STATE RESTRICTIONS ON SMALL-DOLLAR

LOANS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES,

2005–2009:

SUMMARY, DOCUMENTATION, AND

APPENDIX
Prepared for the US Department of the Treasury by the Urban Institute, 2010

Authors of this report are:

Nancy Pindus, Urban Institute

Daniel Kuehn, Urban Institute

Rachel Brash, Urban Institute

Acknowledgments

This document was completed under contract to the U.S. Department of the Treasury under Order

Number GS23F8198H/T09BPA017, with funds authorized by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Oversight and review were provided by the Office of Financial Education and Financial Access. The

document benefited from the experience and advice of Signe-Mary McKernan and Caroline Ratcliffe and

policy reviewers from the Center for Responsible Lending, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the

U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Association of Progressive Rental Organizations. A reviewer

from a pawnbroker association who wished to remain anonymous provided confirmation of the

accuracy of our data on pawnshop restrictions.

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that

examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are

those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATE RESTRICTIONS ON SMALL-DOLLAR LOANS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES ______________________________ 1

STATE POLICY DATA DOCUMENTATION ____________________________________________________________ 2

STATE AUTO TITLE LOAN RESTRICTIONS ________________________________________________________________ 4

STATE PAWNSHOP RESTRICTIONS ____________________________________________________________________ 6

STATE PAYDAY LOAN RESTRICTIONS ___________________________________________________________________ 7

STATE REFUND ANTICIPATION LOAN RESTRICTIONS________________________________________________________ 11

STATE RENT-TO-OWN RESTRICTIONS _________________________________________________________________ 13

SOURCES ___________________________________________________________________________________ 17

APPENDIX A__________________________________________________________________________________ 19
1

STATE RESTRICTIONS ON SMALL-DOLLAR LOANS AND FINANCIAL

SERVICES

The Urban Institute documented several types of restrictions of five small-dollar products: auto title

loans, pawnshop loans, payday loans, refund anticipation loans (RALs), and rent-to-own (RTO)

agreements. The table below provides the number of states with each category of restriction for the five

products as of 2009.

Auto Title Restrictions

Auto title loans prohibited 27 states1

APR cap 13 states2

Pawnshop Restrictions

Monthly interest rate cap 40 states

Return requirement 10 states

Payday Loan Restrictions

Payday loan prohibited 13 states

APR cap 33 states

Maximum loan amount 33 states

Minimum or maximum period 35 states

Fee disclosure requirement 34 states

Refund Anticipation Loan Restrictions

APR cap 3 states

Disclosure requirements 17 states

Right to rescind 2 states

Rent-to-Own Restrictions

Total cost or APR cap 11 states

Total cost label disclosures 16 states

Reinstatement rights346 states

Note: Some restrictions are aggregated for the purposes of this table. For

example, at least three types of disclosures may be required by rent-to-own

regulations, but they are combined for the purposes of this summary table. APR,

fee, and price caps are also combined.

1. Texas prohibits auto title loans, but lenders circumvent restrictions with

unregulated credit service organizations.

2. South Carolina has an APR cap, but it only applies to small auto title loans and

thus does not cover many loans.

3. Requires stores to reinstate the terms of an agreement if a delinquent

borrower meets certain requirements.

The majority of states provide some form of regulation of the five products considered. The four main

categories of regulation are disclosures, price caps, prohibitions, and contract requirements. Disclosures

and price caps can be placed on different components of price, including restrictions on total dollar

costs, interest rates, and annual percentage rates.
2

A number of states explicitly prohibit these small-dollar products:

 Twenty-seven states prohibit auto title loans, and thirteen states prohibit payday loans.

 Forty-seven states have a price cap on at least one of the five products.

 Payday lenders also face restrictions on loan periods and maximum loan amounts.

 The majority of states impose an interest rate cap on pawnshops and payday lenders.

 In contrast, less than half the states impose disclosure or price caps on rent-to-own agreements.

STATE POLICY DATA DOCUMENTATION

Many of the restrictions placed on alternative financial services are implemented at the state level.

