With all the instability in traditional cornerstone investments like the stock market and real estate, many investors have taken a look at the payday loan industry as an option.  The industry is tuned to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of the cash strapped, credit challenged consumer.  Payday loan businesses were built by adapting to many of the problems that Wall Street cannot.

Are you looking for something new?  Are you growing weary of the daily picture that CNN shows you of the beleaguered NYSE trader looking down at his desk after yet another hard plummet of the market?

Consider becoming a lender in the Texas payday loan business.  Reach out to C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage if you would like to look into it.  We would be happy to tell you what we know and connect you with businesses looking for people such as yourself with money to invest.

Contact C.A.B. Consulting and Brokerage at cabconbrokerage@gmail.com or call us at 214.293.8676.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

steve July 6, 2013 at 9:08 am

Hi
I own and run a small property brokerage and I have heard there are some excellent opportunities to offer investment into payday loan funding. Is it possible to send me some details, and any details of commissions that would be payable.

Thanks

Steve

Reply

Anonymous August 10, 2013 at 7:37 am

Certainly Steve. Returns of 12% – 18% are conceivable depending on a number of factors. Lots of issues to consider. lets explore…

Michael

Reply

Cancel 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:

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 →