I think more to the point. If you or I were to do this lending we would get our collars felt pronto and end up in jail.

But these companies do it, charging up to 3000%APR.

IIRC, fairly recently a guy was jailed from Bacup in Lancashire. He never threatened anyone, and some of his 'clients' spoke on his behalf.

Why are some 'crooks' jailed but other 'crooks' aren't for doing exactly the same thing ? Lending money at extrortionate interest rates.

Decent chap that I am, I'll answer your questions, even though you are unwilling or unable to answer mine.

1. Yes
2. No
3. No (and never in any post ever called for an abolition of regulation). The fact that you ask this implies that not only will you not answer questions, but that you are not even really reading posts.
4. The two facts seem unrelated.
5. By providing products and services that people want. Or inheritance. Or lottery and gambling wins

Where do you think they get it from?

Now, decent defender of the weak (or oppressor of the week) show you decency by reading and answering please.

Have you actually read any of the thread?

You are a Conservative Peer of the Realm and I claim my £5 (in benefits).

It's not about abolishing regulation, it's about actually introducing some!

Yes, that's how ethical companies do earn profits...a fair charge for a fair service. That's not the model for pay day loan companies. Of course, they offer a very good service for those who can afford them, but giving PAY DAY loans to people on benefits...really??

Well if we are happy to take gambling and alcohol sponsorship I see no reason not to take legal loan sharks money.

Absolutely. It's not the role of the RFL to act as the moral compass of society. That is for government to do.

Of course, gambling and alcohol are already well regulated, whereas pay day loans companies aren't. They could all be better regulated still further though.

Financial services are well regulated. Most of the thread has been about opinion, but that's just a plain fact.

I'm not a banker nor a conservative nor a peer of the realm. Nor is this thread some kind of "guess who" gameshow.

There is financial services regulation in place. You might not agree with some of it, in which case you could point to specific parts you don't like. That would make more sense than simply claiming there isn't any.

I believe it's ethical to allow people to make their own choices in life. You seem to want to oppress them and make their choices for them. Which is more ethical?

The previous de-regulation of be financial services sector is one of biggest political issues of the time. To suggest they are well regulated is crackers.

You ask for an example...how about the onus being on the lender to be confident in the ability of the borrower to have the ability to meet the repayments?

Your last point is bang on. You shouldn't make people's choices for them, but you should ensure the appropriate market conditions for them to be making their own choices fairly and without letting them be taken advantage of.

No

Why do you think it's crackers?

Surely there should be an onus on both the borrower and the lender? After all, the lender is at a significant disadvantage in that they know far less about the borrower than the borrower knows about the lender.

Yeah but this is the whole point, the finiancial services authority are geared towards high street banks and that kind of finance they haven't yet got to grips with the payday loans companies lending to whoever they please and then demanding extortionate fees/interest when they can't repay.

I agree that it is not beneficial to make peoples decision for them, but a lot of people are not capable of workign out risk/reward ratio due to poor intelligence/desperation and these people get taken for a ride. As a society, we have the responsibility to ensure that these people are protected from the happy clappy advertsing that these companies deal in, and the tremendous suffering they can cause.

Seriously? You think lenders know nothing about the applicant?? And you think the current regulations are sufficient??

Perversely, your post proves the point that proper, rigorous regulation is still needed.

Excellent post, by the way.

I didn't say lenders know nothing about the applicant.

I didn't say whether current regulations are sufficient, only that they are there.

I didn't say that regulation wasn't needed, so nothing perverse about the post at all.

Read what I write, rather than what you think I wrote.

I would disagree. Remember having a debtor who doesn't pay is no good to a lender.

How are we to decide who is capable of making their own decisions? It's clear "payday" lenders have a role and reason to exist, so how are you to decide who can use them?

It's a quandary isn't it.

The need for some form of proper regulation is not something made up on a rugby league message board...it's a real problem that is being discussed at central government level.

"I/we" don't decide...but those elected to look after us have to.

Making sure the outlay, return and ability to meet the repayments have to be balanced and fair. Does that seem reasonable?

Fair enough, and a better point than where we started.



Yes, depending on what you deem fair

of course that also must apply to both sides.

We don't have to decide on an individual basis, however we need to ensure that the bulk of people who are clearly in need of protection are protected by making the companies responsible lenders, as they have done with the banks.

Also, I think you will find that a creditor would rather have someone who borrows £1k a year and pays £200 interest, than someone who buys a new Porsche on his card every month and pays 0% interest due to always making his payments on time.

And why do you think they aren't?



Both of which would be debtors who pay. As I said.
(If that were a credit card BTW, the card provider would be making much more money on that deal than £200!)