August 2012
By: Rob Levy, Manager, Innovaon and Research
Joshua Sledge, Analyst, Innovaon and Research
A Complex Portrait: An Examination
of Small-Dollar Credit Consumers
www.cfsinnovation.com
© 2012, Center for Financial Services Innovation
2
............................................ 3
...................................................6
.............................................7
...............................7
..................................................9
SDC Consumers: Who They Are ....................................................9
SDC Consumers: How They Decide .................................................11
SDC Consumers: How They Fare ...................................................16
SDC Consumers: What They Think .................................................20
.................................................. 22
.................................................... 24
................................................... 26
Table of Contents
3
Executive Summary
Every year, millions of American consumers
use small-dollar credit (SDC) products for
quick access to cash. Yet, these products—
payday loans, pawn loans, direct deposit
advance loans, auto tle loans, and non-bank
installment loans—oen come with high fees
or interest rates and can lead consumers into
a cycle of repeat usage and mounng debt.
This study seeks to elucidate the reasons
why so many consumers rely upon these
potenally dangerous products and to glean
what can be learned from their experiences
to promote the development of high-quality
credit soluons.
While some of the needs that borrowers seek
to ll with SDC may be beer served by non-
credit opons such as budgeng guidance,
beer jobs, income support, or savings tools,
these soluons will not enrely address the
needs that high-quality credit can ll. Having
the ability to borrow, under reasonable terms,
can help consumers weather a nancial
shock, support the ability to save, build a
posive credit history, and facilitate a wealth-
building purchase. To accomplish this, high-
quality credit must be aordable, marketed
transparently, priced fairly, structured to
support repayment without creang a cycle of
repeat borrowing, and should support credit-
building. Unfortunately, most SDC products
currently available do not meet these criteria,
and relavely lile is known about the full
SDC experience from the consumer’s point of
view and across mulple channels.
To understand why consumers use these
products, how they choose among them,
how they fare aerwards, and what they
think about their experiences, the Center
for Financial Services Innovaon (CFSI),
with the support of the Ford Foundaon,
surveyed over 1,100 small-dollar credit (SDC)
consumers, plus an addional 500 non-SDC
consumers for comparison. The ndings
suggest several important implicaons for
nancial services providers, policymakers,
consumer advocates, and others working
to improve the quality of small-dollar credit
products and to expand high-quality opons
and alternaves.
SDC Consumers: Who They Are
Conrming previous research, the survey
showed that, compared with non-SDC
consumers, SDC consumers are less educated,
live in larger households, and are more
concentrated in the South. While some
middle-income households do use SDC
products, SDC consumers tend to have lower
incomes, and many report having nancial
dicules and lacking tradional forms of
credit.
• An esmated 15 million consumers used at
least one SDC product in the past year
• 59% of SDC consumers had only a high
school educaon or less, compared to 45% of
non-SDC consumers
• The average household size of an SDC
consumer was 3.2 members compared to 2.8
for a non-SDC consumer
• The average household income for an SDC
consumer was $32,000 compared to $40,000
for non-SDC consumers, although 20% of
SDC consumers had an average household
income between $50,000 and $75,000 (Note:
the study only surveyed consumers with
household income below $75,000)
• Only 27% of SDC consumers had a credit
card, compared to 61% of non-SDC consumers
Executive Summary
4
SDC Consumers: How They
Decide
Consumers use a variety of SDC products for
dierent reasons. Some use SDC products
to ll consistent gaps between expenses
and income; some use them to meet cash
ow problems where bills and paychecks
are misaligned; and others use them in
response to an unexpected event, such
as a job loss or car repair. Notably these
ndings dier signicantly depending on
if the consumer is using a very short-term
credit product (payday, pawn, and deposit
advance) or a short-term credit product (non-
bank installment loans and auto tle loans).
Consumers priorize speed and access in
choosing SDC products, in addion to price,
suggesng a degree of urgency in the decision
to borrow. In many cases, consumers chose
SDC products over non-SDC opons, such as
credit cards, overdra, and loans from friends
and family.
• The top 3 uses for an SDC product included:
ulity bills (36%), general living expenses
(34%), and rent (18%) (Note: respondents
could select mulple answers)
• The top 3 reasons for funds shortage
included: living expenses consistently more
than income, bill or payment due before
paycheck, and unexpected events such as
emergency expenses or income drops (Note:
respondents could select mulple answers)
• Users of very short-term loans were almost
twice as likely as users of short-term loans to
borrow for roune expenses like ulity bills
(42% versus 28%) or general living expenses
(41% versus 20%)
• In addion to borrowing, SDC consumers
also reported cung back on their general
spending (43%) and going without something
they need (40%) in order to address their cash
shortage
• While 66% of SDC consumers had no
savings, more than half of those that did have
savings chose not to use it all and relied on
credit instead
• The top 3 loan aributes that maered
most to SDC consumers were: quick access to
money, ability to qualify, and clear terms
SDC Consumers: How They Fare
Although experiences varied signicantly,
many SDC consumers struggled with repeat
usage, parcularly users of payday and
pawn loans who were oen in debt for a
considerable part of the year due to the high
levels of repeat borrowing. There is a strong
connecon between both loan-to-income
rao and credit need and the likelihood of
rolling over, extending, or renancing a loan,
suggesng a need for sound underwring.
• When asked about their most recent loan,
nearly 40% of payday and pawn borrowers
report not paying back their original loan
when it rst came due; of those who did
rollover or extend their loan, payday users
averaged 5.1 rollovers and pawn users
averaged 2.4 loan extensions
• When looking across the enre year, payday
borrowers took out an average of 11 payday
loans or extensions, remaining in debt for
approximately 150 days out of the year; pawn
loan borrowers took out an average of 7 pawn
loans, remaining in debt for approximately
200 days out of the year
5
• 24% of installment loan users and 29% of auto
tle loan users did not repay their loan on its
original terms, with those consumers averaging
approximately 3 renances each
• 35% of deposit advance borrowers reported
using the product again the next month
• Regression analysis revealed two factors
highly correlated with repeat loan usage: 1)
The rao of loan size to income, and 2) When
consumers stated that their need for credit
came from a consistent shorall of income
relave to expenses
SDC Consumers: What They Think
While a slight majority of SDC customers
reported a sasfactory experience, a signicant
number reported quite negave experiences.
Within the products considered, payday loans
and auto tle loans received the lowest rangs
and deposit advance received the highest.
• 30% of SDC consumers reported the loan
cosng more than expected
• 27% of SDC consumers reported the loan
taking more me than expected to repay
• Of all SDC products, only deposit advance had
a slight majority of consumers (53%) reporng
they would use the product again without
hesitaon
• 22% of payday and auto tle loan users said
that they would not use the product again
A Complex Portrait
The overall picture that emerges from our
research illustrates the sheer diversity and
Executive Summary
complexity of needs, choices, and experiences
faced by SDC consumers.
• Many consumers would benet from a
mulplicity of safe, aordable, high-quality
credit products and tools designed to meet
dierent needs for dierent people, while for
some consumers, the best long-term soluon
may not involve credit at all
• In order to meet consumer needs safely,
high-quality credit soluons will need to
balance aordability and sound underwring
with speed, convenience, and accessibility
• High-quality credit can play a role in
consumers’ lives alongside (and possibly linked
to) savings
• Underwring based on the ability to repay
and understanding of consumer need will be
crical to prevenng repeat usage
• Strong consumer protecons and innovaon
in high-quality credit will both be necessary to
beer address the struggles and needs of SDC
consumers
The opportunity and need are great to
improve the marketplace for high-quality
small-dollar credit products. Well-designed
products have the potenal to help consumers
turn a moment of crisis into an opportunity
to improve their nancial well-being. Keeping
the needs, perspecves, and experiences of
borrowers at the forefront of the dialogue
on small-dollar credit is crical to moving the
marketplace in a direcon where such high-
quality products go from aspiraon to reality.
6
Every year, millions of American consumers
use small-dollar credit (SDC) products for
quick access to cash. Yet, these products—
payday loans, pawn loans, direct deposit
advance loans, auto tle loans, and non-bank
installment loans—oen come with high fees
or interest rates and can lead consumers into
a cycle of repeat usage and mounng debt.
This study seeks to elucidate the reasons
why so many consumers rely upon these
potenally dangerous products and to glean
what can be learned from their experiences
to promote the development of high-quality
credit soluons.
Previous CFSI research has shown that SDC
consumers typically borrow for a variety
of reasons: to pay bills, cover basic living
expenses, pay for an unexpected expense, or
make up for a drop in income.
1
These ndings
can be interpreted in dierent ways. They
suggest that some SDC consumers may have
too lile income to cover their expenses and
that they might benet from beer jobs or
stronger income supports. Other consumers
may have sucient income but could
potenally reduce their need to borrow with
greater budgeng guidance to manage their
day-to-day nances. The numbers also make it
clear that increased savings could help many
households weather disrupons in earning
power or fund major purchases without
taking on costly debt.
For several reasons, however, income
supports, budgeng guidance, and addional
savings will not enrely ll the need for high-
quality credit. First, unexpected emergencies
and unplanned expenses will occasionally
surprise even those who are well prepared.
Second, well-structured credit can indirectly
support the ability to save by enabling a
person to fund short-term spending without
dipping into longer-term savings. Finally,
borrowing can help build a posive credit
history, a crical nancial asset in its own
right, since credit scores can aect decisions
to hire employees, rent apartments, set
insurance rates, and, of course, oer more
tradional forms of credit that can facilitate a
wealth-building purchase, such as a home.
To meet the genuine credit needs of
consumers, small-dollar credit must be
high quality. That is, it must be marketed
transparently and priced fairly. It must
be aordable and structured to support
repayment—without creang a cycle of
repeat borrowing or “rolling over” of the
loan—and should support credit-building.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of SDC
products currently available do not meet
these criteria. And, while there is a great deal
of informaon available about the naonal
volume of payday loans and the dangers of
overuse, relavely lile is known about SDC
usage from the consumers’ point of view
and across mulple products. To beer serve
SDC consumers, we need deep consumer
knowledge that can help providers develop
new and beer products and encourage
policymakers to pursue soluons that safely
meet borrowers’ needs.
With these goals in mind, the Center for
Financial Services Innovaon (CFSI), with
funding from the Ford Foundaon, has
conducted a mul-stage consumer research
project to examine the needs, decisions,
and experiences of SDC consumers. This
report represents the rst publicaon of
that research, a quantave examinaon of
a naonally representave sample of over
1,100 consumers of SDC products. We sought
to beer understand who these consumers
are, what precipitates their use of credit, how
they shop and choose among dierent credit
Introduction
Study Methodology
7
products, what happens as they use these
products, and how they fare in the end.
The research reveals a complex variety of SDC
needs, products, and experiences. The data
here is organized around key themes, some
of which corroborate earlier knowledge of
SDC consumers, and others that shed new
light. We hope that this research contributes
to a nuanced conversaon regarding small-
dollar credit and inspires the marketplace to
produce the variety of safe, aordable, high-
quality credit products that consumers need
and deserve.
2
Study Methodology
This report is based on online research
conducted by GfK between January 5 and
January 27, 2012. Survey respondents
were randomly sampled from GfK’s
KnowledgePanel, which is stascally
representave of the U.S. populaon, of
adults ages 18 and over with household
incomes below $75,000 (see the appendix
for more informaon on representaveness
within KnowledgePanel).
3
An “SDC consumer” (N=1,121) was dened in
this survey as a person who has used a payday
loan, pawn loan, direct deposit advance,
auto tle loan, or non-bank installment loan
of $5,000 or less at least once in the past
12 months. These respondents received
the enre quesonnaire, which included
quesons about their overall credit usage
across mulple products, followed by a
series of quesons about one recent loan
experience with a specic product. To serve
as a comparison, we also surveyed “non-SDC
consumers” (N=500), who are dened by
having used at least one of several tradional
credit opons, such as a credit card or
personal loan from a bank (see appendix for
full list), and no SDC products in the past 12
months. These consumers were only asked
quesons about their overall credit usage.
The margin of error for the overall SDC sample
is +/- 4%. All stascal tesng of proporons
and means was conducted at the 95%
condence level, and all subgroup ndings
are representave of that subgroup. Any
comparisons made between subgroups (e.g.,
SDC consumers versus non-SDC consumers)
within the text of this paper are stascally
signicant. Data in the tables and charts is
reported as received and may be direconal
but not stascally signicant when
comparing among subgroups.
Overview of SDC Products
Examined
In selecng the small-dollar credit products
for our survey, we considered nontradional
products used primarily by credit-constrained
consumers. We also chose not to include
credit products with specied uses for
loan funds, such as rent-to-own credit and
subprime auto loans. Instead, we focused on
products that provide funds the consumer
may use at his or her discreon. We examined
the following products:
4
: Loans of generally $300–$500
with full repayment due two weeks aer the
date of the loan. Payday loans come with a
at borrowing fee, typically between $15 and
$20 per $100 borrowed. When the loan is
made, lenders typically obtain a post-dated
check for the amount of owed principal
and fees or receive electronic access to a
customer’s checking account. If the loan is not
repaid at maturity, the lender has the opon
to cash the check or withdraw from the
account as a means of repayment.
Overview of SDC Products Examined
8
: Loans of typically a few hundred
dollars or less with a maturity of around 30
days and a borrowing fee of approximately
20% of the loan’s value. The loans are
secured by physical items such as jewelry or
electronics that customers provide to lenders
when the loan is made. If the loan is not
repaid, the lender may sell the item.
:
5
Loans or advances
oered as add-ons to checking accounts.
These products allow customers to borrow
against a credit line—typically $500 to
$1,000—with funds transferred to their
transacon account and repaid via an
automac deducon when they receive their
next direct deposit payment. Customers
are typically charged a at borrowing fee of
$7.50–$10 per $100 loaned.
6
: Loans ranging from
several hundred to several thousand dollars
oered by nonbank providers and repaid in
a series of installments. The length of the
loan repayment uctuates depending on the
amount borrowed and borrower preference
but is typically 6 to 18 months. Borrowers are
charged periodic interest over the life of the
loan, with annual interest rates ranging from
20% or 30% for larger, longer loans to over
200% for smaller, shorter loans.
7
: Loans oered by nonbank
providers and secured by the tle to a used
car. Borrowers keep the car during the loan
term, but lenders may take possession of
it if the borrower defaults. Loan sizes are
typically near $1,000 but can range from a few
hundred dollars to over $2,500, depending
on the value of the borrower’s car and state
regulaons. Borrowing fees are typically in
the range of 10% to 25% of the loan value
per month. Tradionally, loans have been
structured as one-month loans with a single
repayment, but many lenders oer longer-
term loans through installment repayment
plans, interest-only repayment plans, or open-
end lines of credit secured by auto tles.
