End Predatory Lending

The payday lending trap has been shorting working families to the tune of nearly $5 billion per year ever since the industry exploded onto the scene in the 1990’s.  The number of payday lending institutions has jumped exponentially from 500 in 1990 to about 22,000 today (compared with 14,000 McDonald's), mainly targeting low-income African American and Latino communities. 

As Congress debates federal financial reform legislation, a key priority for financial industry lobbyists remains gutting provisions that would strengthen enforcement by state attorneys general and stopping the partial restoration of state powers to regulate national bank abuses against consumers.  As we detailed three years ago, much of the damage to communities from subprime lending might have been avoided if the Bush Administration had not been able to shut down most state anti-predatory lending laws early in the decade.

There will be 2.4 million foreclosures in 2009 along with 9 million foreclosures between 2009-2012, according to the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL).  CRL also estimates that 69 million homes will lose property value because of nearby foreclosures for a total property value loss of $502 billion.  As part of our Multi-State Shared Agenda, the Progressive States Network is working with its partners and leading experts to promote reforms to stem the foreclosure crisis and put in place reforms to discourage predatory lending practices in the future. 

Yesterday, the U.S. House Banking Committee defeated amendments that would have gutted provisions in law to restore state powers to protect consumers of national banks.  Instead, the Committee approved compromise language that, while not as expansive in the protection of state legislation as the Obama administration had urged, is still a significant victory overall against large financial interests.  By a vote of 29-38, the committee defeated a proposed amendment by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) that would have preempted all state regulation of national financial institutions.

The context of this call is that, in the wake of the financial meltdown that engulfed the country last year largely caused by fraud and predatory lending, Congress is now debating the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act (CFPA Act, H 3126). The act would create a consumer product protection agency for financial products analogous to the Consumer Product Safety Board.

Whether out of circumstance or an emerging trend, where state authority was at issue, this term the U.S. Supreme Court overwhelmingly deferred to state decision makers-- a significant reveral from last year. 

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Fed and Treasury officials have identified the disease. It's called de-leveraging, or the unwinding of debt. During the credit boom, financial institutions and American households took on too much debt."  But let's not buy into a false equivalence of "financial institutions" and those "American households" borrowing beyond their means.

The headline above is a quote from former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Richard Neely, describing what his role was as an arbitrator at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), a for-profit company hired to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses for credit card consumer loans.  "NAF is nothing more than an arm of the collection industry hiding behind a veneer of impartiality," says Richard Neely.

In a devastating expose by BusinessWeek, Neely and other former arbitrators describe an arbitration system stacked completely against consumers-- a system where creditors win 99.8% of all disputes involving companies ranging from Bank of America to Sears to Citgroup. Arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of credit card offers means consumers lose the right to have disputes decided in an independent court and instead are forced into corporation-selected arbitration firms.

Giving into corporate efforts to protect banking interests, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed SF 3396, which would have put a temporary hold on foreclosures while still requiring borrowers to make payments on their loans.  The bill would have required homeowners with a sub-prime or negative amortization loan to pay either 65 percent of the payment owed when the loan defaulted, or the minimum monthly payment when the mortgage was first created, whichever is less, for a one-year foreclosure deferment period.  The bill passed both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature with a wide margin, only to be vetoed (part of Pawlenty's record number of vetoes for a single session).  In the meantime, home foreclosures are projected to increase 39 percent this year in Minnesota, with one out of every 31 Minnesota households experiencing a foreclosure between 2005 and the end of this year.

Faced with total and continued inaction on the federal level, Maryland enacted a series of emergency measures earlier this month to combat the foreclosure crisis in the state.