CashCall You're Better off Broke! ripoff Fountain Valley California

Bill wrote: "I do keep replying though to keep this exchange up and help show others how desperate CashCall is to defend their 'honor'."
"It's great you guys believe in your company"

Sorry, Bill, I am not associated with CashCall or any other loan company in any manner. You got one post from a cashcall employee, that's it. My posts are an unbiased look at the APRs charged by payday loan and "cashcall like" businesses. If rebutted the cashcall employee's response in case you didn't notice.

Bill wrote: "The thing is, if you can't make your point in a short concise manner, if you have to use multiple long examples, you lose and show that you are on the defensive."

That's a very interesting philosophy. My point is that APRs are misleading; don't use them alone to choose the best loan for you.

Bill wrote: "I've made my point successfully."

Your point of a delay in getting a payoff quote was made. I have no problem with that.

Bill wrote: "Other complainants make the points I have left out"

All the other posts I have seen mention problems that arise when the borrower misses a payment, when they did not read the contract, or when they don't understand how interest works. As far as I know (from you concise statement), you did not miss a payment, so it would seem you share no blame for your particular problem.

Yours seem to be one of the few valid complaints, but, as I said, even Citibank has Rip-off reports against it. Having your AG look at the problems is great, let his office decide if it is a widespread practice for the company and shut them down if it is. Your call for a shutdown based on anecdotal rip off reports is premature.

Your statements "Just because something is not a crime doesn't mean it's not criminal" and "There is a reason laws were passed against this kind of thing and just because those laws are now gone doesn't mean that loans like this are somehow morally acceptable." that I take issue with.

Bill, the interest cashcall charges is not high for someone with bad credit.

Did you shop around before you took out the cashcall loan? Did you find better loan terms somewhere else? Perhaps you eventually did and that is why you were concerned with an exact payoff amount. Otherwise, you could have calculated the amount you owed on your own and paid that amount. The worst case is your payment would have been credited a few days late, and you might owe a minor amount of extra money.

The thing is, if you can't make your point in a short concise manner, if you have to use multiple long examples, you lose and show that you are on the defensive.

I've made my point successfully. I'm comfortable with that. There's no need to go further into fine details. Other complainants make the points I have left out. There's no need to repeat that stuff.

Getting drawn off topic and splitting hairs isn't going to happen here. I do keep replying though to keep this exchange up and help show others how desperate CashCall is to defend their 'honor'.

They quote monthly payments that are based on about a 48 month amortization. Those are basically interest-only payments. The company is counting on consumers not realising they can pay off early. Paying even slightly more per month would cut the loan term dramatically and save tons of interest.

Stonewalling someone who is trying to make a payoff in order to keep charging daily interest IS grounds to have the company shut down.

IF they didn't do that, the company could be a legitimate option for very short term borrowing. It is very rare for ANY credit card to have a cap on the cash advance fee. However many of the prime cards allow you to execute a "balance transfer" in cash as a deposit to your checking account. The fee is usually capped and the APR is low, making it a very low cost short-term cash loan. But it is only available to those with excellent credit.

... you claim others "justify all sorts of things with long winded arguments".

Your approach seems to be instead to promote your opinion as FACT, and further providing minimal evidence to support your conclusion.

You had a problem with getting a payoff amount. Beyond that you say "there are many other offenses by this company I HAVEN'T listed in the interest of readability".

Why don't you expand your complaints in the interest of making your point that it is a bad company and needs to be shut down.

Otherwise, your payoff problem is no worse than other people writing rip-off reports about Chase, Citibank, and other mortgage companies not giving timely payoffs. Should we shut down those banks also?

Forget about your "morally wrong" argument. That argument isn't relavent as it isn't cashcall specific. Your report is company specific.

By the way, in the past, some religions have held that ANY interest is immoral. Guess how many loans anyone would get under that restriction? But I digress....

Cashcall type businesses are taking a big risk in loaning money to people who have no other source to turn too. What interest rate do you believe would need to be charged to just break-even? What it the minimum profit needed to compensate for the risk?

The great thing about the capitalist system is that if cashcall is making too much of a profit at 60% interest, then another bank will come along and charge 50% to steal the business away. That's a lot better system than trying to legislate your interpretation of "morality".

And one more thing...you say the APR is not morally acceptable, yet you borrowed from this company because you really needed the money. Isn't that a little bit like saying prostitution is not morally acceptable, but it's ok to use the services and complain later how immoral the OTHER person is? Couldn't you just have said no to the immoral interst rate?

