Archive for January, 2011

Doorstep Lenders Receiving Unwanted Interest

Friday, January 14th, 2011

Unwanted interest has come from sources including industry regulator, the Competition Commission (CC), following an Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigation which was in turn sparked by a super-complaint lodged by the National Consumer Council (NCC).

Doorstep loans offer small short-term loans to people who are on low incomes or without access to bank accounts, with repayments being collected weekly or fortnightly by collectors who directly call at the customer’s homes.

Peter Freeman, chairman of the CC, said, “Customers value home credit because it suits their needs very well but the fact is that they are paying too much for it, because of the lack of competitive pressure in the market.”

The regulator found that the lack of competition in the home credit market has meant that customers had, in their opinion, been overcharged by 500m during the past five years.

Peter Freeman believes, “Price competition between the existing lenders is weak, partly because customers seem insensitive to prices, given the greater value they place on factors such as the convenience of the loan and the difficulty in comparing prices between companies.”

Although there are more transparent alternatives to doorstep lenders through such high street companies as My PayDay Loan (http://www.mypaydayloan.co.uk ), which provide quick access short term loans, the six major door-step lenders still account for about 90% of the market, with the largest, Provident Financial, currently owning 60% of the 2bn per year industry.

Whereas there is ample regulation and there are high levels of competition for traditional unsecured loans, with financial product comparison sites like Moneynet (http://www.moneynet.co.uk ) providing consumers with quick access to comparisons across the standard loan industry, there is little competition and product comparison information is not readily available from doorstep lenders. The CC announced that the lack of adequate competition within the market was allowing lenders to overcharge their most vulnerable customers.

The CC recommended a series of changes to help reduce the problem, including suggestions that the lenders provide better information on their pricing and introducing regular statements in an effort to allow customers to shop around easier. Another suggestion to promote increased competition which was put on the table was for more data sharing with the credit reference agencies by the lenders about their customers’ credit histories. The CC also threatened that if lenders did not follow the recommendations, then in future it might impose a price cap on the maximum interest payable for these types of loan.

The CC’s announcements have provoked a furious reaction from the doorstep lenders who have challenged the calculations and the conclusion that this sector of the loan industry was making excessive profits.

A representative for Provident stated, “Customers are not being overcharged for their home credit loans nor is the home credit sector making excessive profits.”

Provident commented that the method of calculating the loan profitability was “flawed”, as it did not include the intangible costs of running a network of agents who collected payments door-to-door.

Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, said recommendation by the CC might help to encourage some of the more mainstream banks to extend their lending practices into lending to lower-income customers.

Disclaimer:
All information contained in this article, is for general information purposes only and should not be construed as advice under the Financial Services Act 1986.

You are strongly advised to take appropriate professional and legal advice before entering into any binding contracts.

Does the American government see its citizens as its children?

Friday, January 7th, 2011

Does the American government see its citizens as its children?

In Americas 230 year history the government seems to have forgotten that there job is to run the government as the people see as best and not the government telling the people what is best for them.

The most recent example is the Internet gambling Ban signed into law last week by President Bush. The bill makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to transfer money to casinos for the purpose of wagering on sports or games of chance, like roulette, blackjack and poker.

These games are harmlessly enjoyed regularly by millions of Americans everyday, but some people become addicted to these games so the government is telling all of its citizens that no one is allowed to play these games in an online casino.

This is not the first case of the government going against the wishes of the people, in the early 1900s the government decided that the consumption of Alcohol should be banned, because some people were developing health and mental problems related to drinking too much. So rather then educating the people on the ill effects of prolonged Alcohol abuse the American government banned Alcohol.

But instead of reducing the consumption of Alcoholic beverages it increased, and because the government was not allowing the production or importing of Alcohol, organized grime got into the moonshine business, and eventually the Government saw the error of their decision and repealed the law.

Another great example of a failed policy to protect the people is the war on drugs that the government has been aging since the early 1980s Billions of tax dollars a year goes into the war on drugs, but what are the results?

The price of drugs has risen, and to support their habits many drug addicts have had to commit acts of robbery and murder to get their drugs.

The American prisons are packed full of people whose only crime was possession of these illegal drugs.

Instead of being an industry that is regulated and controlled you have people selling these drugs to kids in school playgrounds, and shooting each other to protect their territory.

Had the government decided not to criminalize drugs but make it a heavily controlled industry, they could use the tax money for social programs like schools ad to give Americans universal health care.

Please do not misunderstand me I am not in favor for legalizing hard drugs, but the current system is not working at all, but I am all in favor for legalizing online casino gambling.

If I choose to play some hands of blackjack or poker from the comfort of my home what rights does the government have to tell me not to, and what sense does it make that I can not play in a casino over the internet, but I can drive down the street to the local casino and play there.

To enforce this ban millions if not billions of dollars of software and computer hardware will be needed to monitor all of the banks transactions and that money will come from taxes instead of the government taxing online casinos or even having all the online casinos government controlled then they get all the profits to be used to improve the lives of the American citizens, millions of which are bellow the poverty line if not homeless.

The American government needs to start re-thinking its policy of treating its citizens like small children, or the American people need to demand a new government.