Some products, such as refund anticipation loans, have seen considerable revision and reworking of

state policy in recent years. Other products, such as pawnshop loans, are conducted under the same

state legal environment that has persisted for many years. Research on alternative financial services

depends on the availability of a data source that provides information on these policies across states

and products.

Data on these policies are provided for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, for the period between

2005 and 2009. Data were collected from industry and nonprofit sources, as well as academic literature.

For many products, policies remain consistent over this period. Where policies vary over time, the

variation is noted. Since variation over time is limited, we present the data by state, rather than by both

state and time period.

The data are provided in Excel file format and are identified by standard state abbreviations. This

document provides details on each variable included in the data file, assumptions used in developing the

data, and sources.

All data were reviewed by qualified representatives from the industry, from government, or from

nonprofit advocacy groups. Reviewers included individuals from the Center for Responsible Lending, the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Association of

Progressive Rental Organizations. A reviewer from a pawnbroker association who wished to remain

anonymous provided confirmation of the accuracy of our data for pawnshop restrictions.

State auto title loan restrictions

1. Auto title loans prohibited

2. Auto title loan interest cap

3. Maximum allowable APR on one-month, $300 auto title loan

4. Loophole permitting auto title loans with uncapped APR

State pawnshop restrictions

1. Interest rate cap

2. Interest rate cap amount

3. Return requirement
3

State payday loan restrictions

1. Payday loans prohibited

2. Maximum loan amount

3. APR cap, 2005–2006

4. APR cap amount, 2005–2006

5. APR cap, 2007–2009

6. APR cap amount, 2007–2009

7. Minimum loan period (days)

8. Maximum loan period (days)

9. Fee disclosure requirement

State RAL restrictions

1. Disclosure requirement in 2009

2. Disclosure requirement implementation year

3. APR cap—binary in 2009

4. APR cap—continuous in 2009

5. APR cap implementation year

6. Right to rescind legislation

7. Right to rescind implementation year

State RTO restrictions

1. Contract disclosures

2. Label disclosures of any type

3. Total cost label disclosures

4. Reinstatement rights

5. Total cost price cap, 2005–2006

6. Total cost price cap, 2007–2009

7. APR price cap

8. APR label disclosure
4

State auto title loan restrictions

1. Auto title loans prohibited

Sources: Fox and Guy, “Driven into Debt: CFA Car Title Loan Store and Online Survey” (2005);

Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of

America, “Small-Dollar Loan Products Scorecard” (2008)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state prohibits lenders from making auto title loans, the variable

receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2008, 2010. The Consumer Federation of America provides data on auto title

loan restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2008 is provided by the

Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center. In 2010,

reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Center for

Responsible lending confirmed the accuracy of the data and advised us on the

identification of states where auto title restrictions were nonbinding or circumvented by

suppliers.

Notes: We make the assumption that if auto title loan restrictions in 2008 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005 and confirmed by reviewers in 2010, then these restrictions were

also in effect for all intervening years.

2. Auto title loan interest cap

Sources: Fox and Guy, “Driven into Debt: CFA Car Title Loan Store and Online Survey” (2005);

Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of

America, “Small-Dollar Loan Products Scorecard” (2008)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has an interest rate cap, the variable receives a 1; if not, it

receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2008, 2010. The Consumer Federation of America provides data on auto title

loan restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2008 is provided by the

Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center. In 2010,

reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Center for

Responsible lending confirmed the accuracy of the data and advised us on the

identification of states where auto title restrictions were nonbinding or circumvented by

suppliers.

Notes: We make the assumption that if auto title loan restrictions in 2008 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005 and confirmed by reviewers in 2010, then these restrictions were

also in effect for all intervening years.
5

3. Maximum allowable APR on one-month, $300 auto title loan

Sources: Fox and Guy, “Driven into Debt: CFA Car Title Loan Store and Online Survey” (2005);

Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of

America, “Small-Dollar Loan Products Scorecard” (2008)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous interest rate cap for states that have a rate cap.

Years Available: 2005, 2008, 2010. The Consumer Federation of America provides data on auto title

loan restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2008 is provided by the

Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center. In 2010,

reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Center for

Responsible lending confirmed the accuracy of the data and advised us on the

identification of states where auto title restrictions were nonbinding or circumvented by

suppliers.