8
9
SDC Consumers: Who They Are
Based on our results, over 13 million
consumers, with household incomes below
$75,000, used an SDC product at least
once in the previous 12 months prior to
taking our survey.
9
Although we did not
survey consumers with above $75,000 in
household income, we esmate that there
are approximately 15 million SDC consumers
across the enre income spectrum.
10
The
informaon respondents provided about
their backgrounds and nancial situaons
help to paint a picture of SDC borrowers and
their nancial challenges. Select demographic
data from the survey appears in Table 1:
Demographics of SDC Consumers.
In terms of demographics, SDC consumers
stand out in several signicant ways. First,
they are less educated as a whole than non-
SDC consumers and the overall populaon.
Parcularly given current economic
condions, less educaon can mean lower-
paying jobs, less stable work, and a greater
likelihood of experiencing an unexpected
drop in income. In 2011, the unemployment
rate among those with less than a high school
diploma was 14.1%, drascally higher than
the rates of 9.4% for those with a high school
diploma and 4.9% for those with a bachelor’s
degree or even more educaon.
11
SDC consumers are highly concentrated
in the South, where there is also a greater
concentraon of unbanked and underbanked
consumers.
12
African-Americans are
also highly overrepresented among SDC
consumers. Users of SDC products live in
slightly larger households. More specically,
SDC households tend to have more children
than non-SDC households (averaging 1.01
children/household, compared with an
average of 0.71 children), which could place
addional pressure on their nances.
Study Results
1) Stascs from March 2011 Current Populaon Survey (conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Stascs)
SDCConsumers NonSDCConsumers
Overall
Population
(1)
Education
%withBachelor'sDegreeorHigher 10% 23% 18%
Region
Northeast 8% 18% 17%
Midwest 21% 24% 22%
South 50% 35% 39%
West 21% 24% 22%
HouseholdSize(Mean) 3.2 2.8 NA
Race/Ethnicity
White,NonHispanic 46% 64% 63%
AfricanAmerican,NonHispanic 29% 11% 14%
Other,NonHispanic 6% 7% 6%
Hispanic 20% 18% 17%
Study Results
10
Informaon on respondents’ nancial
situaons provided greater insight into why
consumers might use SDC products. First,
these consumers tended to have below-
average incomes, with annual household
income averaging approximately $32,000,
compared with nearly $40,000 for non-SDC
consumers.
13
Fewer dollars coming in can
make it harder to save and means a smaller
cushion for dealing with occasional spikes in
monthly expenses, leading some households
to borrow to ll the gap.
At the same me, consumers with larger
incomes are hardly immune from the
circumstances that can lead to SDC use, as
demonstrated in Chart 1: Distribuon of
Income for SDC and Non-SDC Consumers.
Approximately 20% of SDC consumers in
our survey populaon had annual incomes
between $50,000 and $75,000, meaning
they make more than the median annual
income of all American households.
14
While
we surveyed only consumers with annual
incomes below $75,000, other research
has shown that households with higher
incomes also use SDC products, albeit at
smaller rates.
15
Thus, the need for high-
quality opons extends beyond low-income
consumers to reach a broader range of
American families.
Many SDC consumers reported nancial
dicules. Nearly 45% of respondents
perceived their personal nancial situaon
to be “poor,” a signicantly higher poron
than the 27% of non-SDC consumers who
rated their situaon that way. Perhaps as
a consequence of or a contributor to their
challenging nancial situaon, SDC consumers
also tended to borrow more frequently
than their counterparts. On average, they
reported taking out 6.5 loans of under $5,000
in the past year, almost twice as many as the
average 3.8 among non-SDC consumers.
16
SDC consumers also tended to use a wider
variety of loans, averaging 2.1 dierent
borrowing opons, compared with 1.4 for
non-SDC consumers.
Though they borrow more frequently,
SDC consumers oen have less access to
tradional opons when choosing credit
products. In parcular, they are oen saddled
with a poor or damaged credit prole that
makes more tradional credit products
inaccessible. Of those SDC consumers claiming
43%
38%
20%
26%
40%
34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
$0k$25k $25k$50k $50k$75k
%ofSegmentPopula0on
AnnualHouseholdIncome
SDCConsumers
NonSDCConsumers
Study Results
11
they knew their credit score, 54% rated their
credit as either a 1 or a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5
(1 being “poor,” 5 being “excellent”).
17
Given
this tendency toward poor credit, it is not
surprising that only 27% of SDC consumers
reported having a credit card, compared with
61% of non-SDC consumers. Why those SDC
consumers with access to a credit card sll
used an SDC product is an important queson
explored later in this paper.
In total, our survey data indicates SDC
consumers face many challenges. Relave
to non-SDC consumers, they tend to be less
educated, with lower incomes and larger
families. These aributes can challenge
nancial stability and put pressure on their
nancial lives. While households who face
these condions nd themselves borrowing
more frequently than those who don’t, they
are less likely to have access to tradional
credit oerings.
SDC Consumers: How They
Decide
We also sought to explore how SDC
consumers decide to borrow and how they
go about choosing the most suitable product.
To learn more about the decision process, we
asked SDC consumers to recall the last me
they had used one of the ve SDC products
included in our survey. We then probed for
consideraons that had led to their choice.
In analyzing the responses, we recognized
a disnct segmentaon among the ve
products. Some are very short-term
products—payday, pawn, and direct deposit
advance loans—all of which are relavely
small (typically under $1,000) with repayment
scheduled within a period of two weeks to
two months in the form of a single payment.
Others are short-term products—installment
and auto tle loans
18
—which are frequently
*Respondents could select up to three opons. Addional informaon on the queson provided in the appendix.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Forhomerepairs
Topaybackanotherloan
Tohelpoutfriend/family
Carrelated(Purchaseorrepair)
Topayrent
Formygenerallivingexpenses(e.g.food,
clothing)
TopayuIlitybills
%ofSegmentPopula0on
ReasonsGivenforBorrowing
VeryShortTerm
ShortTerm
AllSDCConsumers
Study Results
12
much larger (at or above $1,000) and are
oen repaid in installments over longer
periods of me, from several months to
more than a year. Likely because of the
dierences between the two classes of loans,
SDC consumers view and use them in disnct
ways. Consequently, we use the very short-
term/short-term disncon as a basis for
organizing our ndings.
At the core of the decision process are the
circumstances that created the need for SDC
consumers to borrow. That is, what did they
need money for and why did they need to
borrow to get it? To answer the rst queson,
Chart 2: Use of SDC Loan Funds shows the
distribuon of uses for the borrowed funds.
Across all SDC borrowers, the main uses for
borrowed funds related to managing recurring
expenses such as ulity bills, rent, and food.
These borrowers used credit to meet day-to-
day household obligaons. However, dierent
paerns emerged when comparing reasons
for borrowing between very short-term and
short-term products. Users of very short-
term products were more likely to use them
for roune expenses. Approximately 42% of
users borrowed to pay ulity bills, and 41%
borrowed for general living expenses such
as food and clothing. By contrast, users of
short-term products were less likely to use
such loans for roune expenses (28% for
ulity bills, 20% for general living expenses)
but were signicantly more likely to borrow
to cover larger and less regular purchases or
expenses, such as the purchase or repair of a
car (26% for ST versus 11% for VST) and home
repairs (9% for ST versus 2% for VST).
To get to the root of the problem, we then
explored why SDC consumers needed to
borrow in the rst place. Why did they
lack necessary funds to manage household
expenses or meet larger, less frequent needs?
