Uncategorized

Behind-the scenes maneuver greases skids for predatory lending bill

(Cross-posted from Legislative Watch)

It’s clearer than ever that the predatory consumer finance industry is pulling out all the stops to advance its big Christmas tree bill.

Yesterday, in a quiet move that went mostly unnoticed by observers and completely unreported by the news media, House leadership removed one of the big hurdles that stood in the bill’s way.

As introduced, the bill was “serially referred” to two different committees — the House Banking Committee and, if favorably reported there, to the House Finance Committee. Yesterday, however, the referral to Finance was quietly “stricken” thus clearing the path for the bill to move directly to the floor if it’s favorably reported by the industry-friendly Banking Committee.  This is in direct contravention of longstanding practice in the House which has always required such bills to get a Finance Committee review.

And you just know the fact that some of the Finance Committee chairs are long-time skeptics/critics of the small loan industry had nothing to do with that.

One Comment

  1. Jack

    April 15, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Whole section of the existing bill has been struck and rewritten. It doesn’t take a lawyer to understand from the text of the bill what is taking place. The title of the bill is interesting enough: AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSUMER FINANCE ACT TO INCREASE CONSUMER ACCESS AND CREDIT MARKET PARITY.

    So lets consider the parity: For example lets look at the language in the bill where it reads – “For loans made pursuant to G.S. 53-173, greater than fifteen dollars 17 ($15.00).”

    G.S. 53-173 section (a) reads – “Every licensee under this section may make loans in installments not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000) in amount, at interest rates not exceeding thirty six percent (36%) per annum on the outstanding principal balance of any loan not in excess of six hundred dollars ($600.00) and fifteen percent (15%) per annum on any remainder of such unpaid principal balance.”

    Well, at least there is percentage limit. Not much of one but at least there is one.

    Lets see if the Guvs VETO pen is mightier than those seeking parity.

    Parity in a sentence – I was parity with my pants on.