Notes: We make the assumption that if auto title loan restrictions in 2008 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005 and confirmed by reviewers in 2010, then these restrictions were

also in effect for all intervening years.

4. Loophole permitting auto title loans with uncapped APR

Sources: Fox and Guy, “Driven into Debt: CFA Car Title Loan Store and Online Survey” (2005);

California Financial Code (2010); South Carolina Code of Laws (2010)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has a loophole that allows for auto title loans with unrestricted

APR, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2010. The Consumer Federation of America provides data on auto title loan

restriction as of 2005. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors

and the Center for Responsible lending confirmed the accuracy of the data and advised

us on the identification of states where auto title restrictions were non-binding or

circumvented by suppliers.

Notes: We make the assumption that if reviewers confirmed that auto title loan restrictions

identified in 2005 were accurate in 2010, then these restrictions were also in effect for

all intervening years. South Carolina does not regulate loans above $600, and California

does not regulate loans above $2,500. We confirmed reviewer information in the South

Carolina and California state codes (2010). Auto title lending is also conducted freely in

Texas through unregulated third parties, despite the statutory prohibition.
6

State pawnshop restrictions

1. Interest rate cap

Source: Shackman and Tenney, “The Effects of Government Regulations on the Supply of Pawn

Loans: Evidence from 51 Jurisdictions in the U.S.” (2006)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has an interest rate cap, the variable receives a 1; if not, it

receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2010. Shackman and Tenney (2006) provide information on state caps on

monthly interest rates for pawn loans in 2005.

Notes: Very little additional data are available on pawnshop restriction. We make the weak

assumption that restrictions in 2005 reflected the regulatory environment for the study

period. The lack of published data may be an indication that very little has changed in

the restriction of the industry. In 2010, a reviewer from the pawnshop industry advised

that the Shackman and Tenney (2006) data are current but for a few cases.

2. Interest rate cap amount

Source: Shackman and Tenney, “The Effects of Government Regulations on the Supply of Pawn

Loans: Evidence from 51 Jurisdictions in the U.S.” (2006)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous interest rate cap for states that have a rate cap.

Years Available: 2005, 2010. Shackman and Tenney (2006) provide information on state caps on

monthly interest rates for pawn loans in 2005.

Notes: Very little additional data are available on pawnshop restriction. We make the weak

assumption that restrictions in 2005 reflected the regulatory environment for the study

period. The lack of published data may be an indication that very little has changed in

the restriction of the industry. In 2010, a reviewer from the pawnshop industry advised

that the Shackman and Tenney (2006) data are current but for a few cases.

3. Return requirement

Source: Shackman and Tenney, “The Effects of Government Regulations on the Supply of Pawn

Loans: Evidence from 51 Jurisdictions in the U.S.” (2006)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires the pawnshop to return excess proceeds upon sale of

collateral, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2010. Shackman and Tenney (2006) provide information on state caps on

return requirements for pawn loans in 2005.

Notes: Very little additional data are available on pawnshop restriction. We make the weak

assumption that restrictions in 2005 reflected the regulatory environment for the study

period. The lack of published data may be an indication that very little has changed in

the restriction of the industry. In 2010, a reviewer from the pawnshop industry advised

that the Shackman and Tenney (2006) data are current but for a few cases.
7

State payday loan restrictions

1. Payday loans prohibited

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state prohibits lenders from making payday loans, the variable

receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

2. Maximum loan amount

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009)

Values: A continuous maximum loan amount for states that have a legal maximum.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

3. APR cap, 2005–2006

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state imposed an APR cap in the 2005–2006 period, the variable

receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.
8

Some states did change their payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these

cases, we conferred with reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and

nature of the change.

4. APR cap amount, 2005–2006

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009); Consumer

Federation of America, “Payday Loan Consumer Information: State Information” (2010)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous APR cap for states that have a cap.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

Some states did change their payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these

cases, we conferred with reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and

nature of the change. The Consumer Federation of America (2010) translates the mix of

finance charge caps, interest rate caps, and APR caps provided by the National

Consumer Law Center into consistently defined APR caps.