The answer oers insight into whether and
*Respondents could select up to three opons. Addional informaon on the queson provided in the appendix.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
%ofSegmentPopula0on
VeryShortTerm
ShortTerm
AllSDCConsumers
Mygenerallivingexpensesareconsistently
morethanmyincome
Ihadanunexpecteddropinmyincome(e.g.,
lostjob,hourscut,benefitscut)
Ispentmostofmymoneythatmonthpaying
offapreviousloan
Iplannedtomakeamajorpurchasethat
exceededmymonthlyincomeorsavings(e.g.,car
ortruck,majorappliance)
Ihadanunexpectedexpense(e.g.,medical
emergency,carbrokedown)
Ihadabillorpaymentduebeforemy
paycheckarrived
Study Results
13
when credit can be a benecial opon. Chart
3: Reasons for Fund Shortage Precipitang
SDC Use summarizes responses to the
queson of why respondents needed to
borrow to meet their obligaons.
Perhaps most troubling was that nearly 30%
of all SDC consumers reported borrowing
because their expenses consistently
outweighed their income. Instead of using
credit to overcome a temporary shortage of
funds or support a large purchase, they seem
to be on an unsustainable path by aempng
to supplement their income with credit.
Without having the money in their budget to
repay the loan, these borrowers risk falling
into the cycle of debt, much like the 9% of
SDC consumers who reported borrowing
because they spent most of their money
repaying a previous loan.
A bill or payment due before a paycheck
arrived (32% of all SDC consumers) was
another common problem. In this case,
borrowers were more likely to turn to very
short-term credit than short-term (38% of
VST users versus 23% of ST users). These data
points paint the picture of households using
payday, pawn, and direct deposit advance
loans to manage bills within the context of
their ongoing nancial lives. Borrowers who
reported this problem may be using credit to
adjust for misaligned ming of their income
and expenses.
Two other reasons for a cash shortage related
to unexpected events— either an expense
(32% of all SDC consumers) or a drop in
income (25%). The change in their cash ow—
either temporary or permanent—le these
consumers short of the money they needed.
In these situaons, consumers appeared to
nd very short-term and short-term products
both useful.
As expected, short-term users were more
likely to borrow to support a major purchase
(16% of ST users versus 2% of VST), suggesng
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Alsousedanotherloanproduct
Workedmore/Earnedmoreincome
Deferredorskippedpayingbills
Wentwithoutcertainbasicneeds
Reducedgeneralspending
%ofSegmentPopula0on
Addi0onalStepsTakenToMeetNeed
VeryShortTerm
ShortTerm
AllSDCConsumers
*Respondents could select mulple opons. Addional informaon on the queson provided in the appendix.
Study Results
14
that the loans were used to cover a large but
infrequent expense.
While survey respondents ulmately chose to
borrow, they also recognized that they might
be able to handle their need for addional
money in some other way. Indeed, many
reported taking addional steps to manage
their situaons. Their acons are depicted in
Chart 4: Steps Taken in Addion to Borrowing.
In addion to borrowing, SDC consumers
commonly reconciled their cash ow by
cung back on their general spending (43%
of all SDC consumers) and going without
something they need (40%). Very short-term
users were signicantly more likely than short-
term users to defer or skip paying bills (31%
of VST users versus 21% of ST users), again
suggesng that very short-term products
are more oen used to manage monthly
expenses. A small segment—7% of all SDC
borrowers—reported using an addional
loan product to meet their need, suggesng
either a larger need for credit or an inability to
access a more suitable credit product.
The survey also revealed interesng insights
into the way SDC consumers viewed and
used savings in relaon to their decision to
borrow. Chart 5: Use of Savings in Addion
to Borrowing outlines respondents’ use of
savings to compensate for their shortage of
funds.
As might be expected, the majority of SDC
consumers (66%) had no savings to make
up for their shortage of funds. Of those
borrowers with savings, 45% used all of their
savings but found it was not enough to meet
their immediate need. Interesngly, the
remaining 55% (or 19% of all SDC consumers)
either used only part of their savings or
le their savings untouched. This raises the
queson of why they used expensive SDC
products when they had money available.
Were their savings earmarked for long-term
goals or subject to withdrawal restricons?
Did behavioral biases or the desire for
liquidity in case of an emergency inuence
their decision? Beer understanding how
borrowers view savings in relaon to credit
may reveal insights into how to eecvely
promote savings and reduce use of SDC
products.
Aer deciding to borrow, SDC consumers must
also decide which product and provider they
will use. To explore this decision, our survey
asked borrowers to rate the importance of
certain loan aributes to their decision, using
a scale of 1-5 (1 being “Not Very Important”
and 5 being “Extremely Important”). Average
rangs for the top 10 aributes are listed in
Table 2: Rangs of Loan Aributes.
As a whole, SDC consumers most valued the
speed of delivery, accessibility, and clarity
of terms associated with the loan products
Hadnosavings,
66%
Hadsavings,but
chosenottouse
any,
7%
Usedsome,but
notallsavings,
12%
Usedallsavings,
buts:llshort,
16%
Study Results
15
they used. Between the two loan classes,
short-term users were more likely than very
short-term users to place more importance
on the length of the loan and the ability to
repay it in mulple payments. However,
speed and access were most important to
users of both classes of loans. Although fees
were important to borrowers (average rang
of 3.9 out of 5), they were lower on the list
of consideraons. The importance of speed
and access suggests a degree of urgency
in borrowing decisions—borrowers most
cared about their ability to get a loan and to
do so quickly. SDC products cater to these
preferences through fast delivery and low
hurdles for credit approval.
When choosing a loan product, 69% of SDC
consumers did not comparison shop among
dierent providers of the same product. Such
consumers may have done so for a number of
reasons. An urgent need for cash may have
led some to accept the rst loan they could
get. Consumers may have viewed providers
of a parcular product as having relavely
uniform pricing and terms, leaving lile
reason to shop around. Or some consumers
may have had an exisng relaonship with
a parcular provider and returned for a
subsequent loan. Further exploring why SDC
consumers tend not to comparison shop
may help to reveal ways that lenders with
high-quality alternaves can aract SDC
consumers.
In addion to invesgang why borrowers
chose a parcular SDC product, the survey
explored why they had not chosen other
tradional forms of credit that may have been
available. In parcular, some may have had
the opon of borrowing from friends and
family, overdrawing a checking account, or
using a credit card. The top three responses
given for not using each of these opons
appear in Table 3: Top Three Reasons for Not
Using Other Credit Opons.
SDC consumers rejected each of these
opons for dierent reasons. In line with
their negave percepons of their credit
scores, many SDC consumers reported having
diculty either accessing or managing credit
LoanAttributes
HowquicklyIcangetthemoney
Icanqualifyforthisloan
Clearterms/knowingexactlywhatI'llpay
AmountIcanborrow
Termorlengthofloan
Easytodo/fewforms
Abilitytopaybackovermultiplepayments
Fees
Feelcomfortable/staffisfriendly
Storelocationconvenient
AllSDCConsumers VeryShortTerm ShortTerm
4.4 4.4 4.4
4.4 4.4 4.5
4.3 4.3 4.4
4.2 4.2 4.3
4.1 4.0 4.2
4.0 4.0 4.0
3.9 3.7 4.3
3.9 3.8 4.1
3.9 3.9 3.9
3.8 3.8 3.8
AverageRating(Scaleof15)
Study Results
16
cards (32% responding “I don’t qualify” and
19% responding “I maxed out or can no longer
use the product”). Access was a lesser but
sll signicant barrier to using overdra,
though cost was the primary reason (given by
a quarter of SDC consumers) for not using it.
