Payday Holiday: How Households Fare After Payday Credit Bans
- 1 February 2008
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Payday loans are widely condemned as a “predatory debt trap.” We test that claim by researching how households in Georgia and North Carolina have fared since those states banned payday loans in May 2004 and December 2005. Compared with households in states where payday lending is permitted, households in Georgia have bounced more checks, complained more to the Federal Trade Commission about lenders and debt collectors, and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection at a higher rate. North Carolina households have fared about the same. This negative correlation—reduced payday credit supply, increased credit problems—contradicts the debt trap critique of payday lending, but is consistent with the hypothesis that payday credit is preferable to substitutes such as the bounced-check “protection” sold by credit unions and banks or loans from pawnshops.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Payday Loan PricingSSRN Electronic Journal, 2009
- Defining and Detecting Predatory LendingSSRN Electronic Journal, 2007
- Personal Bankruptcy and Credit Market CompetitionSSRN Electronic Journal, 2007
- Payday LendingJournal of Economic Perspectives, 2007
- Predatory Lending in a Rational WorldSSRN Electronic Journal, 2005
- Payday Lending: Do the Costs Justify the Price?SSRN Electronic Journal, 2005
- How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004
- Informal BankruptcySSRN Electronic Journal, 2002
- The Use of Checks and Other Noncash Payment Instruments in the United StatesFederal Reserve Bulletin, 2002
- Fringe banking: check-cashing outlets, pawnshops, and the poorChoice Reviews Online, 1995