5. APR cap, 2007–2009

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state imposed an APR cap in the 2007–2009 period, the variable

receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

Some states did change their payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these

cases, we conferred with reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and

nature of the change.
9

6. APR cap amount, 2007–2009

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009), and Consumer

Federation of America, “Payday Loan Consumer Information: State Information” (2010)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous APR cap for states that have a cap.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

Some states did change their payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these

cases, we conferred with reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and

nature of the change. The Consumer Federation of America (2010) translates the mix of

finance charge caps, interest rate caps, and APR caps provided by the National

Consumer Law Center into consistently defined APR caps.

7. Minimum loan period (days)

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009); and

Conference of State Bank Supervisors (2010)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous minimum loan period (in days) for states that have a legal minimum.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.
10

8. Maximum loan period (days)

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009); and

Conference of State Bank Supervisors (2010)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous maximum loan period (in days) for states that have a legal maximum.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.

9. Fee disclosure requirement

Sources: National Consumer Law Center, “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws” (2005); National

Conference of State Legislatures, “Payday Lending State Statutes” (2009); Conference of

State Bank Supervisors (2010)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires payday lenders to provide a standard disclosure of

their fees, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2005, 2009, 2010. The National Consumer Law Center provides data on payday loan

restriction as of 2005. Information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the National

Conference of State Legislatures. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data and

advised us on the identification of states where payday restrictions had changed during

the study period.

Notes: We make the assumption that if payday loan restrictions in 2009 are identical to the

restrictions for 2005, then these restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years.
11

State refund anticipation loan restrictions

1. Disclosure requirement in 2009

Source: Wu and Fox (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has rules requiring disclosure of loan information in 2009, the

variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the National Consumer Law Center

and the Consumer Federation of America have provided annual updates on RAL

restrictions since 2005. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data.

Notes: Disclosure requirements vary across states. The most common requirements were for

the disclosure of the loan’s APR, tax preparation fees, loan fee schedules, filing fees, and

information on alternative e-filing options. More detailed disclosure requirements were

also enacted, including font size requirements and posting requirements. A standard

core of disclosure requirements is shared by almost all states. Since variations in

additional requirements beyond this core are generally more trivial (i.e., font

requirements), all disclosure requirements were condensed into a single disclosure

measure.

2. Disclosure requirement implementation year

Sources: Wu and Fox (2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009); Wu, Fox, and Woodall (2006)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: The disclosure requirement implementation year takes on a continuous value, from

2002 to 2009, depending on when the disclosure requirement was implemented.

Years Available: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the

National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America have provided

annual updates on RAL restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference

of State Bank Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the

data.

3. APR cap—binary in 2009

Source: Wu and Fox (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has a cap on RAL APRs, the variable receives a 1; if not, it

receives a 0.

Years Available: 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the National Consumer Law Center

and the Consumer Federation of America have provided annual updates on RAL

restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data.
12

4. APR cap—continuous in 2009

Source: Wu and Fox (2009)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: A continuous interest rate cap for states that have a rate cap. North Carolina outlaws

“unconscionable” interest rates.

Years Available: 2009 and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the National Consumer Law Center

and the Consumer Federation of America have provided annual updates on RAL

restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data.

5. APR cap implementation year

Sources: Wu and Fox (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009); Wu, Fox, and Woodall (2006)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: The APR cap implementation year takes on a continuous value, from 2002 to 2009,

depending on when the APR cap was implemented.

Years Available: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the

National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America have provided

annual updates on RAL restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference

of State Bank Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the

data.

6. Right to rescind legislation

Sources: Wu and Fox (2009)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state has a one-day right to rescind the RAL with a fee charged for

converting the RAL into a RAC, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the National Consumer Law Center

and the Consumer Federation of America have provided annual updates on RAL

restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank

Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the data.

7. Right to rescind implementation year

Sources: Wu and Fox (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009); Wu, Fox, and Woodall (2006)

Variable Type: Continuous

Values: The right to rescind implementation year takes on a continuous value, from 2002 to

2009, depending on when the right to rescind was implemented.

