Blood Money, by John Dooley and Emily Gallagher

 Are paid plasma donors being exploited? Here's a paper that suggests not, but rather that the payments that plasma donors receive can improve their financial well being not merely by providing additional income, but also by helping them avoid going into expensive debt.

 Dooley, John and  Emily Gallagher, Blood Money (October 11, 2021). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3940369 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3940369

Abstract: "Little is known about the motivations and outcomes of sellers in remunerated markets for human materials. We exploit dramatic growth in the number of commercial blood plasma centers in the U.S. to study the individuals who sell plasma. We find sellers tend to be young and liquidity constrained with low incomes and credit scores; they also report less access to traditional bank credit. Plasma centers absorb demand for non-traditional credit. The opening of a nearby plasma center reduces payday loan inquires and transactions by 13–18% among young borrowers. Meanwhile, foot traffic increases by over 9% at both essential and non-essential goods establishments when a new plasma center opens nearby. Our findings suggest that, at least in the short-term, constrained households use the discretionary income from plasma centers to smooth consumption without appealing to high-cost debt."

HT: Mario Macis

Update: here's the published version

John M Dooley, Emily A Gallagher, Blood Money: Selling Plasma to Avoid High-Interest Loans, The Review of Financial Studies, 2024; https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhae018

Payday loans: usury, or access to credit? by Allcott, Kim, Taubinsky and Zinman

Payday loans and other expensive services to those without access to formal credit generate a good deal of repugnance and regulation (including bans), but may be the only source of credit available to their habitual customers. Here's a new NBER working paper on that finds that experienced borrowers don't misjudge their chances of borrowing again.

Are High-Interest Loans Predatory? Theory and Evidence from Payday Lending  by Hunt Allcott, Joshua J. Kim, Dmitry Taubinsky & Jonathan Zinman  WORKING PAPER 28799, DOI 10.3386/w28799,  May 2021

Abstract: It is often argued that people might take on too much high-cost debt because they are present focused and/or overoptimistic about how soon they will repay. We measure borrowers' present focus and overoptimism using an experiment with a large payday lender. Although the most inexperienced quartile of borrowers underestimate their likelihood of future borrowing, the more experienced three quartiles predict correctly on average. This finding contrasts sharply with priors we elicited from 103 payday lending and behavioral economics experts, who believed that the average borrower would be highly overoptimistic about getting out of debt. Borrowers are willing to pay a significant premium for an experimental incentive to avoid future borrowing, which we show implies that they perceive themselves to be time inconsistent. We use borrowers' predicted behavior and valuation of the experimental incentive to estimate a model of present focus and naivete. We then use the model to study common payday lending regulations. In our model, banning payday loans reduces welfare relative to existing regulation, while limits on repeat borrowing might increase welfare by inducing faster repayment that is more consistent with long-run preferences.

***********

Update: here's the published paper

Allcott, Hunt, Joshua Kim, Dmitry Taubinsky, and Jonathan Zinman. "Are high-interest loans predatory? theory and evidence from payday lending." The Review of Economic Studies 89, no. 3 (2022): 1041-1084.

Download

Repugnant but legal: can strip shows and payday lenders get Paycheck Protection Program support in the pandemic?

The Washington Post has the story:

Strip clubs, payday lenders, lobbyists fight to get emergency federal loans
In wave of lawsuits, companies battered by coronavirus shutdowns but excluded from aid seek small-business funds

"The Little Darlings strip club in Flint, Mich., was forced to turn off its stage lights and close its doors by the state’s stay-at-home order, but it failed to get a federal small-business emergency loan aimed at softening the financial blow from the pandemic.

"Owners of Little Darlings, along with clubs such as Baby Dolls in Dallas and Cheerleaders Gentlemen’s Club in Philadelphia, said it was wrong that they were excluded from the more than $600 billion Paycheck Protection Program created by Congress and the Trump administration to try to save businesses and jobs during the coronavirus crisis.

"So the strip clubs sued the Small Business Administration. And a federal judge in Wisconsin recently sided with the strip clubs, granting a preliminary injunction to force the government to issue loans to four of them, which government lawyers quickly appealed."

