Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/23/2004 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 389-DEFERRED DEPOSIT ADVANCES (PAYDAY LOANS) CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 389, "An Act relating to certain monetary advances in which the deposit or other negotiation of certain instruments to pay the advances is delayed until a later date; and providing for an effective date." [HB 389 was sponsored by the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.] CHAIR ANDERSON explained that he hadn't received a proposed committee substitute (CS) from Legislative Legal and Research Services because of last-minute changes from governmental entities including the Department of Law. Therefore, he asked that the draft proposed CS from the Office of the Attorney General be adopted instead. Number 0098 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the undated, unnumbered draft version in packets labeled "House Bill No. 389" as a conceptual CS. CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no objection, announced that the proposed CS was before the committee. Number 0170 CHAIR ANDERSON reminded members that the bill has to do with deposits and monetary advances; that there was previous discussion of caps and rollovers; and that changes had been worked out by those who pressed for this legislation from the Division of Banking and Securities and the Office of the Attorney General, who had come to some consensus. The $1,000 cap originally in the bill on the amount for which a person could negotiate an advance was believed to be too high by AARP and others; Chair Anderson said he agreed and it was lowered to $500 in the proposed CS. There also had been a fear about rollovers resulting to when a customer could not repay the loan in a timely manner. Thus this proposed CS has two rollovers, rather than the original four in the bill. CHAIR ANDERSON explained that the proposed CS also requires the lender to post a bond to get a license; there was no bond in the original bill. The lender will be subject to closer scrutiny by the Division of Banking and Securities, which he suggested Mr. Sniffen could address. The lender also must offer the consumer a payment-plan option before initiating legal action to collect against a consumer in default; this payment plan includes sending a certified letter offering to assist the consumer. He suggested this stays within the spirit of consumer protection, enhances communication, and affords the consumer additional latitude if there's a potential inability to repay. CHAIR ANDERSON said proposed changes include a $700 cap, down from $1,000 in the original bill, on total damages the lender can recover in addition to the face value of the check for collection efforts. The lender can only charge $15 per $100 loan and no other fees, charges, or interest of any kind. The original bill allowed for additional interest, which AARP and the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG) had testified was exorbitant. Furthermore, there are now specific disclosure requirements concerning fees, charges, penalties, and so forth that weren't in the original bill. He remarked that he's somewhat satisfied at this stage. Number 0414 CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified in support of HB 389. He said Chair Anderson had accurately summarized the major changes in the proposed CS; he opined that these are positive changes to protect consumers against some practices that have resulted in the most harm. In particular, he mentioned the payment-plan provision that has been implemented and that requires payday lenders to give consumers extra options to repay these debts before collection actions are initiated. Mr. Sniffen said he hadn't seen this provision in other states' legislation, thinks it's a good direction, and is glad the payday lenders were agreeable to those provisions. MR. SNIFFEN pointed out that the Department of Law had included language to address catalog sales and coupon sales practices. [Under the proposed CS] lenders cannot use those forms of payment to satisfy a transaction, either by offering a consumer coupons or merchandise out of a catalog or by using other ways to get around the limitations on fees in this legislation; he said this is positive as well. MR. SNIFFEN said the regulatory provisions of this bill are fairly extensive and give the Division of Banking and Securities fairly onerous powers to investigate and audit payday lenders to ensure compliance. He indicated the Department of Law worked with the division and the bank examiners on the language in this draft to ensure they have tools to gather information for review and take action that they deem necessary to correct violations. MR. SNIFFEN noted that the regulatory scheme of this legislation has much stronger language in the proposed CS than in the original bill. Mentioning collaboration on some of the language with Cash Alaska, one of the payday lenders, he expressed satisfaction with the result. He indicated there are numerous other requirements, but said he wanted to focus on one area that might require a conceptual amendment. Number 0614 MR. SNIFFEN began discussion of what became Conceptual