When well-meaning regulations collide with the realities of financial need, the fallout can be as unexpected as it is impactful.
Imagine Joe, a single parent caught off-guard by a medical emergency seeking a $500 loan to cover urgent expenses. Now, picture the lender, bound by a 36% APR cap, trying to offer that help while staying afloat.
Or Nora, a hardworking nurse, who depends on her car to get to her hospital shifts. When her car suddenly broke down, the repair shop quoted $500 to get it running again. With payday still weeks away, Nora needed cash fast to avoid missing work. She turned to a short-term loan, agreeing to a $100 fee for the $500 loan, due in 22 days.
While the loan helped Nora stay on the job, the cost was significant. Her story raises a pressing question: How can we lenders offer emergency funds affordably while still remaining viable under strict APR Cap regulations?
The tension between protecting borrowers and preserving access to credit has never been more pronounced. Are we safeguarding consumers—or leaving them stranded in their time of greatest need?
I aim to unpack the hidden ripple effects of 36% APR caps on the subprime lending ecosystem and the borrowers it serves.
What are the implications of this trend for a 36% APR cap on subprime loans? Are loan principals increasing and terms lengthening? Are working folks being denied access to emergency cash in times of need?
The trending 36% APR cap on cash advances, often championed as a consumer protection measure, has significant implications for lenders, borrowers, and the overall loan market.
Here’s an analysis of the situation and how it affects principal amounts and loan terms:
1. Implications for Loan Principal and Term Lengths
- Larger Loan Principals:
- Rationale: With a 36% APR cap, the profit margin per dollar loaned decreases. Lenders must offer larger loan amounts to spread operational and compliance costs across a more significant principal to maintain profitability.
- Consumer Behavior: Borrowers may also prefer larger loans to maximize the utility of borrowing within the lower cost structure.
- Longer Loan Terms:
- Rationale: A cap on APR limits the revenue that lenders can generate on short-term loans. To offset this, lenders may extend repayment terms to allow additional interest accrual over a longer period.
- Regulatory Compliance: Longer terms can make staying compliant with APR limits easier since shorter terms with higher fees will breach the cap.
Here’s the simplified comparison between a typical 22-day cash advance loan and a 90-day loan under a 36% APR cap:
- Loan Amount: $500
- Loan Term: 22 days
- Fee Charged: $100
- Total Repayment: $600 (Loan + Fee)
- APR: 331%
- Loan Amount: $500
- Loan Term: 90 days
- Fee Charged: $44.38
- Total Repayment: $544.38 (Loan + Fee)
- APR: 35.92
- For Borrowers:
- The longer-term Loan (90 days) costs less in fees ($44 vs. $100).
- You’ll repay $544.38 over 90 days instead of $600 in 22 days, so it’s more affordable in the short term.
- For Lenders:
- The fee income is much lower ($44 vs. $100).
- Lenders must adjust loan offerings or find ways to cut costs to stay profitable.
2. Shifts in Loan Product Offerings
- Shift Away from Payday Loans:
- Traditional payday loans and cash advances with high fees and short terms become less viable under the 36% APR cap.
- Lenders may pivot to offering installment loans or lines of credit, which can fit within the 36% APR framework.
- Bundled Services: Some lenders will add services like credit monitoring or financial literacy programs to offset revenue losses indirectly.
3. Operational and Financial Impacts on Lenders
- Revenue Decline: The cap reduces income per Loan, especially for subprime lenders relying on high short-term fees.
- Increased Compliance Costs: Lenders face higher compliance and reporting costs to ensure adherence to the APR cap.
- Consolidation in the Market: Smaller or niche lenders may exit the market, leaving larger or more innovative players to dominate.
4. Borrower Impacts
- Access to Credit: While the cap aims to reduce predatory lending, it has unintentionally reduced access to credit for high-risk borrowers, as lenders become less willing to take on risk under a capped profit model. [*Illinois Study: See Below.]
- Potential Rise in Loan Rejections: Borrowers with lower creditworthiness may be deemed unprofitable, increasing rejection rates.
5. Secondary Impacts
- Alternative Lending Growth: Borrowers may turn to unregulated or less-regulated lenders, including online or peer-to-peer platforms, potentially leading to predatory practices outside the cap.
- Increased Demand for Title Loans or Pawn Services: Borrowers unable to access traditional cash advances will seek alternatives like title loans, which often fall outside the cap in some states.
Lenders affected by a 36% APR cap can explore several alternatives to maintain profitability while adhering to the regulatory environment. Here are some key options:
- Shift to Installment Loans
- What It Is: Instead of offering short-term loans, provide installment loans that are repaid over a longer period with lower monthly payments.
- Why It Works: The APR cap is easier to meet with longer repayment terms, and lenders can earn more overall interest.
- Offer Larger Loan Amounts
- What It Is: Increase the minimum loan amount offered (e.g., from $500 to $1,000 or more).
- Why It Works: Spreading operational costs over a larger principal allows lenders to stay profitable despite capped fees.
- Introduce Subscription-Based Lending
- What It Is: Charge customers a subscription or membership fee to access credit services rather than relying solely on interest or fees.
- Why It Works: This creates a steady revenue stream that doesn’t count toward APR calculations.
- Focus on Secured Loans
- What It Is: Shift to loans backed by collateral (e.g., title loans and pawn loans).