How banks support payday lenders and check cashing services by dissing their low income customers

Here's a story from the WSJ that I found disturbing (and which helps explain why many people choose to be "unbanked" and to patronize high-priced non-bank financial services):

Bank of America: No More Free Checking for Customers With Low Balances
eBanking customers switched into accounts that typically require direct deposit or a minimum balance to avoid $12 monthly fee

"Bank of America Corp. has eliminated a free checking account popular with some lower-income customers, requiring them to keep more money at the bank to avoid a monthly fee.

"This month, all remaining eBanking customers with the Charlotte, N.C., lender were switched into accounts that charge a $12 monthly fee unless the customer has a direct deposit of $250 or more or a minimum daily balance of $1,500. Some eBanking customers were switched over as early as 2015.

"Banks have long grappled with how to charge customers for basic checking services. The accounts are costly for banks to maintain, though they do bring in revenue through overdraft and other fees."
**************

Some previous posts about the other part of this market:

Friday, November 3, 2017

Payday lending and check cashing

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Payday loans

Payday lending and check cashing

In the WSJ:
The Hand-to-Hand Combat to Save Payday Lending
Payday lenders and consumer advocates fuel letter-writing campaigns ahead of the introduction of regulatory oversight

"Florida payday lender Amscot Financial Inc. in the summer of 2016 rounded up about 600,000 letters from customers protesting a regulator’s plan to clamp down on high-interest loans. The letters, many handwritten, were scanned, packed in 131 cartons and shipped to Washington.

The unusual campaign by Amscot was part of a fight between the payday industry and consumer advocates to try to sway the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is expected in the coming days to introduce federal oversight of the $38.5 billion industry.

Payday loans are used by an estimated 10 million to 12 million Americans every year, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck. The loans are typically a few hundred dollars and due in two weeks, or on the borrower’s next payday. Their annualized interest rates, which can rise to nearly 400%, have long troubled regulators.

The CFPB rule would supplement a mishmash of state rules. It would likely require lenders to assess borrowers’ ability to repay and make it harder to roll over loans, a lucrative part of the business. The practice, where customers take out new loans to repay old ones, often leads to snowballing fees. Lenders say such requirements would wipe out the market for short-term payday loans."
...
"The CFPB’s payday rule is among a handful of recent regulations that generated millions of comments. In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule to curb carbon emissions from power plants drew 4.3 million comments. The “net neutrality” plan governing internet-service providers attracted more than 22 million comments."

Payday loans

The NY Times has a discussion of payday loans, and whether and how they might be regulated. (See also my previous posts on payday loans.)

The Allure of Easy Money

INTRODUCTION

Kevin J. Miyazaki/Redux for the New York Times

In his State of the Union address, President Obama presented a series of initiatives aimed at the middle class and the growing income inequality in the United States.

One thing on the minds of many working-class Americans is greater federal regulation of payday loans, the small, short-term high-interest loans that are currently under state jurisdiction. Critics of payday loans say they lead to a cycle of ballooning debt for consumers, who can rarely afford to pay them back and must take out more loans to stay afloat. But payday lenders say that strict rules would eliminate the industry and with it, the only viable lending option for people with bad credit.

Should payday loans be federally regulated?

READ THE DISCUSSION »

DEBATERS

• 

  Help Level the Playing Field for Desperate Borrowers

  VALERIE WILSON, ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE
  Ban predatory interest rates. Make borrowers account for the ability to repay. Limit duration of debt and restrict lenders’ access to bank accounts.
• 

  Don’t Restrict Access to Credit

  DENNIS SHAUL, COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOC.
  Regulation already exists for legitimate payday lenders. In more than 30 states, there are already strict limits on loan amounts, fees and rollovers.
• 

  One Size Won’t Fit All

  LISA SERVON, PROFESSOR OF URBAN POLICY
  Research about whether these loans are helpful or harmful is inconclusive, and most of it lumps all borrowers together.
• 

  Regulations Can Help Improve the Market for Borrowers

  RAJ DATE, INVESTOR
  Technological innovations will draw customers who use payday loans to cheaper products, like credit cards and installment loans, that better meet their needs.
• 

  End Predatory Practices

  GARY KALMAN, CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING
  New rules must keep predatory lenders from pushing consumers into increased risk of losing bank accounts, their foothold into the mainstream financial system.
• 

  Let Banks and Nonbanks Play by the Same Rules

  JAMIE FULMER, ADVANCE AMERICA
  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau must establish consistent guidelines for the entire marketplace, creating healthy competition.

