Secretary of State Shantel Krebs Certifies Third Ballot Measure
Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that an Initiated Measure To Set A Maximum Finance Charge for Certain Lenders (36% rate cap) was validated and certified to be on the November 2016 general election ballot as a ballot measure the citizens will vote on. The sponsor turned in 19,936 signatures to the Secretary of state’s office. An initiated measure requires a minimum of 13,871 signatures from South Dakota registered voters. Once the signatures were delivered to the Secretary of State’s office, a 5% random sampling was conducted. It was determined that 86.4% or 17,222 of 19,936 signatures were in good standing. This will be Initiated Measure 21.
This is the third initiated measure to be approved by Secretary of State. A total of 8 measures were submitted for review. This office will continue the signature validation process of the remaining 5 measures in the order they were submitted to the Secretary of State. A total of 275,000 signatures were submitted among all petitions.
Those looking to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification of a ballot measure have 30 days from the date they are certified, which would be January 27, 2016.
Great job lets get this passed.
Seems like an impossible accuracy rate.
Whatever you say Glodt
I’m voting no on this issue. The banks won’t loan the borrowers money because they’re a bad risk, so what are they supposed to do if their car, needed to get to work, needs repair? These lenders provide the money, and if it is paid back, the borrower’s credit starts being mended.
I know some people don’t need to be borrowing, or shouldn’t be, but this law has the negatives of hurting those who need the money and a way of salvaging their credit.
What’s the alternative? Return to loan sharking?
Probably, if this thing passes. Or, if we mandate that these lenders can only charge so much, then why not also mandate that banks have to accept these borrowers and loan them money? This would surely help those poor people in need of a quick loan. Fair for one should be fair for the other.
In the past I was a director on a Credit Union Board. If the institution can’t make money on a 36% interest rate, then the people getting the loans, should not be getting loans. Putting poor people in a deeper hole because you have figured out an actuarial table that makes you money when only 25% of the people get you paid back, with your ridiculous interest of 400%, is not only immoral, it should be illegal.
Then I suppose that you lent to every poor person who needed to fix his car even if his credit rating was bad. Good for you for doing so! The credit union I know would not do so. That is why the cu’s don’t have to charge as much. Yours are long-term loans. A $100 loan with a 33% charge for one month is actually figured per annum as 400%. Who can do all the paper work required for the loan, take a chance on being paid back and make a profit on just a $33 payback? I am assuming that your costs for making
a loan, paperwork, employees time, etc, is probably more than that, so you probably wouldn’t even consider that loan.