Payday loan legislation is misguided price control
Last month, a coalition of Wisconsin legislators announced the introduction of a bill that would limit consumers’ access to lines of short-term payday loans.
While some legislators backing this “reform” have good intentions, it belies a certain economic illiteracy that they can’t see what the unintended consequences of a rate cap would be. The bill’s central regulation is a ban on interest and fees that, combined, total less than two pennies for every dollar borrowed in connection with a short-term loan. This is an outright price control that will ultimately hurt the consumers it is supposed to protect.
Anyone who has taken high school economics should see how this artificial price control would cause problems, but it seems that many have forgotten the lessons of Econ 101. A recent poll found that a large percentage of Americans actually support federal price controls on everything from sports cars to cups of coffee.
What price-control supporters don’t understand is that when a new price level is imposed by legislation, consumers will want more of the product than suppliers can provide. So in the case of short-term loans, the result of a legislative price control will be shortages in the market. At a number as low as 36 percent, those shortages will be severe.
Such legislation is the equivalent of capping the price of a gallon of milk at 32 cents. To a consumer, that might sound great, but any Wisconsin dairy farmer would be able to explain the negative consequences.
And milk consumers would soon be upset at their own shortsighted desires. They would experience milk shortages—the inevitable result of setting milk prices below market rates.
The greatest damage will be done to those individuals who responsibly use payday loan services. Borrowers choose these short-term payday loan products because they have found them to be their best alternative.
And borrowers’ other options are never good. They can’t go to a traditional bank because banks don’t usually make personal loans for just a few hundred dollars. Remaining options, such as overdraft fees, bounced checks, or just paying bills late, are more costly and problematic.
Government price controls are not the answer, and there is a better way.
Increased competition in the short-term loan market seems, on balance, to be a far better solution than government-sanctioned controls. Wisconsin’s financial institutions are already bringing new products to the market. Some Wisconsin credit unions, for example, offer a new program called Real Solutions. This program offers small loans with competitive annual percentage rates. They often include starting saving programs to establish an emergency fund, as well as financial education and counseling.
Legislators should focus on programs that ensure Americans will have the tools and information to make the best possible choices for their own needs. While payday loans might be expensive, imposing price controls will have unintended consequences that will harm the same Wisconsinites supporters of this legislation are trying to help.
Mark Schug is professor emeritus and former director of the Center for Economic Education at UW-Milwaukee. He is a national consultant on economic and financial education. E-mail: Econliteracy@gmail.com.

Jun 16, 2009 at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
There are so many more important issues that need to be addressed. People are losing their homes, our schools need help, we need better health care, our government needs to manage ITS debt… yet we get stable of candidates that claim to protect us from debt, through payday loan rate caps? This will do nothing to improve out social outlook. We need to elect officials that have guts enough to take on the real problems we face.
Jun 15, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor Schug writes that typical payday loan borrowers "... can’t go to a traditional bank because banks don’t usually make personal loans for just a few hundred dollars." That's a bit naive. I'd suggest that payday borrowers go to such lenders because they often have poor credit and traditional banks wont lend to them. This supports Professor Schug's argument since these lenders take on a higher risk than do banks. Higher risk justifies higher rewards. But that does not justify unconsionable gouging.
Jun 13, 2009 at 6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
There's nothing justifiable about loan sharking, which is what these type of loans are. 1500% annual interest is abusive to the consumer, in this case which are desperate, working poor. In too many cases these loans become an endless cycle of borrowing that results in working families being unable to get back to where they started, eventually leading to other direct costs to the rest of society and we as taxpayers and consumers ultimately end up sharing the consequences.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.