19th century salary lenders
In late 19th century America, legal interest rates made small loans unprofitable, and small-time lending was frowned upon by society, as a borrower of small loans was seen as an irresponsible person who could not manage a budget. Banks and other major financial institutions thus stayed away from small-time lending. There were, however, plenty of small lenders offering loans at profitable but illegally high interest rates. They presented themselves as legitimate and operated openly out of offices. They only sought customers whom they felt were good risks: a steady and respectable job (a regular income and a reputation to protect), married (unlikely to flee town), and legitimate motives for borrowing. Gamblers, criminals and other disreputable, unreliable types were avoided. They made the borrower fill out and sign seemingly legitimate contracts. Though these contracts were not legally enforceable, they at least were proof of the loan, which the lender could use to blackmail a defaulter.
To coax a defaulter into paying up, the lender might threaten legal action. This was a bluff, since the loan was illegal; the lender preyed on the borrower's ignorance of the law. Alternatively, the lender resorted to public shaming, such as complaining to the borrower's employer, who disdained indebted employees and often fired them, or shouting demands outside the borrower's home. Whether out of gullibility or a desire to protect his reputation, the borrower usually succumbed and paid up.
Many customers were employees of large firms, such as railways or public works. Larger organizations were more likely to fire employees for being in debt as their rules were more impersonal, which gave the loan shark a powerful form of blackmail. It was easy for lenders to learn which large organizations did this rather than collecting information on the multitude of smaller firms. Larger firms had more job security and the greater possibility of promotion, so employees sacrificed more to ensure they were not fired. The loan shark could also bribe a large firm's paymaster to provide information on its many employees. Regular salaries and paydays made negotiating repayment plans simpler.[1]
The size of the loan and the repayment plan were often tailored to suit the borrower's means. The smaller the loan, the higher the interest rate was, as the costs of tracking and pursuing a defaulter was the same whatever the size of the loan. The attitudes of lenders to defaulters also varied: some were lenient and reasonable, readily granting extensions and slow to harass, whilst others unscrupulously tried to milk all they could from the borrower (eg imposing late fees).
Because salary lending was a disreputable trade, the owners of these firms often hid from public view, hiring managers to run their offices indirectly. To further avoid attracting attention, when expanding his trade to other cities, an owner would often found new firms with different names rather than expanding his existing firm into a very noticeable leviathan.
The penalties for being an illegal lender were mild. Illegal lending was a misdemeanor, and the penalty was forfeiture of the interest and perhaps the principal as well. But these were only ever imposed if the borrower sued, which he typically could not afford to do.[2]
Opposition to salary lenders was spearheaded by social elites, such as businessmen and charity organizations. Businessmen were encouraged not to fire employees who were indebted to loan sharks, as they unwittingly supported the industry by providing lenders with a means of blackmailing their customers ("pay up or we'll tell your boss and you'll be fired"). Charities provided legal support to trouble borrowers. This fight culminated in the drafting of the Uniform Small Loan Law, which brought into existence a new class of licensed lender. The law was enacted, first in several states in 1917, and was adopted by all but a handful of states by the middle of the 20th century.[3] The model statute mandated consumer protections and capped the interest rate on loans of $300 or less at 3.5% a month (42% a year), a profitable level for small loans. Lenders had to give the customer copies of all signed documents. Additional charges such as late fees were banned. The lender could no longer receive power of attorney or confession of judgment over a customer. These licensing laws made it impossible for usurious lenders to pass themselves off as legal. Small loans also started becoming more socially acceptable, and banks and other larger institutions started offering them as well.
