BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 7
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 18, 2007

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mark Leno, Chair

                      AB 7 (Lieu) - As Amended:  April 9, 2007 

          Policy Committee:                              Banking and  
          Finance      Vote:                            9-0

          Urgency:     Yes                  State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires that businesses licensed in California to  
          provide deferred deposit transactions (DDT)--commonly referred  
          to as payday loans--must comply with recently passed federal  
          laws relating to the extension of credit to members of the armed  
          services and their dependents. Specifically, this bill:

          1)Specifies that any lender who violates federal law in regard  
            to a DDT or consumer loan to members of the military is also  
            in violation of California law.

          2)Allows the Department of Corporations (DOC) to enforce  
            provisions of the federal law on entities licensed in  
            California.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor and absorbable costs to DOC associated with enforcement of  
          the new law. Minor law enforcement costs to local governments,  
          not state-reimbursable.

          DOC staff indicates that it will not submit a BCP related to  
          enforcement of these provisions. It anticipates that any new  
          enforcement costs will be offset by fewer investigations of  
          loans to military members. This is because it expects a much  
          smaller volume of military-related loans, given the new federal  
          restrictions. 

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.  According to the author, the bill is intended to  








                                                                  AB 7
                                                                  Page  2

            give California the tools it needs to implement and enforce  
            federal loan-protections for military personnel. It ensures  
            that DOC (the bill's sponsor) has the authority to enforce the  
            provisions of the recently enacted federal changes, and it  
            updates existing state financial related statutes to make them  
            consistent with federal law.

           2)Recent Federal Law Changes.  In response to concerns over the  
            negative impact of predatory lending on members of the armed  
            forces, the U.S. Congress included an amendment to the 2007  
            federal defense authorization bill (referred to as the Talent  
            Amendment, Public Law 109-364) that places restrictions on  
            loans to members of the military and their dependents. The  
            federal measure requires the Secretary of Defense to draft  
            regulations to apply the law in a uniform manner. However, it  
            leaves responsibility for its enforcement to the states. The  
            measure, which was signed by the President on October 17,  
            2006, also includes provisions which:

             a)   Cap at 36% the annual percentage rate charged on such  
               loans;

             b)   Prohibit the use of checks from the borrower as security  
               for the loan; 

             c)   Require various loan disclosures, including a statement  
               of the annual percentage rate of interest charged on the  
               loan, and a clear description of the payment obligations of  
               the borrower;

             d)   Specify that a creditor who knowingly violates these  
               provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor;

             e)   Exempt lenders who do not market loans to members of the  
               armed forces from federal antidiscrimination laws. (This  
               provision was included in recognition of the fact that the  
               new federal restrictions could make loans to military  
               personnel unprofitable); 

             f)   Preempt state laws and regulations providing lower  
               levels of consumer protections.


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081