Borrowing from friends and family appeared
to be the most aracve of the three opons,
with 21% of SDC consumers saying they did so
in addion to using an SDC product. However,
issues of accessibility (“not oered near me”)
and convenience led many to refrain from
such borrowing.
Overall, the survey shows the complexity of
deciding to use an SDC product. A shortage
of income, a problem with cash ow, or
an unexpected shock can drive someone
to borrow money. At the same me, SDC
consumers do not rely solely on loans but
oen cut back on spending, tap into savings,
or go without something they need in order to
free up the money they need. Credit opons
that oer speed and accessibility are most
important to them, but making loan decisions
while under nancial and me pressure could
lead borrowers toward loans they might nd
dicult to repay.
SDC Consumers: How They Fare
Next, we evaluated the outcomes of
borrowing decisions to determine the
degree to which SDC products can cause
more harm than good. A central concern
about SDC products is the risk that they can
lead consumers into a cycle of debt. When
consumers have trouble repaying, they
may incur extensive fees from repeatedly
extending or rolling over outstanding loans.
Instead of helping them to overcome nancial
challenges, SDC loans can cause addional
nancial dicules for consumers who are
given loans they cannot aord.
We invesgated loan experiences to gauge
why and how oen consumers manage loans
successfully or struggle with repayment.
Though this data was self-reported and
responses were open to consumers’
interpretaon, we believe it helps to draw a
clearer picture of the SDC loan experience.
Chart 6: Very Short-Term Loan Experience
includes key ndings regarding a single loan
experience for consumers of each of the very
short-term products studied.
While a slight majority of pawn and payday
borrowers repaid their loans on me, many
appeared to have had diculty in doing so,
with nearly 40% reporng that they did not
pay back their original loan when it came
due. Approximately 85% of such borrowers
rolled over or extended their loan, incurring
CreditCard Overdraft LoansfromFriendsandFamily
Idon'tqualify(32%) Tooexpensive(25%) IdidinadditiontoSDC(21%)
Imaxedoutorcannolongerusethis
product(19%)
Tooinconvenient(17%) Tooinconvenient(20%)
Tooexpensive(16%) Idon'tqualify(15%) Notofferednearme(17%)
*Respondents could select mulple opons. For addional informaon on the queson, see the appendix.
Study Results
17
Yes 61.76% Yes 55.22%
No 38.24% No 44.67% Yes 85.20%
No
14.80%
Whatdidyoudo? Whatdidyoudo? Whydidyouhaveinsufficientfundsforrepayment?
Rolledoverorextendedtheloan 86% Extendedorrenewedtheloan 85%
Afterpayinglivingexpenses,Ididn’t
Didnotpayofftheloan(default) 14% Didnotpayofftheloan(default) 15%
haveenoughmoneyleftover
Myincomewaslessthananticipated 36%
Ihadmoneybutusedittocoveran
unexpectedexpenseoremergency
Whydidyouneedtorolloverorextendtheloan? Whydidyouneedtorolloverorextendtheloan?
Afterpayinglivingexpenses,Ididn'thaveenough
Afterpayinglivingexpenses,Ididn'thave
enoughmoneyleftover enoughmoneyleftover
Myincomewaslessthananticipated 40% Myincomewaslessthananticipated 24%
Didyouusetheproductagain?
Ihadanunexpectedexpenseor Ihadanunexpectedexpenseor
Yes 35%
emergency emergency
No 65%
Anotherreason 2% Anotherreason 8%
Howmanytimesdidyourollovertheloan? Howmanytimesdidyouextendtheloan?
12times 43%
12times
65%
35times 30% 35times 11%
6+times 26% 6+times 11%
NoAnswer 1% NoAnswer 12%
Average#ofrollovers 5.1 Average#ofextensions 2.4
Didyouusetheproductagain?
(2)
Didyouusetheproductagain?
(3)
Yes 25% Yes 19%
No 75% No 81%
Didyouhavetorelinquishyourpawneditem?
Yes 75%
No 25%
Inthefollowingmonth:
12%
60%
Ifyourolledovertheloan:
Ifyouextendedtheloan:
60%
16%
(n=100)
(n=286)
(n=97)
(n=229)
(n=22)
(n=305)
(n=117)
(n=255)
(n=114)
(n=130)
(n=19)
(n=130)
Inthefollowingmonth:
Ifyoudefaulted:
(4)
PAYDAYLOANS
PAWNLOANS
DIRECTDEPOSITADVANCE
Didyoupaythefirstloanoffontime?
(1)
Didyoupaythefirstloanoffontime?
(1)
41%
28%
Inthefollowingmonth:
IfyouDIDNOTpayoffthefirstloanontime:
Didyoupaythefirstloanwithoutoverdrawingyour
checkingaccount?
(1)
Ifyouoverdrewyouraccount:
IfyouDIDNOTpayoffthefirstloanontime:
Yes,62%
No,38%
Yes,55%
No,45%
Yes,85%
No,15%
1) Excludes respondents whose inial loans were sll outstanding and respondents who did not answer the queson
2) Excludes respondents with outstanding loans (either an inial loan or a rollover)
3) Excludes respondents with outstanding loans (either an inial loan or an extension)
4) Includes respondents who defaulted on the inial or extended loan
Study Results
18
an addional fee to push back its due date.
The most common reason, reported by 60%
of borrowers, was not having enough money
for both loan repayment and living expenses.
While most extended their loans only once
or twice, a sizable number of borrowers
did so many more mes before repaying or
ulmately defaulng on the loan.
19
When looking across the enre year, the
total number of loans or extensions and
amount of me spent in debt is parcularly
disturbing. Based on analysis of our survey
data, we esmate payday borrowers took out
an average of 11 payday loans or extensions,
remaining in debt for approximately 150 days
out of the year. Pawn loan borrowers took
out an average of 7 pawn loans, remaining in
debt for approximately 200 days out of the
year.
20
Examining repayment paerns for the direct
deposit advance product is complicated
because of its automated repayment
mechanism. Direct deposit advance lenders
recoup their loan from consumers’ checking
accounts when direct deposit funds come
in. Should direct deposits stop, the lender
automacally debits the account aer a
predetermined period (typically 35 days aer
the loan is issued). Given that repayments are
triggered automacally, borrowers generally
cannot extend loans past their due dates as
they can with payday and pawn products.
However, 35% of direct deposit advance
borrowers reported using the product again
in the month aer their original loan. Such
repeat use may indicate that consumers are
borrowing to cover basic living expenses
aer automated repayments claim needed
funds, eecvely creang a cycle of debt.
Addionally, the forced repayments may
cause problems for consumers who do not
have sucient funds in their accounts to
cover them. In our survey, 14% of direct
deposit advance users reported having
their account overdrawn by the automated
repayment mechanism. Like payday and pawn
users, these borrowers most commonly cited
not having money for both loan repayments
and living expenses as the reason their funds
were insucient when the lender tapped
their account. Again, this may suggest that
borrowers could not aord their original
loans. Direct deposit advance products limit
borrowers’ credit lines based on the size
of their average direct deposit—a form of
income-based underwring. But further
adjusng and rening these measures
could potenally help to reduce overdrawn
accounts or overuse of the product by
consumers who truly cannot aord it.
