I shed no tears, nor will I miss them.

Why are payday loan inherently bad? You need money, someone is willing to offer you money at their terms. You can either take the money, or you won't.

If you need the money bad enough, you'll pay the 50% interest, or whatever ungodly amount they want you to pay.

Unless they're doing anything explicitly illegal (which, I guess under new laws, they probably would be doing), why does the government have a right to come in and tell them they can't run their business the way they want to?

If there's a market for $500 loans at 74.3% interest, why shouldn't they be able to fill that market?

@letoofdune:

Let me just say that I'm talking about entirely legal methods here. No lying, no playing down the APR, none of the slimey stuff that most payday loan places are known for.

If you wanted to run a business model like that, totally honest, then why should the government be allowed to tell you not to?

I think the last scene of the film Kingpin said it best:

Waving Amish: "Bye, brother Munson.
Bye, whore!"

Bye, whore indeed. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out, guys.

What this shows is that these places NEED to charge the higher rates to stay in business. If they could still make money charging 36%, then they would NOT be closing shop.

All this does is force the people of Oregon to meet this need in other manners, probably even less savory. I imagine there will be many new lenders showing up around the borders of the state, in Washington, CA, etc.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that if consumers didn't have a need for businesses such as these, they wouldn't exist? Why hate on a company that meets this need?

Let's do the math - if I borrow you $500 at 36% interest for 2 weeks - you owe $6.90 in interest. It costs me more than that to maintain a business, and process the paperwork. Not to mention that I'd have to make more than 72 of these loans JUST to break even if only 1 of the 72 defaulted. That's why these businesses charge the seemingly huge fees and why banks don't typically make these sorts of loans.

@whydidnt: "What this shows is that these places NEED to charge the higher rates to stay in business. If they could still make money charging 36%, then they would NOT be closing shop."

No, it just shows that they can get a better return on their investment in other states where "The national average APR for surveyed loans was 470%, ... APRs quoted ranged from 182% to 910%" [www.iowapirg.org]

More nanny-state BS. Kudos to them for leaving the market. Next we'll see someone complaining that the residents of Oregon have fewer choices in credit.

The bigger problem was the people who would stack payday loans, using one to pay for another, with the interest rates leaving them further and further in debt. Since limitless debt usually leads complete and utter financial devastation which the government then has to deal with, I would say the state has a vested interest in regulating it. This might even lead to the establishment on micro-lenders who (gasp) are more interested in community welfare than in limitless profit margins.

@whydidnt: When I was younger I got a payday loan from a national company and the APR was between 200-300%. After that one loan, you are stuck in a cycle and have to get them every payday just to pay the bills.

I now live in Oregon, and though I am no longer in the position where I need the loans, I am thankful this state has done something to protect consumers from these loan sharks.

These businesses are still very profitable at 36% interest, just not so profitable that the CEOs can compete with Haliburton.

If you actually read the article, you will see why this law has gone into effect. You'll read how some people were owing $80 for every $100 they borrowed.

working in banking & seeing the disastrous results of these payday loan sharks on the clients, I say about time & good riddance.

@nwogoldberg99: Why is the state responsible to protect people from themselves? Where is it written in the constitution that it's the government's responsibility to make sure people don't make bad decisions?

At what point does society finally allow individuals to make their own bed and lie in it? Why must the government protect me from gambling, drinking, smoking, driving without a seatbelt or paying an exorbitant fee for a short term loan?

I live in Oregon and these discraceful 'payday' or 'title' loan companies are all over the place. I fully support the state's intervention in this issue and will be glad to see the companies either act more ethically or move out of town all together. These parasites pray on low income or poverty level people and have no morales at all when they lend often small amounts of money to people that they know have no way of repaying even the interest. Shame on those scumbags and good riddance to the lot of 'em.

@whydidnt: do you use payday lenders & live in the state of oregon? if the answer to either of those is "no", then why don't you let oregonians decide what's best for themselves?

states historically do have a right to regulate commerce within their respective state (among other things, such as gambling, drinking, smoking, driving w/ or w/out a seat belt).

if oregonians are hard pressed for a loan shark, i'm sure they could simply cross the border into nevada or california & bask in their individual freedom.