New York Prosecutors Charge Payday Lenders With Usury

The New York Times has the story: New York Prosecutors Charge Payday Lenders With Usury

"A trail of money that began with triple-digit loans to troubled New Yorkers and wound through companies owned by a former used-car salesman in Tennessee led New York prosecutors on a yearlong hunt through the shadowy world of payday lending.

On Monday, that investigation culminated with state prosecutors in Manhattan bringing criminal charges against a dozen companies and their owner, Carey Vaughn Brown, accusing them of enabling payday loans that flouted the state’s limits on interest rates in loans to New Yorkers.

Such charges are rare. The case is a harbinger of others that may be brought to rein in payday lenders that offer quick cash, backed by borrowers’ paychecks, to people desperate for money, according to several people with knowledge of the investigations.

“The exploitative practices — including exorbitant interest rates and automatic payments from borrowers’ bank accounts, as charged in the indictment — are sadly typical of this industry as a whole,” Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, said on Monday.

...

"The indictment offers a detailed look at the mechanics of the multibillion-dollar payday loan industry, which offers short-term loans with interest rates that can soar beyond 500 percent. ...

The payday lending operation began when borrowers applied for loans on websites like MyCashNow.com. From there, borrowers’ information was passed to another company, owned by Mr. Brown, that originated the loans. The information then wound up with another company, owned by Mr. Brown, that collected payments from borrowers."

*****************************************
Here are some previous posts on payday loans.

Payday loans versus bank overdraft charges

I've blogged before about very-high-interest-rate payday loans to "unbanked" customers, and the repugnance with which they are regarded in many quarters (in England and in Los Angeles).

Interestingly, the first and third of those posts have attracted a lot of comments, a few from serious people, but many from payday loan shops whose style makes it clear that they may verge on the fraudulent.

So it's interesting to note this recent blog post over at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Payday Lending and Overdraft Protection

by Todd Zywicki on January 17, 2014 5:18 pm

"I’ve noted previously, I have a forthcoming paper with former Comptroller of the Currency Robert Clarke that examines competition between payday lending and bank overdraft protection. The central point is easy to grasp–payday lending and overdraft protection are products offered by different providers but which compete for the same customers. And evidence indicates that in choosing between the two products consumers generally choose rationally.

The point came to mind (yet again) reading the Wall Street Journal yesterday, “Hefty Bank Fees Waylay Soldiers.” According to the article, many members of the military are frequent users of bank overdraft protection, which has caused some concern in some quarters. The article provides no hard evidence that usage of overdraft protection has risen in recent years, but implies that the general impression is that it has."

...

"as we note in the article, in many situations payday loans are less expensive than overdraft protection (it appears from the article that the break even point in favor of overdraft protection is lower than for payday loans because overdraft fees on military bases are lower than typical market rates) and consumers understand this and use the products rationally."

Payday loans (and other high interest lending) as repugnant transactions

In poor communities there is a profitable business of making very high interest rate loans to employed but "unbanked" workers. High interest rates (between lenders and apparently willing borrowers) have been repugnant transactions for a long time, and payday loans are no exception: here's a story from Pro Publica on the controversy in Missouri. The Payday Playbook: How High Cost Lenders Fight to Stay Legal

Market for check cashing and payday loans

The NY Times has a nuanced article about the business and recent sale of a big check cashing chain: Check Cashers, Redeemed

"Selling to the poor is a tricky business. Poor people pay more for just about everything, from fresh groceries to banking; Prahalad, the economist, calls it the “poverty penalty.” They pay more for all kinds of reasons, but maybe most of all because mainstream firms decline to compete for their business. Nix has served customers that traditional financial institutions neglected, but he has also profited from that neglect. Whether he profited too much, charging poor communities what the market would bear — that’s a moral question as much as an economic one. And there’s no simple answer. "