Amendment 1. He referred to the requirement that a payday lender have a physical location in the state. He reported that he'd looked at this issue with Cynthia Drinkwater [assistant attorney general with the department] and believes there might be a question regarding whether an entity could be required to have a physical location in Alaska and not run afoul of prohibitions on interstate commerce activities. MR. SNIFFEN explained that [the Department of Law], with the help of the Division of Banking and Securities examiners, had arrived at some language used in Washington that could address this problem; it would require that anyone who conducts business with an Alaska resident from an out-of-state location must comply with all the terms of the Act, including licensing requirements, bonding requirements, the cap on the amount, the rollover cap, and disclosure requirements. Lenders with out-of- state locations would also be subject to investigation by Alaska's Division of Banking and Securities. But this would allow them to conduct business from an out-of-state location. MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Rokeberg, specified that the proposed change is in Sec. 06.50.010, "License required", page 1. The first sentence starts, "A person may not engage in the business of making deferred deposit advances". It would be changed to say, "A person, including persons who conduct business with Alaska residents from out-of-state locations," and then continue with the rest of the sentence as written. Also, on page 2, deleted would be subsection (a)(3), "have a physical business location in the state that is accessible and convenient to the public." Number 0850 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sniffen if, instead of deleting subsection [(a)(3)], his "out-of-state" clause could be added to the end as an "or". MR. SNIFFEN agreed that's one way to approach it, but said he wasn't sure it would be more effective than deleting that requirement. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it makes a difference substantively because by leaving the subsection (a)(3) language, the physical business location would have to be accessible and convenient to the public. He asked whether it would work to add the "or" within subsection (a)(3) along with Mr. Sniffen's language about the "out-of-state". MR. SNIFFEN said he believed that would work. CHAIR ANDERSON noted that this would be in addition to the suggested change in Sec. 06.50.010. He referred to page 2, line 4, and asked that Mr. Sniffen read what he would add [in subsection (a)(3)]. Number 0915 MR. SNIFFEN specified: We would have at the end of that sentence, "have a physical business location in the state that is accessible and convenient to the public, or, if conducting business with Alaska residents from out-of- state locations, comply with the conditions of this chapter. CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Sniffen whether those were the only substantive changes he believed should be added to this draft. MR. SNIFFEN affirmed that. Number 0969 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the foregoing as Conceptual Amendment 1. He specified that it would include the language on page 1, the first sentence of Sec. 06.50.010 [adding ", including persons who conduct business with Alaska residents from out-of-state locations,"]. Also, on page 2, fourth line, subsection (a)(3), after "public", the semicolon would be deleted, and added would be [", or, if conducting business with Alaska residents from out-of-state locations, comply with conditions of this chapter"]. Number 1035 CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. MR. SNIFFEN said he'd been working with Terry Bannister, legislative drafter, on some technical procedural language in the bill. He said none of the changes were substantive, but the [final] CS might not look exactly like the draft version before the committee now. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read from the proposed CS, page 2, which stated the following in part under Sec. 06.50.030, Application, duration, and renewal of license: (1), the legal name, residence, and business address of the applicant and, if the applicant is not a natural person, of each member, partner, director, senior officer, or owner of 10 percent of more of the equity of the applicant; REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked: I don't think we need an amendment here, but I'd just like to put on the record that the way this bill is drafted, you could have either an individual as a natural person or a person, which under our drafting manual means any business or any other entity. So, therefore, you could have a license by an individual and/or a business entity. Is that correct? MR. SNIFFEN replied, "That is correct and that was our intent. I think this language actually came from either the small loan Act or another provision, the banking code, and is consistent with how other financial institutions regulate it." Number 1136 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it's an important distinction because most occupational licensing and other licenses in the state under Title 8 apply to an individual and