... you claim others "justify all sorts of things with long winded arguments".

Your approach seems to be instead to promote your opinion as FACT, and further providing minimal evidence to support your conclusion.

You had a problem with getting a payoff amount. Beyond that you say "there are many other offenses by this company I HAVEN'T listed in the interest of readability".

Why don't you expand your complaints in the interest of making your point that it is a bad company and needs to be shut down.

Otherwise, your payoff problem is no worse than other people writing rip-off reports about Chase, Citibank, and other mortgage companies not giving timely payoffs. Should we shut down those banks also?

Forget about your "morally wrong" argument. That argument isn't relavent as it isn't cashcall specific. Your report is company specific.

By the way, in the past, some religions have held that ANY interest is immoral. Guess how many loans anyone would get under that restriction? But I digress....

Cashcall type businesses are taking a big risk in loaning money to people who have no other source to turn too. What interest rate do you believe would need to be charged to just break-even? What it the minimum profit needed to compensate for the risk?

The great thing about the capitalist system is that if cashcall is making too much of a profit at 60% interest, then another bank will come along and charge 50% to steal the business away. That's a lot better system than trying to legislate your interpretation of "morality".

And one more thing...you say the APR is not morally acceptable, yet you borrowed from this company because you really needed the money. Isn't that a little bit like saying prostitution is not morally acceptable, but it's ok to use the services and complain later how immoral the OTHER person is? Couldn't you just have said no to the immoral interst rate?

... you claim others "justify all sorts of things with long winded arguments".

Your approach seems to be instead to promote your opinion as FACT, and further providing minimal evidence to support your conclusion.

You had a problem with getting a payoff amount. Beyond that you say "there are many other offenses by this company I HAVEN'T listed in the interest of readability".

Why don't you expand your complaints in the interest of making your point that it is a bad company and needs to be shut down.

Otherwise, your payoff problem is no worse than other people writing rip-off reports about Chase, Citibank, and other mortgage companies not giving timely payoffs. Should we shut down those banks also?

Forget about your "morally wrong" argument. That argument isn't relavent as it isn't cashcall specific. Your report is company specific.

By the way, in the past, some religions have held that ANY interest is immoral. Guess how many loans anyone would get under that restriction? But I digress....

Cashcall type businesses are taking a big risk in loaning money to people who have no other source to turn too. What interest rate do you believe would need to be charged to just break-even? What it the minimum profit needed to compensate for the risk?

The great thing about the capitalist system is that if cashcall is making too much of a profit at 60% interest, then another bank will come along and charge 50% to steal the business away. That's a lot better system than trying to legislate your interpretation of "morality".

And one more thing...you say the APR is not morally acceptable, yet you borrowed from this company because you really needed the money. Isn't that a little bit like saying prostitution is not morally acceptable, but it's ok to use the services and complain later how immoral the OTHER person is? Couldn't you just have said no to the immoral interst rate?

... you claim others "justify all sorts of things with long winded arguments".

Your approach seems to be instead to promote your opinion as FACT, and further providing minimal evidence to support your conclusion.

You had a problem with getting a payoff amount. Beyond that you say "there are many other offenses by this company I HAVEN'T listed in the interest of readability".

Why don't you expand your complaints in the interest of making your point that it is a bad company and needs to be shut down.

Otherwise, your payoff problem is no worse than other people writing rip-off reports about Chase, Citibank, and other mortgage companies not giving timely payoffs. Should we shut down those banks also?

Forget about your "morally wrong" argument. That argument isn't relavent as it isn't cashcall specific. Your report is company specific.

By the way, in the past, some religions have held that ANY interest is immoral. Guess how many loans anyone would get under that restriction? But I digress....

Cashcall type businesses are taking a big risk in loaning money to people who have no other source to turn too. What interest rate do you believe would need to be charged to just break-even? What it the minimum profit needed to compensate for the risk?

The great thing about the capitalist system is that if cashcall is making too much of a profit at 60% interest, then another bank will come along and charge 50% to steal the business away. That's a lot better system than trying to legislate your interpretation of "morality".

And one more thing...you say the APR is not morally acceptable, yet you borrowed from this company because you really needed the money. Isn't that a little bit like saying prostitution is not morally acceptable, but it's ok to use the services and complain later how immoral the OTHER person is? Couldn't you just have said no to the immoral interst rate?

may have taken out a 10K loan with cashcall (assuming 60% APR, 3 week duration, $75 fee), but they chose a more costly decision compared to a credit card, UNLESS

1) they COULDN'T get a cash advance on their credit card, or 2) they could, but their credit card charged more than the standard 3% advance fee (no cap) or had a rate higher than 21% APR (see supporting numbers below).