Years Available: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Chi Chi Wu and Jean Ann Fox at the

National Consumer Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America have provided

annual updates on RAL restrictions since 2004. In 2010, reviewers from the Conference

of State Bank Supervisors and the Treasury Department confirmed the accuracy of the

data.
13

State rent-to-own restrictions

1. Contract disclosures

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires a lessor to provide standard information on the

product contract, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.

2. Label disclosures of any type

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires a lessor to provide information on the product label,

the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.
14

3. Total cost label disclosures

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires RTO businesses to disclose the total cost of purchase

on the product label, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.

4. Reinstatement rights

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires RTO businesses to reinstate an agreement after a

consumer misses a payment (and if certain conditions are met), the variable receives a

1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.
15

5. Total cost price cap, 2005–2006

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state limits the amount RTO businesses can charge for a product in

the 2005–2006 period, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. Some states did change their

payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these cases, we conferred with

reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and nature of the change. In

2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of

Progressive Rental Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.

6. Total cost price cap, 2007-2009

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state limits the amount RTO businesses can charge for a product in

2007–2009, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. Some states did change their

payday loan restrictions during the study period. In these cases, we conferred with

reviewers and with the state code to determine the timing and nature of the change. In

2010, reviewers from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of

Progressive Rental Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.
16

7. APR price cap

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state limits the APR RTO businesses can charge for a product, the

variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.

8. APR label disclosure

Sources: Data from McKernan, Lacko, and Hastak for “Empirical Evidence on the Determinants of

Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements” (2003); Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations, “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic Impact” (2009)

(http://www.rtohq.org/apro-state-rent-to-own-statutes-and-economic-impact.html)

and “RTO Legislative Activity” (2010) (http://www.rtohq.org/apro-rent-to-ownlegislative-activity-and-resources.html)

Variable Type: Binary

Values: 0/1 (no/yes): If the state requires RTO businesses to disclose the APR on the product

label, the variable receives a 1; if not, it receives a 0.

Years Available: 2003, 2009, 2010. McKernan et al. (2003) provides data on RTO restriction as of

2003. Retrospective information on state law as of 2009 is provided by the Association

of Progressive Rental Owners (APRO) at http://www.rtohq.org. APRO’s state legislative

updates (2010) are used to identify any changes in this state restriction between 2003

and 2009.

Notes: The APRO legislative updates do not show any changes, so we make the assumption

that if RTO restrictions in 2009 are identical to McKernan’s data for 2003, then these

restrictions were also in effect for all intervening years. In 2010, reviewers from the

Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Association of Progressive Rental

Organizations confirmed the accuracy of the data.
17

Sources

Association of Progressive Rental Organizations. 2009. “State Rent-to-Own Statutes and Economic

Impact.” Austin, TX.

———. 2010. “RTO Legislative Activity.” Austin, TX.

Conference of State Bank Supervisors. 2010. Data provided to the Urban Institute.

California Financial Code, Sections 22250-22251. 2010. Accessed at

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fin/22300-22342.html on May 25, 2010.

Consumer Federation of America. 2010. “Payday Loan Consumer Information: State Information.”

Washington, DC. Accessed at http://www.paydayloaninfo.org/stateinfo.asp on August 4, 2010.

Consumers Union, the National Consumer Law Center, and the Consumer Federation of America. 2008.

“Small-Dollar Loan Products Scorecard: Statutory Backup” Washington, DC.

Fox, Jean Ann, and Elizabeth Guy. 2005. “Driven into Debt: CFA Car Title Loan Store and Online Survey.”

Washington, DC.: Consumer Federation of America.

McKernan, Signe-Mary, James M. Lacko, and Manoj Hastak. 2003. “Empirical Evidence on the

Determinants of Rent-to-Own Use and Purchase Agreements.” Economic Development

Quarterly 17(1): 33–52.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2009. “Payday Lending State Statutes.” Denver, CO.

National Consumer Law Center. 2005. “Survey of State Payday Loan Laws.” Washington, DC.

Shackman, Joshua, and Glen Tenney. 2006. “The Effects of Government Regulations on the Supply of

Pawn Loans: Evidence from 51 Jurisdictions in the U.S.” Journal of Financial Services Review

30(2): 69–91.

South Carolina Code of Laws (Unannotated), Current through the end of the 2009 Session. 2010.