Although the average gures for repeat
usage are distressingly high, there was strong
variance among individual consumers. To
beer understand why some consumers
slid quickly into the debt cycle while others
did not, we conducted regression analysis
to nd the factors that were most closely
correlated with a consumer’s propensity to
roll over or extend their loan. This analysis
found that, for payday loans, the rao of
loan size to income is a signicant predictor
of how many mes a borrower rolls over the
loan, net of other sociodemographic and
nancial characteriscs. That is, borrowers
who took on higher levels of debt relave
to their income are more likely to struggle
in repayment. An addional factor strongly
correlated with rollover or loan extension was
the reason for funds shortage reported by
the consumer. In parcular, when consumers
stated that their need for credit came from
Study Results
19
Yes 76.38% Yes 70.64%
No 23.62% No 29.36%
Whatdidyoudo? Whatdidyoudo?
Refinancedorchanged/extendedtheterm 86% Refinancedorchanged/extendedtheterm 82%
Didnotpayofftheloan(default) 14% Didnotpayofftheloan(default) 18%
Whydidyourefinance? Whydidyourefinance?
Toborrowmoremoney
42%
Afterpayinglivingexpenses,Ididn't
Afterpayinglivingexpenses,Ididn't
haveenoughmoneyleftover
haveenoughmoneyleftover
Ihadmoneybutusedittocoveran
Ihadmoneybutusedittocoveran
unexpectedexpenseoremergency
unexpectedexpenseoremergency
Toborrowmoremoney 27%
Myincomewaslessthananticipated 16% Myincomewaslessthananticipated 24%
Tolowerthesizeofmypayments 10% Tolowerthesizeofmypayments 6%
Anotherreason 9% Anotherreason 1%
Howmanytimesdidyourefinancetheloan? Howmanytimesdidyourefinancetheloan?
12times 52% 12times 57%
35times 33% 35times 17%
6+times 12% 6+times 6%
NoAnswer 3% NoAnswer/Couldnotrecall 20%
Average#ofrefinances 2.9 Average#ofrefinances 3.0
Didyoumakeanylatepayments? Didyoumakeanylatepayments?
Yes 10% Yes 28%
No 88% No 71%
Refused 2% Refused 1%
Didyouhavetorelinquishyourcar?
Yes 72%
No 28%
(n=11)
Ifyoudefaulted:
(2)
25%
30%
Duringtheloanterm: Duringtheloanterm:
(n=189)
(n=189)
IfyouDIDNOTrepaybytheoriginalterm: IfyouDIDNOTrepaybytheoriginalterm:
Ifyourefinancedtheloan: Ifyourefinancedtheloan:
31%
32%
(n=26)
(n=22)
(n=41)
(n=34)
INSTALLMENTLOANS AUTOTITLELOANS
Didyourepaytheloanbytheendoftheoriginal
term?
(1)
Didyourepaytheloanbytheendoftheoriginal
term?
(1)
(n=110)
(n=140)
Yes,76%
No,24%
Yes,71%
No,29%
1) Excludes respondents whose inial loans were sll outstanding and respondents who did not answer the queson
2) Includes respondents who defaulted on the inial or extended loan
Study Results
20
a consistent shorall of income relave
to expenses, essenally those in the most
challenging nancial situaons, they were
more likely to roll over or extend their loan.
This was true of consumers of all very short-
term products —as well as auto tle loans—
net of other sociodemographic and nancial
characteriscs (for addional informaon on
the regression analysis, see appendix.)
With larger sizes and typically longer terms,
users of short-term products had dierent
loan experiences than users of their very
short-term counterparts. Chart 7: Short-Term
Loan Experience provides a prole of surveyed
borrowers’ experiences with installment and
auto tle loans.
Likely because of their relavely longer
term and, in some cases, installment loan
structures, users of short-term products
struggled less with repeat loan use. However,
a signicant poron of borrowers—24% of
installment loan users and 29% of auto tle
loan users with completed loans—did fail to
repay their loan on its original terms. Instead,
many renanced their loans, extending their
term and likely increasing their interest
payments or borrowing fees. Approximately
30% of both sets of users cited insucient
funds to make repayment and meet living
expenses as the reason they had changed
the terms of their loans. However, the top
reason given for renancing installment loans
was to borrow more money, indicang that
some borrowers may have eecvely used
the product as a line of credit. Though the
majority of borrowers who renanced their
loans did so only once or twice, employing
such extensions could potenally prolong the
burden of debt.
SDC Consumers: What They
Think
These borrowing experiences inuenced
and shaped SDC borrowers’ percepons and
atudes toward the products they used.
Our survey probed into respondents’ overall
impressions of their loan experience to gauge
how sased they were, the degree to which
the loan terms aligned with expectaons, and
their likelihood of using the product again. It
should be noted that customer sasfacon
results, in parcular, are heavily dependent
upon expectaons. Thus high sasfacon
rates do not necessarily connote a high quality
product, but rather that the experience
met the consumer’s expectaons for the
product. Results are summarized in Chart 8:
Sasfacon, Expectaons, and the Likelihood
to Use a Loan Product Again.
Payday borrowers appeared to have relavely
poor loan experiences. Compared to the
overall group of SDC consumers, they were
less sased; along with auto tle borrowers,
they were also more likely to claim higher
than expected costs. Perhaps as a result,
payday borrowers were more prone to say
they would not use the product again (22%).
Direct deposit advance products appeared to
register best. Compared to the overall group
of SDC products, actual costs for the product
were less likely to exceed expectaons, with
only 15% of borrowers saying they paid more
than they thought they would. A majority of
borrowers reported that they would use the
product again without hesitaon, compared
to only 5% of borrowers who said they would
not use it in the future.
In each product type, a sizable number of
borrowers demonstrated diculty in repaying
their loans and considered the products
Study Results
21
unfair. For them, SDC products may have
caused problems instead of solved them, as
borrowers struggled to manage loans they
may not have been able to aord in the rst
place. However, many borrowers were able
to pay o their loan on me and reported a
sasfactory experience. To an extent, these
borrowers appear to have managed their
credit need by using an SDC product.
VeryShortTerm
ShortTerm
Expectations
%reportingcostofloanwasmorethanexpected 40% 19% 15% 26% 43%
%reportingcostofloanwaslessthanexpected 10% 14% 18% 6% 17%
%reportingittookmoretimethanexpectedtorepaytheloan 32% 29% 20% 17% 32%
%reportingittooklesstimethanexpectedtorepaytheloan 13% 15% 16% 17% 19%
LikelihoodtoUseLoanProductAgain
Wouldyouusetheproductagain?
Yes,withouthesitation 33% 44% 53% 45% 22%
Maybe,ifIhavenobetteroptions 44% 44% 41% 39% 55%
No 22% 10% 5% 14% 22%
AutoTitle
Loan
Installment
Loans
Direct
Deposit
Advance
PawnLoanPaydayLoan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Payday Pawn DirectDepositAdvance InstallmentLoan AutoTitleLoan
%ofborrowersgivingraCng
ProductType
Overall,HowSaCsfiedWereYouWithThisLoan?
5
4
3
2
1
22
This research paints a detailed portrait of
the considerable challenges faced by the
esmated 15 million SDC consumers in the
United States. While our data largely conrms
exisng knowledge about their demographics
and nancial situaons, the ndings on their
choices and experiences suggest several new
implicaons for increasing access to high-
quality credit that are worth consideraon
by industry, policymakers, and consumer
advocates.
The rst implicaon of our research emerges
from our nding that SDC consumers use
a variety of SDC products and use dierent
product types to meet dierent credit
needs. This data suggests that consumers
would benet from a mulplicity of high-
quality credit products that can meet varying
nancial circumstances. Dierent challenges
call for products with shorter and longer
terms, lump sum and installment payment
structures, secured and unsecured terms,
and addional products or tools that create
broader customer relaonships.