However, many credit cards have a maximum fee cap of $150 or less, so it makes even less sense to use cashcall. Plus how many people with FICO scores at 700 would have >21% APR on their card - perhaps those who missed a payment somewhere, and got stuck with a default rate - which can be 30% or more. That would be a unique situation.

My rebuttal addressed the concept of using APR ALONE to indicate that a loan is bad. I used the credit card example (for a bad credit risk individual paying 30%APR)to show that the higher than cashcall APR that shows up on the first billing payment does not mean it is worse than cashcall. It is actually better, as long as the loan isn't paid back within a few weeks time.

Similarly, I mentioned that the 400%+ APR on a payday loan is better that cashcall 60%, if the loan is paid off within the week and not rolled over.

60%, 10,075 loan, 3weeks = apx $424(int+$75fee)
vs 3% cash advance fee on CCard = $300 fee
21.25% APR = $124 interest for 21 days

It's great you guys believe in your company, but the fact is that it takes advantage of people who are stuck or don't know better. There is a reason laws were passed against this kind of thing and just because those laws are now gone doesn't mean that loans like this are somehow morally acceptable.

In some cases as other complaints and my own experience show, CC engages in deceptive trade practices. On top of my own pay-off problems, deception of this kind is illegal.

You can justify all sorts of things with long winded arguments but the fact is CashCall is NOT a good company to do business with, skirts (or just breaks)the law and treats it's customers with blatant contempt.

As I stated in the beginning, just because something is not a crime doesn't mean it's not criminal. In this case some things ARE a crime.

It seems you are disputing whether cashcall loans are equivalent to a high interest rate credit card? Well believe it or not Cashcall's loans are a very smart choice for intelligent people.

They are simple interest loans meaning that your principal balance never goes up. If you get a $2600 loan at a 96% interest rate, you will pay approx. $6.93 per day in interest until you start paying on the principal.

The interest is charged daily based on your principal balance. So if you need the money that bad, take it and pay it back as quickly as possible. There are no pre-pay penalties and if you pay it back within a month, you only pay around $200.00 in interest for borrowing money that you needed for whatever emergency right away.

I've seen smart people with 700+ fico scores take out a $10k loan because they needed the money fast. Those same people were smart enough to pay it back within 3 or 4 weeks and were also very greatful.

in the rear. My point was that APRs can be misleading.

"We can talk and talk and talk and argue about little details all day long but it doesn't change the fact that :

CashCall uses many unethical (sometimes illegal) lending AND business practices, is a ripoff, and needs to be SHUT DOWN!"

So you believe it needs to be shut down because you experience them shuffling their feet to get you a payoff amount (and I agree that you should be p.o.'d). And perhaps there is more, but you left the other stuff out for easier reading.

Based on the information that you actually provided, it seems to be more of a belief that there is something inherently wrong with this type of company, so you would like the old usury laws back. So you say they should be shut down.

Fine, that's an OPINION, not a FACT. I haven't a clue why you, who seems to understand interest rates, got this loan in the first place. If it is so wrong to be charged 60% APR, why did you agree to do it? What was so important? Would you rather have the government tell you, sorry, you can't have the money vs. let you decide what is right for you by using your own intelligence?

What seems to be in place legally is the ability to take out these loans, and controls over what needs to be disclosed. If there are many people who don't fully understand what they are getting into, then more disclosure might help. A 60% APR does not seem farfetched for a person unable to use a credit card, when credit card APR rates are at 30% (not even counting fees) these days. That's my opinion.

I don't.
3% divided up into 12 simple interest payments= .25%
Sure, that math doesn't fly for GAAP, but that's not the point.

We can talk and talk and talk and argue about little details all day long but it doesn't change the fact that :

CashCall uses many unethical (sometimes illegal) lending AND business practices, is a ripoff, and needs to be SHUT DOWN!

I don't.
3% divided up into 12 simple interest payments= .25%
Sure, that math doesn't fly for GAAP, but that's not the point.

We can talk and talk and talk and argue about little details all day long but it doesn't change the fact that :

CashCall uses many unethical (sometimes illegal) lending AND business practices, is a ripoff, and needs to be SHUT DOWN!

I don't.
3% divided up into 12 simple interest payments= .25%
Sure, that math doesn't fly for GAAP, but that's not the point.

