Since this law takes effect on Oct. 1st, anyone have any suggestions on how to get to the MAPR? In the prohibitions of the new law, a bank could not take a deposit account of a "covered person" nor could the "covered person" provide an allotment to repay the loan. My question is, doesn't these prohibitions limit the amount of credit availablity to a servicemember? Based upon the discussion here, the banks may have to prepare to comply and treat each request on a case by case basis. Maybe, if enough servicemembers complain about the new law, and the lack of access to credit, the DoD may see the need for some timely revision. (but don't count on it)

Any takers on #2.
And as R. Insley said, what I am trying to do is get us down so that our products do not fall within the definitions and therefore we avoid the "Covered Person" notice as well as the MAPR and everything else.

Section 232.3(b)(1)(ii) defines a vehicle title loan as: Closed-end credit with a term of 181 days or fewer that is secured by the title to a motor vehicle, that has been registered for use
on public roads and owned by a covered borrower, other than a purchase money transaction described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) provides that the following would not be not meet the definition of "consumer credit": "any credit transaction to finance the purchase or lease of a motor vehicle when the credit is secured by the vehicle being purchased or leased;"

So it would appear in your scenario since your loan would be less than 181 days and is secured by the old car and not the car being purchased, this loan would be a covered loan.

Our advice is to credit admin is to get to o.oo%. In portfolio review, we don't have but a tiny percentage of loans that come near the definition of covered transactions and we have many branches near military installations. The disclosure is an issue in that you either give it on all consumer loans, or risk inadvertantly missing giving it on the loans that fall within the definitions. It's not a viable risk, IMO. I believe we will amend loan policy to prohibit these loans and offer an alternative credit product instead.

Also, Jack Henry has not developed a MAPR solution and I don't expect it really to be in place by the deadline either.

Your risk assessment is right on the mark. I came to the same conclusion, but was influenced even more by the lack of rewards. With a 36% MAPR cap (and the possibility that some of the MFC goes to 3rd parties), small loan amounts, and short terms, I don't see how anyone can make enough money to justify offering covered products.

Have I missed something? Have any BOLers' banks done a feasibility analysis with 36% MAPR and concluded they can earn enough to pay the help and keep the lights on?

Richard, we have not actually run the numbers, but I agree with your "mental" assessment regarding same...it makes no sense when there are other types of small credit available that work without the hassle...including in particular, open-end lines.

FWIW, this is our plan too: not to make any loans that fall within the rule.

Additionally, one other issue that I've been thinking about and would like others' thoughts on is the "assignee" liability. I don't believe "Assignee" is defined in the rule. If you are a commercial bank, and lend to finance companies or other types of lending companies, or other commercial companies that might lend to covered borrowers, are you potentially liable for violations of the rule if you take as collateral for the loan to a finance company, an assignment of loans that might fall within the rule?

ToTo, counsel is your best bet for an answer. But I would believe that if you can end up owning that loan, you would have liability. Holder in Due Course would apply. And yes, if there was a violation, the notes would be worthless plus you'd have the liability of what had been paid already.

As to banks doing these loans, I'd bet some will, but a real minority at best. I say this only because as a military banker (probably for linger than some posters here have been alive) there are loss leader products that are made and products offered that do lose money, but that build good will and help the military bank keep its contract to operate on post/base.

Regardless, it is a training issue that must be addressed.