In looking more closely at credit need, we
see that some consumers use SDC products
to ll consistent gaps between expenses
and income; some use them to meet cash
ow problems where bills and paychecks are
misaligned; and others use credit in response
to an unexpected event, such as a job loss or
car repair. These reasons for borrowing may
aect dierent consumers at dierent mes
and may call for very dierent soluons. For
example, installment loans may be best suited
for one-me emergencies that can be paid
o over me. Low-cost credit lines or credit
products ed to a savings vehicle may enable
those with cash ow problems to cover the
oat aordably and build a cushion for the
future. For those consumers who use credit
to address consistent budgetary inequity or
mismanagement, high-quality credit may
solve a temporary problem, but over the
long-term, soluons that do not involve credit
at all—such as income supports or tools to
facilitate budgeng or savings—might oer
more benets than a loan the borrower
cannot aord. In short, there is no single
soluon to help consumers manage cash
shortages.
The second major implicaon emerges from
the nding that access and speed were the
most salient features for consumers when
choosing SDC products. This suggests that
products with lower fees or interest rates but
longer approval periods may not adequately
meet the needs of some SDC consumers. In
order to meet consumer needs safely, high-
quality credit soluons will need to balance
aordability and sound underwring with
speed, convenience, and accessibility.
Our nding that certain consumers – those
with a high loan-to-income rao or who
report having expenses that consistently
exceed their income – are more likely to roll
over or extend a loan has major implicaons
for how providers make credit decisions.
These connecons demonstrate the need
for strong underwring before oering a
loan to determine consumers’ ability to
repay and to more deeply understand the
circumstances that lead consumers to seek
credit. Further exploring this relaonship
may help in developing best pracces for SDC
underwring that can diminish the risk that
borrowers receive loans they cannot aord.
Finally, we remain parcularly disturbed by
the high number of consumers who end up
rolling over or extending their loans mulple
mes and who report that, in the end, their
loan cost more and took longer to repay than
expected. This nding, well documented by
Conclusion
Conclusion
23
previous studies, indicates that many SDC
products seem to be structured in such a
way that encourages rather than prevents
repeat and extended usage. Strong consumer
protecons and innovave, high-quality
credit products that align consumer and
provider success will both be necessary to
beer address the struggles and needs of SDC
consumers.
To understand more deeply how and why
consumers rely on SDC products, CFSI plans
to produce addional analyses of this survey’s
results in the months ahead. We also plan to
follow this parcular survey with a qualitave
examinaon of consumers who use some of
the newer SDC products available. We hope
that study will provide an opportunity to hear
the individual voices of SDC consumers, to
more deeply understand their situaons and
choices, and to examine new SDC product
features that may improve outcomes for
consumers. In addion, there is a clear need
for industry analysis of SDC transacons to
understand the full size and scope of SDC use
and for controlled studies of parcular SDC
product features to beer understand their
impact on consumer outcomes.
We hope that the prole of SDC consumers
revealed here can serve as a valuable
tool for advancing the credit dialogue
and for remaking the small-dollar credit
marketplace. Consumers need and deserve
access to a variety of safe, aordable, high-
quality loan products that can help them
manage their nancial lives without causing
addional challenges or harm. In the best of
circumstances, these products should help
consumers turn a moment of crisis into an
opportunity to improve their nancial well-
being. Keeping the needs, perspecves, and
experiences of borrowers at the forefront of
the dialogue on small-dollar credit is crical to
moving the marketplace in a direcon where
such high-quality products go from aspiraon
to reality.
24
Endnotes
1 Center for Financial Services Innovaon, “CFSI Underbanked Consumer Study,” 2008.
2 CFSI gratefully acknowledges the involvement of mulple research experts in developing,
analyzing, and reviewing this research, including: Rourke O’Brien, Researcher, Princeton
University; Dr. Kim Manturuk, Senior Research Associate in Financial Services, University of North
Carolina; and Patricia J. Cirillo, PhD, President, Cypress Research Group
3 CFSI’s typical focus is the more than 60 million unbanked and underbanked Americans whose
nancial services needs are not fully met by tradional nancial instuons. While the unbanked
and underbanked are well represented in our survey populaon, we wanted to conduct a
broader invesgaon of Americans using SDC products. The $75,000 income cap reects our
desire to focus on households with incomes below or near the naonal median.
4 These descripons are intended to provide a general sense of typical product terms and
funconality. Actual product characteriscs may vary.
5 Also referred to as “bank payday loans.”
6 Model terms for direct deposit advance products come from the websites of large-scale
providers of the product (Wells Fargo, US Bank, Regions, Guaranty Bank, Fih Third).
7 Model terms for installment loans come from the 2011 Form 10-K for World Acceptance
Corporaon, a large public lender, and other informaon provided by industry representaves.
8 Model terms for auto tle loans come from Jim Hawkins, “Credit on Wheels: The Law and
Business of Auto Title Lending,” Washington and Lee Law Review (September 2011).
9 Our study found that there are 13.45 million SDC consumers with household incomes below
$75,000 by applying the SDC incidence rate from our survey of 9.5% to the 141 million adults in
the United States with household incomes below $75,000.
10 To arrive at our esmate of 15 million total SDC consumers across the enre income
spectrum, we accounted for those with household incomes above $75,000 by using alternave
credit usage data from the 2009 FDIC Underbanked Household Study. In that study, 13% of AFS
credit users had household incomes above $75,000.
11 See Bureau of Labor Stascs gures at hp://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm.
12 FDIC, “Naonal Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households,” (December 2009).
13 The income disparity pertains only to households with under $75,000 in annual income,
which were the focus of our survey. The income constraint was used to focus on the borrowing
experiences of LMI households.
Endnotes
25
14 The median income for a U.S. household is $50,000, according to 2010 census esmates. See
hp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/incpovhlth/2010/statemhi2_10.xls.
15 FDIC, ”Naonal Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households”.
16 Number of loans includes both SDC products and non-SDC borrowing opons. The queson
of how many loans respondents received was complicated by their use of credit cards,
which may be used frequently for payments (i.e., balances paid down each month) but only
periodically as a borrowing tool (i.e., balances extended and paid down over several months).
Our survey aempted to negoate the dierence by asking consumers, when reporng how
many loans they’ve used, not to consider every me they used a credit card but only when they
used it intending not to pay down the balance.
17 Approximately 75% of consumers reported knowing their credit score.
18 While we realize that tradional auto tle loans could be considered a very short-term
product (smaller size, 30-60 day term), we ulmately elected to categorize them as short-term
products for several reasons. A number of industry reports have noted a shi toward higher
minimum loan sizes or longer maturies in auto tle loans as state regulaons were put into
place for smaller, shorter-term versions of the product. (Hawkins, “Credit on Wheels”; Leah A.
Plunke, Emily Caplan, and Nathanael Player, “Small-dollar Loan Products Scorecard Updated,”
Naonal Consumer Law Center (May 2010)). Addionally, a number of auto tle loan providers
publicly adverse oering installment repayment, terms of over a year and/or open line-of credit
structures. These companies include 1-800-Loan Mart, FidelityOne, TitleMax, RPM Lenders and
HelpingLoans.com (approximately 53% of our survey respondents reported borrowing from one
of these ve lenders). Finally, approximately 65% of auto tle loan customers surveyed reported
having longer than six months to repay their loan. Given that only 4% of customers reported
renancing or changing the terms of their loan more than twice, we believe that the longer me
to repay primarily indicated a longer original term.