We can talk and talk and talk and argue about little details all day long but it doesn't change the fact that :

CashCall uses many unethical (sometimes illegal) lending AND business practices, is a ripoff, and needs to be SHUT DOWN!

I don't.
3% divided up into 12 simple interest payments= .25%
Sure, that math doesn't fly for GAAP, but that's not the point.

We can talk and talk and talk and argue about little details all day long but it doesn't change the fact that :

CashCall uses many unethical (sometimes illegal) lending AND business practices, is a ripoff, and needs to be SHUT DOWN!

I DID agree the payoff runaround was wrong, and that you should be compensated for it for your cost.

But you completely missed my point...My original post also highlights how the APR posted on a contract or credit card statement can be misleading.

As I correctly pointed out, if you have a credit card cash advance fee of 3%, at a 30% interest rate, even though the APR you would see on your 1st statement might be as high as 66%, it is still BETTER than cashcall's 60%, as long as the credit card loan lasts LONGER that about 3 weeks.

I also correctly pointed out, that despite a paycheck loans' reported APR as north of 400%, it will be BETTER than cashcall's 60% rate, as long as you don't keep using paycheck loans.

I don't know how showing alternatives are better could be interpreted as "defending" cashcall.

"A one time fee cannot be looked at in an annual way unless you divide it by 12"
That's wrong, Bill. As I said, I can give you an actual example of a cash advance I took that resulted in an APR that was PRINTED ON THE STATEMENT in bold which was for the billing period, was not just 1/4% higher. It replicated the cash advance fee 12 times.

The same type of APR calculation is done with paycheck loans - it assumes the consumer replicates the loan for a full year.

Your method COULD be done, but it would only be accurate making assumptions that the law does not allow. I'm sure the credit card and paycheck loan companies would rather do it your way, but the law uses what you call the "loan shark" assumption.

"It's a predatory loan company. Most of their customers can't get loans elsewhere for good reason and CashCall is simply sucking the blood out of deperate people."
It certainly may fit the definition. Do you have a better alternative than your suggestion that they are better off broke? In another post, I gave some suggestions so people might not be "surprised" at the APR they got. Perhaps legislation that would require alternatives to be specified in long-term contracts with high APRs would be appropriate. Probably more effective in the long run would be to educate in high school the effects of not having money set aside for emergencies, and where to turn for public assistance when one is desperate.

If you take a look under "loan shark" in wikipedia, you will find this statement regarding paycheck loans "The availability of these products has made true loan sharks rarer, though some authorised lenders have been accused of behaving in an exploitative manner" Would you rather have these people go to loansharks? Having 10 calls a day is still better than having a bone broken.

Bill wrote: "I'm curious though as to why YOU feel so compelled to defend such a bunch of dirtbags" I can tell you I was initially shocked at the APR - which can be 99.25%. Then I was even more shocked at the payday loans of 400%+ payday loans. But they CAN serve a purpose that might not be able to be filled from any other source.

While I don't agree with you that you're necessarily "better off broke", I do say that this should be the lender of last, last, last resort - and it better be a very, very, very pressing and necessary need that makes you take out this loan.

Now, that I've satisfied your curiousity, I have one of my own. What led you to take out this loan? You seem intelligent enough to know what a 60% interest rate means. I'm guessing that you needed a large amount of cash for a short period of time, and could not get a credit card cash advance, and a paycheck loan would have been too short a duration. If cashcall wasn't there, what would you have done?

Perhaps cashcall is a bad company. I don't know. I am really only responding to the blanket statement that people are saying about the interest rate and fees making it NECESSARILY a rip-off. It would certainly be a rip-off if one were not a credit risk. Payoff runarounds and doing things that are not contractual are legitimate problems, and certainly should be publicized as you are doing.

A one time fee cannot be looked at in an annual way unless you divide it by 12- which in your example gives you 1/4%. So your credit card is actually charging closer to 30 and 1/4% APR. As we've seen already that's HALF of CashCall's best rate. I doubt you'll concede that though as you seem to pimp pretty hard for them.

As to someone paying off their loan in one month, well, isn't that what a loan shark bases his assumptions on?

Call it what you like, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

It's a predatory loan company. Most of their customers can't get loans elsewhere for good reason and CashCall is simply sucking the blood out of deperate people.

I want to help people see this fact. That's why I keep coming back here.

I'm curious though as to why YOU feel so compelled to defend such a bunch of dirtbags.

A one time fee cannot be looked at in an annual way unless you divide it by 12- which in your example gives you 1/4%. So your credit card is actually charging closer to 30 and 1/4% APR. As we've seen already that's HALF of CashCall's best rate. I doubt you'll concede that though as you seem to pimp pretty hard for them.

