Broke, USA

The next year brought another body blow to the industry. This time it wasn’t the CRL leading the charge (though Eakes’s group would provide critical behind-the-scenes lobbying help) but the commanding officers at military bases around the country, unhappy that the payday operators had opened so many shops outside their gates—“like bears on a trout stream,” a pair of academics concluded in a 2005 study of the geography of payday lending. Was it any wonder, given that the country’s military bases were thick with young, financially inexperienced people getting by on modest salaries? In the mid-2000s, the typical army private first class started at an annual salary of $17,000 a year and nearly three-quarters of active-duty military personnel never made more than $30,000 a year. There were reports of soldiers discharged because they defaulted on a loan and many others were stuck stateside because of a military rule that stated that anyone owing more than 30 percent of his or her salary could not be dispatched overseas. “I have guys guarding my gate here when they should be deployed in Iraq,” the commanding officer at a naval base in San Diego told the Associated Press. The CRL waded into the fight with a study concluding that one in five active-duty military personnel had taken out a payday loan in the previous year versus one in every sixteen adult Americans. At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, credit counselors said they were seeing an average of two to three soldiers a week who owed money to a payday lender, according to a report cited by Bloomberg Markets.

To the extent that the payday industry has clout on Capitol Hill, it’s in the Senate Financial Services Committee, but this fight was waged instead in the Armed Services Committee. In the summer of 2006, Senator Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, and Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, added an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that capped the rate military families would have to pay for a payday loan at 36 percent. It passed, and when the defense authorization bill became law that fall, payday lenders could charge active-duty personnel no more than $1.38 on every $100 they borrowed. With a stroke of the pen, the country’s payday lenders were essentially banned from doing business with the military. It didn’t elude the industry that it wouldn’t take much of a logical leap for a legislative body to conclude that if payday loans were so destructive to the emotional and financial well-being of America’s fighting men and women, they might also be harmful to some of their other constituents.

At the start of 2006, people inside Self-Help and the CRL started to notice a spike in the number of subprime home loans. Even as late as 2003, subprime accounted for only 8 percent of the overall residential mortgage market, but by 2006, subprime loans accounted for more than one in every four home loans written—28.7 percent of the mortgage market, according to the Fed. Worried that this would spell doom for the home ownership dreams of a great many low- and moderate-income people, a research team was created inside the CRL to predict what might happen. Ellen Schloemer, the CRL’s research director, told me that their conclusion, that this trend would lead to 2 million subprime foreclosures, was so incredible that they rewrote a report they called “Losing Ground” six times before releasing it at the end of 2006. The Mortgage Bankers Association denounced the study as wildly pessimistic but in time it would become clear this was one of the few early warnings of the economic carnage to come. “That study really put us on the map in Washington,” Mike Calhoun said. At the start of 2008, the publication Politico declared that the CRL was “the main intellectual engine driving the Democratic response to the housing crisis” in no small part because “the Center has been more right than wrong.” That same year the Federal Reserve Board would single out the CRL for its research when appointing Mike Calhoun to a three-year term on its Consumer Advisory Council.

Steven Schlein, though, has not been nearly as impressed with CRL’s research capabilities. “They do not do scholarship,” Schlein said. “It’s a joke what they call a study. They’re done by a bunch of twenty-four-year-old kids sitting in some office in North Carolina, plucking numbers from out of the air.”

In fact, some of CRL’s payday reports have tended to overreach. Its first big industry study, for instance, released in 2006 and called “Financial Quicksand,” asserted that 90 percent of the revenues payday lenders collect in any given year are “stripped from trapped borrowers.” Under the CRL’s definition, though, a trapped borrower was anyone taking out as few as five payday loans a year. The study also alleged that the “typical” payday borrower ended up spending nearly $800 to repay a single $325 loan, or more than $450 of accumulated fees. That’s because the average payday customer, the CRL found after examining data from eight states, took out nine loans per year. Inside the CRL, they assumed that meant a person took out a single loan and then flipped it eight times before paying it back, but it seemed just as reasonable to conclude that the typical borrower took out a new loan every few months but needed an extra couple of payments to wipe out the debt.