Accessed at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t37c003.htm on April 6, 2010.

Wu, Chi Chi, and Jean Ann Fox. 2004. “All Drain, No Gain: Refund Anticipation Loans Continue to Sap the

Hard-Earned Tax Dollars of Low-Income Americans.” NCLC/CFA 2004 Refund Anticipation Loan

Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America.

———. 2005. “Picking Taxpayers’ Pockets, Draining Tax Relief Dollars: Refund Anticipation Loans Still

Slicing into Low-Income Americans’ Hard-Earned Tax Refunds.” NCLC/CFA 2005 Refund

Anticipation Loan Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer

Federation of America.

———. 2007. “One Step Forward, One Step Back: Progress Seen in Efforts gainst High-Priced Refund

Anticipation Loans, but Even More Abusive Products Introduced.” NCLC/CFA 2007 Refund
18

Anticipation Loan Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer

Federation of America.

———. 2008. “Coming Down: Fewer Refund Anticipation Loans, Lower Prices from Some Providers, but

Quickie Tax Refund Loans Still Burden the Working Poor.” NCLC/CFA 2008 Refund Anticipation

Loan Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of

America.

———. 2009. “Big Business, Big Bucks: Quickie Tax Loans Generate Profits for Banks and Tax Preparers

while Putting Low-Income Taxpayers at Risk.” NCLC/CFA 2009 Refund Anticipation Loan Report.

Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America.

———. 2010. “Major Changes in the Quick Tax Refund Loan Industry.” NCLC/CFA 2010 Refund

Anticipation Loan Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and Consumer

Federation of America.

Wu, Chi Chi, Jean Ann Fox, and Patrick Woodall. 2006. “Another Year of Losses: High-Priced Refund

Anticipation Loans Continue to Take a Chunk out of Americans’ Tax Refunds.” NCLC/CFA 2006

Refund Anticipation Loan Report. Washington, DC: National Consumer Law Center and

Consumer Federation of America.
19

State

Auto Title

Loans

Prohibited

Auto Title

Loan Interest

Cap

Maximum Allowable

APR on One-Month,

$300 Auto Title Loan

Loophole Permitting

Auto Title Loans with

Uncapped APR1

AL 0 1 304% 0

AK 1 0 0

AZ 0 1 207% 0

AR 1 0 0

CA 1 0 1

CO 1 0 0

CT 1 0 0

DE 0 0 0

DC 1 0 0

FL 0 1 30% 0

GA 0 1 304% 0

HI 1 0 0

ID 0 0 0

IL 0 0 0

IN 1 0 0

IA 0 1 21% 0

KS 0 0 0

KY 0 1 36% 0

LA 1 0 0

ME 1 0 0

MD 1 0 0

MA 1 0 0

MI 1 0 0

MN 0 1 118% 0

MS 0 1 304% 0

MO 0 0 0

MT 0 1 304% 0

NE 1 0 0

NV 0 0 0

NH 0 1 36% 0

NJ 1 0 0

NM 0 0 0

NY 1 0 0

NC 1 0 0

ND 1 0 0

OH 1 0 0

OK 1 0 0

OR 0 1 154% 0

PA 1 0 0

RI 1 0 0

SC 0 1 15% 1

SD 0 0 0

TN 0 1 268% 0

TX 1 0 1

UT 0 0 0

VT 1 0 0

VA 0 0 0

WA 1 0 0

WV 1 0 0

WI 0 0 0

WY 1 0 0

Number 27 13 -- 3

Percent 52.94% 25.49% -- 5.88%

1. South Carolina places a prohibitive interest rate cap on auto title loans, although this restriction does not apply

to loans above $600. Auto title lenders are actively making loans above this minimum, so that the restriction is

rendered nonbinding. California prohibits auto title loans above $2,500. Texas auto title loans are made through

unregulated third parties despite nominal prohibition in the state.