not a business, with the exception of architectural and engineering firms, for example. He said he wanted on the record that an individual or business could be an applicant. CHAIR ANDERSON pointed out that there wasn't a fiscal note from the Division of Banking and Securities, and said his staff had prepared a committee zero fiscal note in its place in order to move the bill forward. He asked Mr. Sniffen if he could speculate what other fiscal notes might be forthcoming from the Division of Banking and Securities, and when. MR. SNIFFEN responded that the Department of Law doesn't anticipate a fiscal impact. He pointed out that the Division of Banking and Securities [within the Department of Community & Economic Development] would have to address whether it has come up with a prospective fiscal note relating to the hiring of additional examiners. Number 1196 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page 1, Qualifications for license, paragraph (2), which read in part, "demonstrate the financial responsibility, financial condition, business experience, character, and general fitness that reasonably warrant". He asked Mr. Sniffen how the foregoing are defined. MR. SNIFFEN replied that he didn't know of a definition for any one of those, but they're terms he believes the Division of Banking and Securities understands and knows how to interpret when conducting these audits. He said he believes that language is consistent with other language in the banking code that the division uses to audit other financial institutions; furthermore, he believes the terms are fairly broad, which is intentional to some extent, to give the division some latitude to determine whether a business not only is able financially, but also has the experience to comply with the terms of this chapter. Number 1257 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG directed attention to [page 7, Sec. 06.50.130, Requirements, terms and procedures], subsection (e), which reads, "A licensee with multiple licensed offices shall not extend advances to the same recipient in excess of an aggregated principal balance of $500." He asked how that will be determined and how a record will be kept of that. MR. SNIFFEN said that's a good question, one [the department] had discussed with the Cash Alaska representatives on how they would identify individuals who are "hopping" from one business to another to take out multiple $500 loans. Admitting it would be difficult to monitor to some extent, he mentioned the Division of Banking and Securities' audits and examinations as one route to track a person using multiple lenders. He suggested Mr. Wilson, owner of Cash Alaska, could speak to how they plan to ensure that multiple locations can track lenders from one location to another. He did not know if they had the technical ability to do this tracking through their computer system so that all their locations know that a customer has received an advance, and the amount of the advance. MR. SNIFFEN pointed out that they've been unable to devise a system to track customers that "hop" from one payday lender to another payday lender. He commented, "If consumers are going to want to do that, I think there's only so much you can do to stop that." [Bud Wilson, owner of Cash Alaska, offered to answer questions.] Number 1396 STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG), Anchorage, testified in opposition to HB 389, saying though he appreciated the work by the Department of Law and others on this bill, it doesn't deal with what he sees as the central issue. This bill will allow payday lenders to lend money at interest rates in excess of 400 percent, which AkPIRG believes is unfair to consumers. It allows payday lenders to charge 417 percent APR [annual percentage rate] for a two-week loan of $500. This often leads consumers to a cycle of debt from which they cannot recover. MR. CLEARY said the State of Alaska adequately protects consumers who borrow $600, and he feels it should do the same for consumers who borrow $500 or less. Payday loans currently exist in Alaska in a legal vacuum, he said. Although Alaska is one of 15 states that still have usury laws, small-loan rate caps, and no safe harbor for payday lenders, no one is enforcing laws to protect the consumers. Increasingly, payday loans are chosen by people as a last resort, and while payday lenders can currently sue borrowers for treble damages and court costs, no one is enforcing Alaska's laws to protect these same consumers. MR. CLEARY suggested it makes no sense that the legislature thought consumers borrowing $600 should be protected by a 36 percent APR cap but those borrowing $500 should get no protection and pay over 400 percent APR. He said HB 389 purports to limit the amount a payday lender can charge to $15 per $100, which sounds like a firm regulation, until one realizes this is what the industry is currently charging and, therefore, it's no limit at all. MR. CLEARY pointed out that other states have been inundated when they decided to turn their backs on consumers. He cited a bill enabling payday loans, enacted in Oklahoma; since it took effect in September 2003, almost 300 storefront lenders have sprung up in Oklahoma, all