But one could also ask what difference it made. Maybe five loans a year didn’t call to mind a “trapped” borrower but it also didn’t conjure up the customer needing a bailout because (as Willie Green had told Scott Pelley) “God forbid, an emergency comes up where the refrigerator goes out or the child needs to go to the doctor.” And did it make much difference whether a person flipped a single loan eight consecutive times or took out multiple loans in a given year? The bottom line was the same: nearly $500 in payments to a payday lender rather than money that might otherwise go into a savings account.

The industry would again find fault in some of the more sweeping assertions made within the CRL’s next big study, “Springing the Debt Trap,” released in 2007. But the power of that report wasn’t in its conclusions; it was in the data the CRL collected from states that tracked and published customer usage statistics. In Colorado, for instance, one in seven payday borrowers in 2005 remained in debt for at least six months before paying back a loan. Regulators there also found that customers taking out twelve or more loans in a year generated 65 percent of the industry’s revenues in the state. Other states reported similar findings when singling out those taking out twelve or more loans in a year: Oklahoma (64 percent of their revenues from this group), Florida (58 percent), Washington state (56 percent). At least one in five borrowers in each of those four states had taken out twenty-one or more loans in a year. In this regard, the APR no longer seemed an imprecise measurement of what was in fact a fee but a close approximation of the interest a good portion of the industry’s customer base was paying for its short-term cash needs.

The number of loans the average payday consumer took out in a year was another point of contention. Industry sources tended to say seven or eight loans per year while payday’s critics claimed those numbers lowballed the problem. The Woodstock Institute, an advocacy group based in Chicago, concluded that the average payday user in Illinois took out thirteen loans in a year. Policy Matters, a liberal research group based in Cleveland, would reach the same conclusion about borrowers in Ohio. John Caskey, a sociology professor at Swarthmore College and the author of Fringe Banking, studied payday lending in Wisconsin in 2000. He found that 49 percent of the state’s payday borrowers had taken out eleven or more loans over a twelve-month period and that nearly one in five borrowers had taken out twenty or more loans during that time. There was no dispute over the size of the average payday loan, however: $325.

The industry tended to cite one of two studies. One was by Donald Morgan, a researcher at the New York branch of the Federal Reserve who sought to test the thesis put forward by CRL and others that a payday advance was a “predatory debt trap.” According to his research, people in North Carolina and Georgia, two states that had recently banned payday loans, bounced more checks and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy at a higher rate than people in states where payday loans were available. Studies by researchers inside academia, though, have shown precisely the opposite, at least on the issue of bankruptcies; relying on payday loans, several studies have found, accelerates the chances that a person will declare bankruptcy. The CRL also cast doubts on the bounced-check claim by noting that Morgan used data from large stretches of the South as a proxy for Georgia and North Carolina.

The other study that advocates of payday lending quote was written by an economics professor at Indiana Wesleyan University named Thomas Lehman. “You cannot read Dr. Lehman’s work without walking away thinking payday lending is absolutely necessary and, if used responsibly, an absolute Godsend,” said Larry Meyers, a former screen-writer turned pro-payday blogger ever since he and a partner started investing in budding payday chains. Yet while journalists regularly quote the CRL in articles about payday, Meyers complained, they never quote Lehman. While testing that hypothesis I came across Lehman’s name in BusinessWeek. He wasn’t mentioned in an article about payday, however; it was about seemingly independent voices who are in fact “quietly financed by powerful interests.” Lehman served as BusinessWeek’s poster boy for the practice after he confessed to the magazine that in fact the industry had paid him to do his study.

Martin Eakes figured he must be doing something right. He had enough critics throwing mud at him to convince him the CRL was having an impact. One of the sillier attacks came from a group that called themselves the Consumers Rights League, a name chosen presumably so they could appropriate the CRL acronym. They dubbed the original CRL a “predatory charity” that contributed to the world’s economic woes in 2008 by promoting “public panic” about the subprime meltdown.