APPENDIX A

Table A.1: Auto Title Restrictions for 2005–2009 Period by State

August 2010
20

Table A.2: Pawnshop Restrictions for 2005–2009 Period by State

State

Interest Rate

Cap

Interest Rate Cap

Amount

Return

Requirement

AL 1 25% 0

AK 1 20% 1

AZ 1 11% 0

AR 1 1% 0

CA 1 12% 0

CO 1 16% 0

CT 1 2% 0

DE 1 3% 0

DC 1 2% 1

FL 1 25% 0

GA 1 25% 0

HI 1 20% 0

ID 0 0

IL 1 20% 0

IN 1 22% 0

IA 0 0

KS 1 10% 0

KY 1 22% 0

LA 1 15% 0

ME 1 25% 0

MD 1 8% 0

MA 1 3% 1

MI 1 4% 0

MN 0 0

MS 1 25% 0

MO 0 0

MT 1 25% 0

NE 0 0

NV 0 0

NH 0 0

NJ 1 4% 1

NM 1 7% 1

NY 1 3% 1

NC 1 22% 0

ND 0 0

OH 1 9% 0

OK 1 20% 0

OR 1 11% 0

PA 1 4% 1

RI 1 5% 1

SC 1 23% 0

SD 0 0

TN 1 22% 0

TX 1 20% 0

UT 0 0

VT 1 4% 1

VA 1 15% 0

WA 1 10% 0

WV 0 0

WI 1 3% 1

WY 1 20% 0

Number 40 -- 10

Percent 78.43% -- 19.60%
21

Table A.3: Payday Loan Restrictions for 2005–2009 Period by State

State

Payday

Loans

Prohibited

Maximum Loan

Amount

APR Cap,

2005–2006

APR Cap

Amount,

2005–2006

APR Cap,

2007–2009

APR Cap

Amount,

2007–2009

Min. Loan

Period

(Days)

Max Loan

Period

(Days)

Fee

Disclosure

Requirement

AL 0 $500 1 456.25% 1 456.25% 10 31 1

AK 0 $500 1 520% 1 520% 14 1

AZ 0 $500 1 459% 1 459% 5 1

AR 0 $400 1 579% 1 579% 6 31 1

CA 0 $300 1 459% 1 459% 31 1

CO 0 $500 1 520% 1 520% 40 1

CT 1 0 0 0

DE 0 $500 0 0 60 0

DC 1 0 0 0

FL 0 $500 1 390% 1 390% 7 31 1

GA 1 0 0 0

HI 0 $600 1 459% 1 459% 32 1

ID 0 0 0 1

IL 0 1 403% 1 403% 14 1

IN 0 $550 1 390% 1 390% 14 31 1

IA 0 $500 1 433% 1 433% 7 30 1

KS 0 $500 1 390% 1 390% 14 60 0

KY 0 $500 1 459% 1 459% 30 1

LA 0 $350 1 650% 1 650% 1

ME 1 0 0 0

MD 1 0 0 0

MA 1 0 0 31 0

MI 0 $600 1 390% 1 390% 7 31 1

MN 0 $350 1 390% 1 390% 1 30 1

MS 0 $400 1 572% 1 572% 1 31 1

MO 0 $500 1 1980% 1 1980% 14 31 1

MT 0 $300 1 650% 1 650% 31 1

NE 0 $425 1 459% 1 459% 60 1

NV 0

25% of gross

monthly income 0 0 7 34 1

NH 0 $500 1 36% 1 36% 1

NJ 1 0 0 0

NM 0

25% of gross

monthly income 0 1 417.14% 0
22

State

Payday

Loans

Prohibited

Maximum Loan

Amount

APR Cap,

2005–2006

APR Cap

Amount,

2005–2006

APR Cap,

2007–2009

APR Cap

Amount,

2007–2009

Min. Loan

Period

(Days)

Max Loan

Period

(Days)