but 17 with out-of-state owners. He noted that Internet loans are proliferating, and feels an upswing in this industry signals an unhealthy economy. Similarly, he said, the boom in payday loans is equivalent to a boom in hospital usage, which only shows that more people are ill - financially, in this case. Number 1570 MR. CLEARY suggested some changes that AkPIRG would support. One is prohibiting loans based on personal checks held for future deposits. The lenders could continue to make small loans, but couldn't hold the borrower's check as security. Nonpayment of a payday loan should be collected just as other small loans are, where the lender sues for the amount owed. In addition, payday lenders should be subject to the small loan Act in order to adequately protect consumers. MR. CLEARY said consumers need to be aware, and groups like AkPIRG are educating people every day on how to more wisely budget their finances. He noted that AkPIRG recently cooperated with the Department of Law and other groups during the national consumer protection week to promote financial literacy. He felt that, as a society, people have adopted usury statutes because of the belief that usury is wrong, and simply because these payday loans are smaller doesn't mean outrageous interest rates are not usurious. Clarifying that AkPIRG opposes HB 389 in its current form, he asked the committee to amend it to adequately protect consumers in Alaska. Number 1602 CHAIR ANDERSON said he didn't see the possibility of the proliferation of payday lenders in Alaska coming about, and hadn't seen statistics that payday lenders target the poor, seniors, or the military. He said the last thing the committee wanted to do was to harm consumers or limit consumer protection. He asked Mr. Cleary where he had gotten the information that payday lenders harm seniors and the indigent. Number 1700 MR. CLEARY responded that he'd prefer that the representative from AARP answer the portion of the question concerning the elderly. He then said: We have seen, in front of the military bases here in Anchorage, I believe, four payday loan sites just outside the base. ... In a survey we conducted at AkPIRG, they tend to be located in low-income neighborhoods, and have flashy signs and ads that are designed to address that segment of the population. I shouldn't say those are the people who are choosing these loans, people that actually are living paycheck to paycheck, because as ... any payday lender could tell you, they only lend to people who are making a steady paycheck, have utility bills and ways they can prove some income. The point that I'm trying to make is that this bill would allow people to take out loans that force them to pay 400 percent and more, annual percentage rate interest. We believe that, on its face, is unfair. CHAIR ANDERSON replied that 417 percent represents the worst- case scenario, rather than if a consumer pays back the loan within the promised period of time. He commented that he'd heard of several examples when a payday loan had forestalled repossession of a car or the cutoff of utilities. He asked Mr. Cleary if he could admit that there is a positive as well as negative side to this legislation. Number 1766 MR. CLEARY replied that he hoped education would help people have enough savings so they wouldn't have to engage in the practice of payday loans. He acknowledged that at certain times people may have to engage in this practice, but still didn't think they deserved to pay triple-digit interest rates. He further stated: Just for the record, under this bill, if somebody took out a $500 loan, paid it off in 14 days, which is the minimum period under this bill, their annual percentage rate would be 417 percent. And that's something that the truth-in-lending Act, a federal Act, requires everybody to disclose, and that's what would be disclosed at Cash Alaska or any other payday lender. Number 1811 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what AkPIRG's primary mission is, according to its charter. MR. CLEARY responded that the group has existed since 1974 in Alaska. Its mission is to help protect consumers; it deals with issues like HB 389 and utility rates. The organization is often contacted by consumers with complaints; they work together with the Department of Law, referring consumers to state agencies where they can get help with any type of consumer complaints. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "If a person has a bill that they need to pay, that's going to charge them even more for being late than the amount they could pay by borrowing this money. Is that something you would oppose?" MR. CLEARY responded that he wouldn't oppose that, but pointed out that consumers who take out payday loans are often the most vulnerable consumers that AkPIRG sees. Laws set loan rates for housing and small loans, often at a rather low percentage compared with the 400-plus percent this bill would allow. He agreed there might be emergencies when people need payday loans, but said they shouldn't be paying triple-digit percentage rates on them. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded: If a triple-digit percentage is bad, what about a quadruple-digit percentage? If, indeed, that's the choice an individual has that says, "I'm going to pay a whole lot more unless I get this thing taken care of because I have a penalty and I may have to get something repossessed and then try to get it back again" - and this 417 percent may be the annual percentage rate, but for $15 they may be able to avoid an awful lot of grief, hassle, and $25 or whatever the other penalties would be - why would you want to deny them at least the possibility of reducing the liability and the obligations to an individual that they also owe some money to? MR. CLEARY replied: That is a good question. And that, again, points to the fact of what we would consider predatory lending or why we have usury laws in the first place, because if somebody is vulnerable, do they deserve to be loaned to for such an outrageous rate? Don't we need to figure out another way to protect them, rather than subjecting them to the only option that they have left, ... to go to a payday lender and come out with a loan that charges them 400 percent interest? These are people living, literally, paycheck to paycheck, and we don't believe they should be subject to that type of predatory lending. Number 1960 GORIUNE DUDUKGIAN, Staff Attorney, Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC), Anchorage, testified against HB 389. She explained that ALSC is a statewide legal-aid organization. She commended the attorney general's office for taking this bill in the right direction. Ms. Dudukgian said she felt she could speak for those who represent consumer interests, saying they cannot support this bill because it fails to address the number- one problem with the original bill, the unconscionable interest rates it allows. Noting that Mr. Cleary had pointed out that a $500 loan has an APR of 417 percent, she said: That's just the maximum loan at the minimum term. But a $250 loan would carry 443 percent interest, and a $100 loan would bear an APR of 521 percent interest. Just to put those rates into perspective, it's been documented that loan sharks that worked for the Gambino crime family only charged between 150 percent and 250 percent for similar loans, where they took consumer checks, where they made payday loans that basically, worked the exact same way that payday loans would be working under this bill and they were charging half as much interest. MS. DUDUKGIAN compared these interest rates with the small loans Act. This bill would allow at least 10 times the interest that regular small loan lenders charge. She said she could see no reason for these high rates. Noting that payday lenders may say they need to charge these rates to protect themselves because these loans are far riskier than regular loans, she questioned this logic, since regular lenders who lend $600 and don't even have a check as security can only charge 36 percent interest. In contrast, payday lenders take a check and could previously get treble damages, and in this bill would still get up to $700 more than the face of the loan. Ms. Dudukgian also noted that in Alaska not many people are judgment-proof, and lenders have the security of going to court when permanent fund checks are distributed and making a claim for $700 in addition to the face value of the loan, which would be a very large profit. Number 2073 MS. DUDUKGIAN proposed to solve these concerns by requiring the current payday lenders to disclose the APR, an action mandated by the federal truth-in-lending Act. She suggested that the legislature put a hard cap on the APR that payday lenders can charge, a hard cap far lower than the 417 percent currently allowed, no more than double digits, which would still be a handsome profit for the payday lenders. Suggesting the bill doesn't allow for a private right of action, she explained that the Division of Banking and Securities might not have the capability of enforcement, and the attorney general's office funding has been cut. Noting that there's been an inability to prosecute a lot of the consumer-related violations, she submitted that the same would happen under the current legislation. MS. DUDUKGIAN assured members that hard statistics from other states indicate payday lenders target military families and seniors; she suggested similar statistics would apply in Alaska if the studies were done. She had received information from Mr. Cleary's organization that confirmed these targets, she noted. Number 2160 ANGELA LISTON, Director, Office of Justice and Peace, Archdiocese of Anchorage, spoke on behalf of the Alaska Catholic Conference, the public-policy arm of Alaska's Catholic bishops. She said the conference supports the concept of HB 389 and is pleased with some of the changes incorporated into the proposed CS, particularly lowering the maximum loan amount to $500 and curtailing the use of the bad-check civil penalty in case of default. She said she felt this bill would begin the conversation on regulating industry, and she applauded the committee for taking these steps. However, she said, the Catholic Church had long opposed exorbitant profits on loans to the working poor. MS. LISTON related some concerns. She said 10 days ago the Georgia [House of Representatives] overwhelmingly passed