19 We aempted to determine the rollover/extension propensity of payday borrowers by
asking, “What did you do when the loan rst came due? That is, what happened at the end of
the original term of your payday loan?” and counng those who chose “I rolled over, renewed
or extended the loan” from a list of opons. To do the same for pawn borrowers, we asked,
“Did you pay o loan at the inial due date” and counted those who chose “No, I extended or
renewed the loan.” Given the structure of the queson, consumers who repaid loans on me
but took out another loan within their next pay period were likely not included in the “rollover/
extension” category.
20 Total annual loan usage for both payday and pawn loans was calculated by combining the
survey results for the average number of individual loan experiences (inclusive of rollovers/
extensions) per year by the average number of individual loans and rollovers/extensions per loan
experience.
26
Appendix
Additional Information on GfK KnowledgePanel
®
KnowledgePanel® members are recruited using a stascally valid sampling method with
a published sample frame of residenal addresses that covers approximately 97% of U.S.
households.
KnowledgePanel® uses an address-based sampling frame. The address-based sample (ABS)
involves probability-based sampling of addresses from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery
Sequence File, which covers approximately 97% of the physical addresses in all 50 states.
Randomly sampled addresses are invited to join KnowledgePanel® through a series of mailings
(in English and Spanish) and by telephone follow-up to non-responders when a telephone
number can be matched to the sampled address. Invited households can join the panel by one
of several means: compleng and mailing back an acceptance form in a postage-paid envelope;
calling a toll-free hotline staed by bilingual recruitment agents; or going to a dedicated
KnowledgePanel recruitment website and compleng the recruitment informaon online.
Sampled non-Internet households, when recruited, are given a netbook computer and free
Internet service so they may also parcipate as online panel members.
For each study, samples are drawn from among acve panel members using a probability
proporonal to size (PPS) weighted sampling approach. Customized straed random sampling
based on prole data is also conducted, as required by specic studies. In September 2007,
GfK was assigned a patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,269,570) for its unique methodology for selecng
mulple online survey samples from a panel. The selecon methodology, which GfK has used
since 2000, assures that mulple sequenal KnowledgePanel® samples from a nite panel
membership will each reliably represent the U.S. populaon. For addional informaon, visit
hp://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/
Full Denition of “Non-SDC Consumer”
“Non-SDC Consumers” are those that had not used any of the ve SDC products (payday loans,
pawn loans, direct deposit advance, installment loans, auto tle loans) in the past 12 months,
but did use one of the following borrowing opons during the same period:
• Loans from friends or family
• Personal loan from a bank or credit union
• Overdra on a checking account, used intenonally as a loan
• Bouncing a check, used intenonally as a loan
• Credit card, when used with the intent of NOT paying o the balance at the end of the month
• Cash advance on a credit card
• Line of credit (non-credit card)
• Loan from my employer
Appendix
27
Additional Information on Select Survey Questions
[Respondents could choose up to three opons. Order of presentaon randomized for each
respondent.]
• To pay medical bills
• To pay rent
• For furniture, appliances, etc.
• To purchase a car
• To x a car
• For educaon
• For home repairs
• To help out friend/family
• To pay back money I owed to friends/family
• To pay back another loan
• For a vacaon/to travel
• For gi shopping for the holidays
• For business expenses
• To pay ulity bills (e.g., electric, water, telephone)
• To pay child support/alimony
• To pay nes/taxes/liens
• For my general living expenses (e.g., food, clothing)
• Another reason (please specify)
[Respondents could choose up to three opons. Order of presentaon randomized for each
respondent.]
• I had an unexpected expense (e.g., medical emergency, car broke down)
• I had an unexpected drop in my income (e.g., lost job, hours cut, benets cut)
• I had a bill or payment due before my paycheck arrived
• I spent most of my money that month paying o a previous loan
• My general living expenses are consistently more than my income
• I planned to make a major purchase that exceeded my monthly income or savings (e.g., car or
truck, major appliance)
• Another reason (please specify)
Appendix
28
[Respondents could choose mulple opons. Order of presentaon randomized for each
respondent.]
• Also used another loan product
• Worked more hours/Earned more income
• Deferred or skip paying bills
• Went without certain basic needs
• Reduced general spending
• Another opon (please specify)
• None of the above
[Asked for mulple non-SDC loan opons, including: “Overdra on a checking account, used
intenonally as a loan”; “Credit card with the intent of NOT paying it o at the end of the
month”; “Loan from friends or family.”]
• Too expensive
• Too inconvenient
• Too slow
• I don’t qualify
• Loan not suited to my parcular need
• I don’t trust this lender
• I maxed out or can no longer use this product
• Not available
• Never heard of it
• I did use this loan in addion to [insert assigned loan type]
• Other (please specify)
Appendix
29
Additional Information on Regression Analysis of Factors
Contributing to Rollover or Loan Extension
The following regression analyses were conducted to test for associaons between key
variables and repeat loan usage, controlling for other factors. All ndings are net of other
sociodemographic and nancial characteriscs available in the survey data. All relaonships
should be interpreted as non-causal associaons, parcularly since survey data was collected at
a single point in me. For example, reported nancial behaviors may predict payday rollover and
vice versa.
Full regression tables are available upon request.
Regression analyses suggest that the size of the loan relave to the household income is an
important predictor of how many mes a borrower “rolls over” the payday loan; the greater the
loan-to-income rao, the greater the number of rollovers. This nding is signicant at the p<.05
level.
Payday loan users who report that they needed to borrow because their expenses rounely
exceed their income are signicantly more likely to “roll over” their loan (and roll over more
mes) than other payday borrowers. This relaonship is stascally signicant at the p<.05 level.
Loan-to-income rao remains a signicant predictor of rollover in this situaon as well.
Pawn loan users who report that they needed to borrow because their expenses rounely
exceed their income are signicantly more likely to extend the term of their loan than other
pawn borrowers. Specically, those who report their expenses rounely exceed income have
273% higher odds of extending the term of their pawn loan relave to other borrowers. This
relaonship is stascally signicant at the p<.05 level.
Auto tle loan users who report that they needed to borrow because their expenses rounely
exceed their income are signicantly more likely to renance their loan than other auto tle
borrowers. Specically, those who report their expenses rounely exceed income have 864%
higher odds of renancing their loan relave to other borrowers. This relaonship is stascally
signicant at the p<.01 level.
Appendix
30
Deposit advance users who report that they needed to borrow because their expenses rounely
exceed their income appear to be more likely to take out another deposit advance in the
following month than other deposit advance borrowers. It is important to note, however, that
this relaonship is only marginally signicant at the p<.10 level.
About CFSI:
The Center for Financial Services Innovaon (CFSI) is the naon’s leading authority on nancial services
for underserved consumers. Through insights gained by producing original research; promong cross
sector collaboraon; advising organizaons and companies by oering specialized consulng services;
shaping public policy; and invesng in nonprot organizaons and start-ups, CFSI delivers a deeply
interconnected suite of services beneng underserved consumers. Since 2004, CFSI has worked with
leaders and innovators in the business, government and nonprot sectors to transform the nancial
services landscape. For more on CFSI, go to .
This paper has been generously sponsored by:
The opinions expressed in this research report are those of CFSI only
and do not necessarily represent those of the Ford Foundaon.
New York City
611 Broadway
Suite 510
New York, NY 10012
Washington D.C.
1730 Rhode Island Ave NW
Suite 912
Washington, DC 20036
www.cfsinnovation.com