As to someone paying off their loan in one month, well, isn't that what a loan shark bases his assumptions on?

Call it what you like, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

It's a predatory loan company. Most of their customers can't get loans elsewhere for good reason and CashCall is simply sucking the blood out of deperate people.

I want to help people see this fact. That's why I keep coming back here.

I'm curious though as to why YOU feel so compelled to defend such a bunch of dirtbags.

Bill: "You're forgetting to divide the credit card fee by 12 (or whatever the payoff term turns out to be) to get a true APR, not just a % rate"

Me: That's not how APR works. As the name implies, it is an annualized number. It assumes whatever interest and fees are charged for one month will be charged for all months, even if it is not true.

For a credit card, it is calculated for each billing period, typically one month. Even with a 0% interest card, a 3% fee will be a 36% APR, assuming no prior balance. That's why I say it CAN be a misleading number. If you still aren't convinced, I can give you an actual example using numbers from one of my billing statements.

What I said in the previous post, if you read carefully, is in fact the "TRUE" APR since my example assumed the balance was paid off one month from the date it was charged:

"Compare that to a credit card. Take a cash advance, and you can be charged 3% of the amount. That is a 36% APR if you only take the money for a month. Add on up to 25 - 30% APR for balances, you get a combined total of about 60% with a credit card. "

You're forgetting to divide the credit card fee by 12 (or whatever the payoff term turns out to be) to get a true APR, not just a % rate. CashCall's rates are simply wrong. Of course you're going to find desperate people grasping at any band-aid fix- and this is how these guys grow and flourish.

Besides, there are many other offenses by this company I HAVEN'T listed in the interest of readability.

There used to be usury laws that prevented this kind of thing. I don't know why they were repealed but it is the least of us (in society) that are suffering for this.

$1100 loan for 3 1/2 years at 100% interest??
CashCall is a bunch of bottom feeders regardless of what you want to tell yourself.

Your particular case on them not applying your payoff in a timely manner (without the company's rebuttal) is absolutely wrong, and each week's delay cost you about 1.25% of the loan amount - which you should be compensated for.

But I disagree that a 60% APR is necessarily a rip-off. If someone borrorws for just one month, the interest charged is about 5%, and I believe they also charge $75 up front.

Compare that to a credit card. Take a cash advance, and you can be charged 3% of the amount. That is a 36% APR if you only take the money for a month. Add on up to 25 - 30% APR for balances, you get a combined total of about 60% with a credit card.

APRs can be misleading for short term loans. The number looks like a rip-off, unless you think of the "excess" as realy a "fee", but government regulations require it to be reported as the APR.

Those short term "paycheck" loans, actually have APRs in the 400%+ range. Why? Because the loans have a duration of about a week, and the fee makes the APR so high. Now if someone continually borrows EVERY paycheck, yes, he sees the full effect of the APR.

If someone needs the money to get an advance for their paycheck, the 400% APR may actually be better for them that CashCall's 60% APR. If they can't payoff with their paycheck, and need a few months, then CashCall is better.

If you think about the cost of CashCall's high APR as a "fee", then you can get $5000 for just $125/month above what a credit card would charge long term for someone with poor credit. If these people can't get a credit card cash advance, then it isn't a bad deal.

Better of Broke? Maybe, if they're using the money to buy a big screen TV. But if they need it to avoid being kicked out of their apartment, it gives them a place to stay until they find a cheaper place.

I haven't seen one of their contracts, but I am assuming government regulation prevent them from advertising anything other than the APR. If people who take these loans could think of the extra cost of these loans as a penalty fee for a bad credit rating or not being able to use a credit card, they would not feel ripped-off when a well meaning friend tells them a 60% APR is a ripoff.

Ask anyone who uses a cash advance on a credit card with a 10% balance APR, and have them look at their 1st statement after the advance. If they had to pay a 3% fee, the MINIMUM they would see (assuming no prior balance) is an APR of about 45%. But if they borrowed the money at the start of the last week of their statement, the APR would be over 150%! Yet that would be a better option than cashcall if that person kept the loan for more than a few weeks.

Just because something is not a crime doesn't mean it's not criminal. CashCall is a predatory business that takes advantage of the poor, the down and out and those people least able to defend themselves.

I'm not whining- my words are just cold hard fact.

Oh, and we ARE filing with the Attorney General over the illegal and inapproprite things that happened to us when we tried to close our account.