legislation to crack down on these types of loans and set the new loan interest cap at 60 percent. She said this legislation was of particular interest to Alaska because, according to the newspaper reports, it came as the military officials across Georgia tried with lawmakers to stop these lenders from taking advantage of cash-strapped soldiers. Fort Stewart has called these lenders "enemies at its gates." Georgia now bans lenders from garnishing soldiers' wages or contacting a base commander to collect on a loan. She said the proximity of payday lenders to the gates of Elmendorf Air Force Base certainly should cause some concern, and more questions needed to be asked. MS. LISTON said the crux of the issue is protection of the consumer. One business in Anchorage said it processes 26,000 loans per year; if that represents 26,000 individuals taking out two-week loans, she said, she feels this industry provides a valuable system of service. However, if the trend in Alaska is similar to other states, then that number is probably quite different. She cited a national study as the source of information that many borrowers are applying for back-to-back loans. In California, borrowers average 11 loans per year; in Illinois, 13; in Indiana, 12; and in Wisconsin, 13. MS. LISTON mentioned that 26,000 loans that Anchorage businesses process every year. She said it's important to know the number of individuals who are taking out those loans. She informed the committee that if Alaskan statistics are similar to other states, then these borrowers average 12 loans per year, and thus 26,000 loans might only represent 2,000 borrowers. When this is added to the fact that these businesses also sue 500 borrowers a year for defaulting, then one couldn't call this short-term lending or helpful credit; rather, it is increasing, chronic, and overwhelming debt for people. MS. LISTON urged consideration of the effect of this type of lending on both soldiers and those for whom the cycle of debt might become crushing. She recommended a much-reduced fee or interest rate. TAPE 04-16, SIDE B Number 2342 MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, testified in opposition to HB 389 as it was introduced. She proposed several changes: the interest rate should be no more than 36 percent APR, the available loan amount shouldn't be more than $300, and borrowers should be allowed to make partial repayments. She read her testimony, which stated [original punctuation provided but some formatting changed]: AARP, in partnership with the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer's Union, the National Consumer Law Center, has developed what we feel is a model bill to deal with the issue of payday lenders. You were all given a copy of that model bill some time ago. Among our recommendations: Each deferred deposit loan must have a minimum term of no less than two weeks for each $50 owed on the loan. A consumer shall be permitted to make partial payments (in amounts equal to no less than $5 increments) on the loan at any time, without charge. The maximum amount of the deferred deposit loan shall not exceed $300. We are sure that the Committee is concerned with consumer protection. If the term of the loan is not less than two weeks per $50, consumers will have a better chance of paying off the loan rather than defaulting and possibly facing court action or having to renew the loan at exorbitant rates. We understand that a new version of the bill does retains the maximum amount at $500 rather than increasing the available loan amount to $1,000; we believe Alaska should reduce the available amount from $500 to $300. Fees are money out of someone's pocket. So is interest. If you and I do not pay off our credit cards each month, we will have to pay interest. If I take out a payday loan and pay an exorbitant fee, much higher than interest on a credit card, it is still money...a significant amount of money...out of my pocket. If credit card companies can made handsome profits with interest rates in the 18 to 23 percent range, why cannot a payday loan outfit make a profit with an interest rate, or a fee, that does not go beyond 36%. Our model law also allows for an administrative fee of no more than $5 per loan, no matter how much the loan is for. There are some states that have determined that payday lenders should not be allowed to exist in their states. AARP does not argue that they should be banned; we only argue that the interest rate should be no more than 36% APR; the available loan amount should not be more than $300, and borrowers should be allowed to make partial re-payments. If a consumer has more than $300 in outstanding payday loans, from one or more than one lender, they should be prohibited from taking out any additional loans from any payday lending organization. We believe this is in everyone's best interest. CHAIR ANDERSON noted that she'd supported some of the changes contained in the proposed CS and commented, "So, we're continuing this evolution." REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Darlin if she'd had a chance to look at the proposed CS. MS. DARLIN replied that she'd received a copy today and that her testimony agreed with most of the changes proposed in the CS. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the proposed CS went far enough. MS. DARLIN replied, "If you can go along with what we are recommending here." CHAIR ANDERSON stated the desire to come to a consensus. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked someone from Cash Alaska to comment on Mr. Sniffen's question about borrowers who are "hopping" from one lender to another. Number 2066 DEBRA FINK, Owner, Cash Alaska, testified in support of HB 389 and responded that she did not know how to keep track of borrowers that "hop." Within her own business of four stores she said there is never any danger of a borrower's going beyond the $500 limit. She stated, "I don't still think there's any way of knowing whether somebody is going across town to another place and taking out a loan that brings their total in excess of $500. But certainly within our business, in our own stores, we can control that." MS. FINK addressed the 36 percent interest rate as not being enough to allow the industry to stay in business. She said her business did 26,000 loans last year for 24,000 customers, bringing in approximately $120,000 in fees. Her overhead included nine full-time positions covering four locations, making $40,000 each. This cost of $360,000 is three times the 36 percent cap that has been recommended. In addition, she has two and a half positions in her collections division, a full- time auditor who does the payroll advances, general managers, and store managers. She said 40 percent of the $15 fee goes towards payroll. Her business has overhead costs of a lease, utilities, and the computer system that connects the stores. She explained that it is expensive to run a business in Alaska. Number 1925 MS. FINK turned attention to a handout about a recent study of payday lenders in Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, and Wisconsin. It showed a 10 percent profit after costs. She said she felt this was in the ballpark of the profit she experiences, and she couldn't offer her services at a 36 percent cap. In response to a remark from Chair Anderson, Ms. Fink pointed out that $15 per $100 is under the national average, so Alaska charges the low- end rate in the business. Stand-alone stores that charge a rate of "about $17 per $100" are going out of business in the Lower 48, she said, and many of her stand-alone Anchorage competitors have ceased to exist. Number 1810 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG clarified the source of a handout that he'd distributed entitled "NCO Update, 08/01/2003." He said it helps non-commissioned officers keep abreast of military matters and is copyrighted under the Association of the United States Army. CHAIR ANDERSON said the Division of Banking and Securities, the Office of the Attorney General, and, to a degree, AARP had collaborated with his office on the proposed CS. He acknowledged that AARP had originally recommended its national model and promoted lowering the cap further than was done in HB 389. He noted that Ms. Fink had provided correspondence from individuals supportive of the legislation, and said the committee hadn't heard from any customers who had problems. CHAIR ANDERSON commented that he wanted to maintain consumer protection but at the same time have a law that regulates payday lenders. The attorney general's office wanted conformity and statutory definition as to levels of licensure, he said, and consumer protection; he surmised that the attorney general's office supports this bill. He noted that eight major revisions had been made to the bill, but acknowledged that these changes didn't completely satisfy AARP. Number 1693 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said military people and seniors aren't stupid and know what interest rates are. He remarked: I think there are just as many qualified people that know how to conduct their business in the military as in any other segment of the population. The same goes with seniors. I don't think military or seniors are any less capable of making financial decisions than anybody else. Number 1653 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 389 [the undated, unnumbered conceptual CS adopted as a work draft] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected, stating concern that the committee didn't have an official version of the bill. He said he'd like to see the original version with Mr. Sniffen's additions and Representative Rokeberg's amendments. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted it was a valid concern. Recalling that his motion to adopt the proposed CS was made conceptually, he said he thought the style of the document was adequate to "give public exposition to what the language intended." CHAIR ANDERSON offered, "We will draft this into the CS, the legislative protocol and document, and then have you look at it to make sure, verbatim, what this document says with the added amendment, within the next day. With that, do you maintain your objection?" REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection. Number 1545 CHAIR ANDERSON indicated that there being no further objection, CSHB 389(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|