Fee

Disclosure

Requirement

NY 1 0 0 0

NC 1 0 0 15 60 0

ND 0 $500 1 520% 1 520% 183 1

OH 0 $500 1 28% 1 28% 31 1

OK 0 $500 1 390% 1 390% 60 1

OR 0

25% net monthly

income for

≤$60K net yearly

income. No limit

for higher

earners. 0 1 156% 31 60 1

PA 1 0 0 0

RI 0 $500 1 390% 1 390% 31 1

SC 0 $550 1 390% 1 390% 1

SD 0 $500 0 0 31 0

TN 0 $500 1 459% 1 459% 7 31 1

TX 0 1 309% 1 309% 1

UT 0 0 0 1 84 1

VT 1 0 0 7 0

VA 0 $500 1 687.76% 1 687.76% 45 1

WA 0 $700 1 390% 1 390% 1

WV 1 0 0 0

WI 1 0 0 31 0

WY 0 1 780% 1 780% 0

Number 13 33 31 -- 33 -- 20 29 33

Percent 25.49% 64.70% 60.78% -- 64.70% -- 39.22% 56.86% 63.46%
23

Table A.4: RAL Restrictions for 2005–2009 Period by State

State

Disclosure

Requirement

in 2009

Disclosure

Requirement

Implementation Year

APR Cap—

Binary

in 2009

APR Cap—

Continuous in

2009

APR Cap

Implementation

Year

Right to Rescind

Legislation in

2009

Right to Rescind

Implementation

Year

AL 0 0 0

AK 1 2009 0 0

AZ 0 0 0

AR 0 0 0

CA 1 2005 0 0

CO 0 0 0

CT 1 2004 1 60% 2005 0

DE 0 0 0

DC 0 0 0

FL 0 0 0

GA 0 0 0

HI 0 0 0

ID 0 0 0

IL 1 2004 0 0

IN 0 0 0

IA 0 0 0

KS 0 0 0

KY 0 0 0

LA 0 0 0

ME 1 2009 0 0

MD 0 0 0

MA 0 0 0

MI 1 2009 0 0

MN 1 2004 0 0

MS 0 0 0

MO 0 0 0

MT 0 0 0

NE 0 0 0

NV 1 2005 0 0

NH 0 0 0

NJ 1 2008 1 30% 2008 0

NM 1 2008 0 0

NY 1 2002 0 0

NC 1 2002 1 "unconscionable"12004 0
24

State

Disclosure

Requirement

in 2009

Disclosure

Requirement

Implementation Year

APR Cap—

Binary

in 2009

APR Cap—

Continuous in

2009

APR Cap

Implementation

Year

Right to Rescind

Legislation in

2009

Right to Rescind

Implementation

Year

ND 0 0 0

OH 0 0 0

OK 0 0 0

OR 1 2004 0 0

PA 0 0 0

RI 0 0 0

SC 0 0 0

SD 0 0 0

TN 0 0 1 2008

TX 1 2006 0 0

UT 0 0 0

VT 0 0 0

VA 1 2006 0 1 2006

WA 1 2004 0 0

WV 0 0 0

WI 1 2004 0 0

WY 0 0 0

Number 17 -- 3 -- -- 2 --

Percent 33.33% -- 5.88% -- -- 3.92% --

Note: RAL dates denote date of enactment of RAL legislation.

1. North Carolina forbids "unconscionable" APRs, but does not specify what constitutes an unconscionable rate.
25

Table A.5: RTO Restrictions for 2005–2009 Period by State

State

Contract

Disclosures

Label

Disclosures

of Any Type

Total Cost

Label

Disclosures

Reinstatement

Rights

Total Cost Price

Cap Law,

2005–2006

Total Cost Price

Cap Law,

2007–2009

APR

Price Cap

Law

APR Label

Disclosure

Law

AL 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

AK 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

AZ 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

AR 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

CA 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

CO 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

CT 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

DE 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

DC 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

FL 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

GA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

HI 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

ID 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

IL 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

IN 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

IA 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0

KS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

KY 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

LA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

ME 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

MD 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

MA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

MN 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

MS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

MO 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

MT 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NV 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NH 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NM 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

NY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26

State

Contract

Disclosures

Label

Disclosures

of Any Type

Total Cost

Label

Disclosures

Reinstatement

Rights

Total Cost Price

Cap Law,

2005–2006

Total Cost Price

Cap Law,

2007–2009

APR

Price Cap

Law

APR Label

Disclosure

Law

ND 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

OH 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

OK 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

OR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

PA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

RI 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SC 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SD 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TN 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TX 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

UT 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

VT 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

VA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

WA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

WV 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

WI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

WY 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Number 47 19 16 46 9 10 1 3

Percent 92.15% 37.25% 31.37% 90.19% 17.64% 19.60% 1.96% 5.88%