The previous de-regulation of be financial services sector is one of biggest political issues of the time. To suggest they are well regulated is crackers.



You ask for an example...how about the onus being on the lender to be confident in the ability of the borrower to have the ability to meet the repayments?



Your last point is bang on. You shouldn't make people's choices for them, but you should ensure the appropriate market conditions for them to be making their own choices fairly and without letting them be taken advantage of.

No

Why do you think it's crackers?



Surely there should be an onus on both the borrower and the lender? After all, the lender is at a significant disadvantage in that they know far less about the borrower than the borrower knows about the lender.

Yeah but this is the whole point, the finiancial services authority are geared towards high street banks and that kind of finance they haven't yet got to grips with the payday loans companies lending to whoever they please and then demanding extortionate fees/interest when they can't repay.



I agree that it is not beneficial to make peoples decision for them, but a lot of people are not capable of workign out risk/reward ratio due to poor intelligence/desperation and these people get taken for a ride. As a society, we have the responsibility to ensure that these people are protected from the happy clappy advertsing that these companies deal in, and the tremendous suffering they can cause.

Seriously? You think lenders know nothing about the applicant?? And you think the current regulations are sufficient??



Perversely, your post proves the point that proper, rigorous regulation is still needed.

Excellent post, by the way.

I didn't say lenders know nothing about the applicant.



I didn't say whether current regulations are sufficient, only that they are there.



I didn't say that regulation wasn't needed, so nothing perverse about the post at all.



Read what I write, rather than what you think I wrote.

I would disagree. Remember having a debtor who doesn't pay is no good to a lender.



How are we to decide who is capable of making their own decisions? It's clear "payday" lenders have a role and reason to exist, so how are you to decide who can use them?

It's a quandary isn't it.



The need for some form of proper regulation is not something made up on a rugby league message board...it's a real problem that is being discussed at central government level.



"I/we" don't decide...but those elected to look after us have to.



Making sure the outlay, return and ability to meet the repayments have to be balanced and fair. Does that seem reasonable?

Fair enough, and a better point than where we started.







Yes, depending on what you deem fair

of course that also must apply to both sides.

We don't have to decide on an individual basis, however we need to ensure that the bulk of people who are clearly in need of protection are protected by making the companies responsible lenders, as they have done with the banks.



Also, I think you will find that a creditor would rather have someone who borrows £1k a year and pays £200 interest, than someone who buys a new Porsche on his card every month and pays 0% interest due to always making his payments on time.

And why do you think they aren't?







Both of which would be debtors who pay. As I said.

(If that were a credit card BTW, the card provider would be making much more money on that deal than £200!)