Except, lately, Don Balfour, but I think this is worth pointing out:
In 2004, Earl Ehrhart, in a floor debate on SB 157, said:
And this section I think is critical to the honesty of this debate. It just merely says that anything above the face value of a loan has to be expressed as an APR. That’s a real simple concept. Everybody plays on the same field. Everybody gets characterized the same way. If you walk in and ask for $500 and walk out with $300, it’s expressed as whatever kind of APR it is. If you’re a payday lender, if you’re a GILA lender, or if you’re another type of lending institution, how can you argue about that unless you don’t want them to know what it is they’re paying for and you want a little bit of a special deal for the way you do it and you don’t want the other ones to have any ability to do the same thing?
Debating the current bill on payday lenders, a Peach Pundit source says that Rep. Ehrhart, in a committee meeting, well, according to the source:
voiced his opposition to the notion that the interest on payday loans should be expressed in terms of annual percent interest. Ehrhart argues that payday loans are short term loans and it is disingenuous to annualize the interest paid on them.
So, which should it be?
I think APR, being the commonly used and understood mechanism by which we convey issues of lending interest, is the best way to move forward with this bill.