- Why It Works: Secured loans are less risky, allowing lenders to offer lower interest rates while minimizing defaults.
- Develop a Line of Credit
- What It Is: Provide an open-ended line of credit where borrowers only pay interest on the amount used.
- Why It Works: Lines of credit often have different APR structures and appeal to customers seeking flexibility.
- Add Value-Added Services
- What It Is: Bundle loans with other services like financial counseling, credit repair, or budgeting tools.
- Why It Works: These can be offered for an additional fee or as part of a premium lending package.
- Focus on Low-Risk Borrowers
- What It Is: Tighten credit standards to lend only to borrowers with better repayment histories.
- Why It Works: Lower default rates improve profitability, even with capped fees.
- The Bad: This policy eliminates the ability of millions of consumers in financial distress to access emergency funding.
- Partner with Employers or Businesses
- What It Is: Offer salary-advance programs or employee-focused credit solutions through employer partnerships.
- Why It Works: Employers act as intermediaries, reducing risks for lenders and creating a captive borrower base.
- Explore Alternative Revenue Models
- What It Is: Generate income from advertising, affiliate partnerships, or commissions on third-party financial products.
- Why It Works: Diversifies revenue streams beyond lending fees.
- Use Advanced Risk-Based Pricing
- What It Is: Implement dynamic pricing models based on individual borrower risk, adhering to the APR cap while maximizing revenue for lower-risk borrowers.
- Why It Works: Ensures compliance while optimizing earnings.
- Leverage Technology for Efficiency
- What It Is: Use automation and AI to streamline loan underwriting, servicing, and collections processes.
- Why It Works: Reducing operational costs allows lenders to remain competitive despite lower fee income.
- Move to States/Tribal Lending Models with No APR Caps
- What It Is: Relocate or expand operations to jurisdictions without restrictive APR caps.
- Why It Works: This can provide regulatory relief, although it may require significant upfront investment.
Each of these strategies comes with its own set of challenges and regulatory considerations. The right approach will depend on your customer base, business model, and geographic location. Future Considerations
- Legislative Adjustments: States or federal agencies may tweak regulations to address unintended consequences, such as access to credit gaps.
- Lender Innovation: Expect increased creative lending models, such as subscription-based lending, BNPL, revenue-based financing, or embedded credit in other services.
- Consumer Education: Educating consumers on APR impacts, loan structuring, and alternative credit options will become increasingly vital.
Questions? Need help? Introductions?
Reach out to Jer at : Jer@theBusinessOfLending.com
4-WAYS I CAN HELP YOU!
Grab a copy of our “bible:” Learn More
Brainstorm: Learn More
The Business of Lending: Learn More
Free Bi-Monthly Newsletter: Learn More
Illinois Study
In 2021, Illinois implemented a 36% annual percentage rate (APR) cap on consumer loans under $40,000 from non-bank and non-credit union lenders through the Predatory Loan Prevention Act (PLPA).
Studies examining the effects of this rate cap have revealed significant impacts on subprime borrowers and the lending market in Illinois:
Impact on Loan Availability
– The number of loans to subprime borrowers decreased by 38-44%[4][9].
– Overall, lending licenses in Illinois declined by 64% from March 2021 to March 2024[1].
– Installment loan licenses specifically fell by 51% during the same period[1].
Effects on Loan Size and Borrower Behavior
– The average loan size for subprime borrowers increased by 35-40%.
– Many consumers reported being unable to borrow necessary funds since the rate cap’s implementation[9].
– Some borrowers turned to potentially more expensive alternatives like pawn loans[10].
Financial Well-being of Borrowers
– 39% of surveyed borrowers indicated a decline in their financial well-being[9].
– Only 11% reported an improvement in their financial situation after the rate cap[10].
– 79% of respondents expressed a desire to have the option to return to their previous lenders[9].
Contrasting Viewpoints
While some organizations claim the rate cap has saved Illinois consumers money[3], others argue it has limited access to credit for those who need it most[7]. The debate continues over whether the intended consumer protection outweighs the reduced access to credit for subprime borrowers.
Citations:
[1] https://onlinelendersalliance.org/three-years-into-illinois-rate-cap-lender-licenses-are-down-64-percent-highlighting-how-rate-cap-has-significantly-diminished-consumers-access-to-credit/
[2] https://www.towerloan.com/blog/consequences-of-apr-lending-law/
[3] https://woodstockinst.org/press-release/new-report-state-interest-rate-cap-has-saved-illinois-consumers-more-than-600-million/
[4] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4315919
[5] https://www.financialservicesperspectives.com/2021/03/illinois-caps-consumer-loans-at-36-rate-limiting-consumers-access-to-credit/
[6] https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v197y2023i3d10.1007_s11127-023-01087-4.html
[7] https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/illinois-provides-a-perfect-case-study-on-how-rate-caps-hurt-americans
[8] https://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2023/01/impact-of-the-illinois-predatory-loan-prevention-act.html
[9] https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2023/01/30/study-of-illinois-36-interest-rate-cap-finds-reduced-access-to-credit/
[10] https://onlinelendersalliance.org/latest-woodstock-institute-study-seeks-to-hide-the-harsh-reality-of-the-illinois-rate-caps-impact-on-consumers-less-access-to-credit-for-those-who-need-it-most/
[11] https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/chicago.pdf