Payday lenders should be regulated

Companies like Wonga are currently trusted to regulate themselves, but that has to change.

On Monday Stella Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill which calls for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the new financial regulator, to be given the power to set the total cost of credit that a lender can charge, rather than the self-regulatory model which currently exists.

Creasy’s amendment, which would be extended to clause 22, reads:

The FCA may make rules or apply a sanction to authorised persons who offer credit on terms the FCA judge to cause consumer detriment.

This may include rules that determine a maximum total cost for consumers of a product and determine the maximum duration of a supply of a product or service to an individual consumer.

Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the Treasury select committee, back in January this year viewed the creation of the FCA as an opportunity to improve upon the way in which the Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulated financial products.

However Tyrie did also warn that:

If we are not careful, the FCA will become the poor relation among the new institutions.

Many – Stella Creasy included – were hopeful about products such as payday loans being regulated "under one roof" by the FCA, but were concerned the authority didn’t have enough teeth to clamp down on irresponsible or predatory lending.

In many ways the FCA needs to challenge the "light touch regulation" of the day. The OFT's 2010 guidance for creditors on irresponsible lenders points out that credit commitments should involve consideration from the lender to assess a loan’s affordability to a potential debtor.

The FCA needs to do more than just assume a lender will do this assessment, particularly as rollover loans benefit it to the detriment of a debtor.

Moreover, we know payday lenders do not always make good on their promise to lend responsibly.

Wonga, the payday lender, who, it has to be said, recieves all the attention over far more dangerous lenders in the market, itself doesn’t always keep its word on responsible lending.

During an interview in March 2011 with the Guardian journalist Amelia Gentleman, with the opportunity to showcase some examples of, in Gentleman's words, the "web-savvy young professionals that the company believes it's catering to", Wonga decided to showcase Susan.

Gentleman writes of Susan:

She finds that with the cost of living rising, her benefits sometimes don't stretch to the end of the month, and has taken out loans with Wonga to buy food, if she's caught short. She's a bit vague, but thinks she's taken out half a dozen loans with Wonga over the past few months. . . She has had problems with credit cards before, and doesn't have an overdraft, but Wonga gave her credit very swiftly.

Not only will Susan's income be significantly less than that of the average person to take out a Wonga loan, according to Wonga themselves, she manages to be in that category of people who haven't access to mainstream forms of borrowing, has taken out nearly double the average payday loans per year per borrower (three-and-a-half), has taken out exactly double the average amount of loans Wonga customers use and is still an example Wonga felt was a “good representative.”

As FSA chief executive Hector Sands said on the release of the FCA's approach document, trust in financial services is at an “all time low”. It is the task of the FCA to find “the right balance between the benefits of early intervention and the consequent risks of reducing choice and raising costs”.

These are, of course, strong words given the context of the regulatory authority’s previous shyness towards tough action. But enough time has been spent tip-toeing around the issue; we need to learn how it is done in other countries instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

When I caught up with Damon Gibbons, Director of the Centre for Responsible Credit and the author of a forthcoming book on debt in the 21st century, he reminded me:

The Financial Conduct Authority needs to be provided with the powers to help consumers who are being ripped off by unfair charges and extortionate interest rates. In many cases, the price of credit has nothing to do with the genuine risk to the lender, but is set at a level that simply takes advantage of consumers who are on desperately low incomes and need urgent access to cash.  There is no place for that sort of profiteering from poverty in many other European countries, most US states or Canada and we should give our regulator the powers to stamp it out here as well.

The amendment which Stella Creasy has suggested to the Financial Services Bill, the response to which should be known by May, would be a good chance for the government to signal its opposition to socially harmful lending. Those on the side of fairness should hold out hope.

A payday lender in Rochdale, England. Photograph: Getty Images

Carl Packman is a writer, researcher and blogger. He is the author of the forthcoming book Loan Sharks to be released by Searching Finance. He has previously published in the Guardian, Tribune Magazine, The Philosopher's Magazine and the International Journal for Žižek Studies.
 

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump's dangerous nation

From North Korea to Virginia, the US increasingly resembles a rogue state.

When Donald Trump was elected as US president, some optimistically suggested that the White House would have a civilising effect on the erratic tycoon. Under the influence of his more experienced colleagues, they argued, he would gradually absorb the norms of international diplomacy.

After seven months, these hopes have been exposed as delusional. On 8 August, he responded to North Korea’s increasing nuclear capabilities by threatening “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. Three days later, he casually floated possible military action against Venezuela. Finally, on 12 August, he responded to a white supremacist rally in Virginia by condemning violence on “many sides” (only criticising the far right specifically after two days of outrage).

Even by Mr Trump’s low standards, it was an embarrassing week. Rather than normalising the president, elected office has merely inflated his self-regard. The consequences for the US and the world could be momentous.

North Korea’s reported acquisition of a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on an intercontinental missile (and potentially reach the US) demanded a serious response. Mr Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric was not it. His off-the-cuff remarks implied that the US could launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, leading various officials to “clarify” the US position. Kim Jong-un’s regime is rational enough to avoid a pre-emptive strike that would invite a devastating retaliation. However, there remains a risk that it misreads Mr Trump’s intentions and rushes to action.

Although the US should uphold the principle of nuclear deterrence, it must also, in good faith, pursue a diplomatic solution. The week before Mr Trump’s remarks, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, rightly ruled out “regime change” and held out the possibility of “a dialogue”.

The North Korean regime is typically depicted as crazed, but its pursuit of nuclear weapons rests on rational foundations. The project is designed to guarantee its survival and to strengthen its bargaining hand. As such, it must be given incentives to pursue a different path.

Mr Trump’s bellicose language overshadowed the successful agreement of new UN sanctions against North Korea (targeting a third of its $3bn exports). Should these prove insufficient, the US should resume the six-party talks of the mid-2000s and even consider direct negotiations.

A failure of diplomacy could be fatal. In his recent book Destined for War, the Harvard historian Graham Allison warns that the US and China could fall prey to “Thucydides’s trap”. According to this rule, dating from the clash between Athens and Sparta, war typically results when a dominant power is challenged by an ascendent rival. North Korea, Mr Bew writes, could provide the spark for a new “great power conflict” between the US and China.

Nuclear standoffs require immense patience, resourcefulness and tact – all qualities in which Mr Trump is lacking. Though the thought likely never passed his mind, his threats to North Korea and Venezuela provide those countries with a new justification for internal repression.

Under Mr Trump’s leadership, the US is becoming an ever more fraught, polarised nation. It was no accident that the violent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of the 32-year-old Heather Heyer, took place under his presidency. Mr Trump’s victory empowered every racist, misogynist and bigot in the land. It was doubtless this intimate connection that prevented him from immediately condemning the white supremacists. To denounce them is, in effect, to denounce himself.

The US hardly has an unblemished history. It has been guilty of reckless, immoral interventions in Vietnam, Latin America and Iraq. But never has it been led by a man so heedless of international and domestic norms. Those Republicans who enabled Mr Trump’s rise and preserve him in office must do so no longer. There is a heightened responsibility, too, on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, the president. The Brexiteers have allowed dreams of a future US-UK trade deal to impair their morality.

Under Mr Trump, the US increasingly resembles a breed it once denounced: a rogue state. His former rival Hillary Clinton’s past warning that “a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons” now appears alarmingly prescient.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear