document_title: Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball

question_text: what are the arkansas razorbacks ranked in basketball

root

text: Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball

text: History[edit]

text: The early years (1924-33)[edit]

text: Arkansas had a relatively late start in basketball; it did not field its first team in the sport until 1924. Francis Schmidt coached the Razorbacks from the 1924 season until the 1929 season, while also coaching the football and baseball teams. During this time, Arkansas finished first in the Southwest Conference four out of six years, and compiled an overall record of 113-17, which, at .869, is the highest winning percentage of any Arkansas coach ever.[2]

tag: p

text: In the 1930 season, Charles Bassett took over as head coach. He would coach until the 1933 season. Arkansas finished first in the Southwest Conference during his first year, but would not finish above third place for the rest of his reign. After 4 seasons, his overall record was 62-29.[2]

text: First Glen Rose era (1934-42)[edit]

text: Glen Rose took over in the 1934 season and would leave after the 1942 season. The Razorbacks took first place in the Southwest Conference outright three times and tied for first twice more during this nine-year run. In the 1941 season, Rose led Arkansas to the NCAA Final Four.

text: Eugene Lambert and Presley Askew years (1943-52)[edit]

text: Eugene Lambert took the helm for the 1943 season and would last until the 1949 season. During these four seasons, Arkansas tied for first place of the Southwest conference twice. Arkansas was selected for the NCAA tournament in the 1944 season, but had to withdraw after two of their players were involved in a car accident. The next year they were selected again and would make it to the Final Four. They would not make the tournament again, however until the 1949 season when they reached the NCAA Regional. Lambert's final record was 113-22.[2]

text: Presley Askew would take over in 1950 and would only last until 1952. Arkansas would tie for first place in the Southwest conference in his first season, but would get progressively worse. The Razorbacks would not make the NCAA tournament during this tenure. His combined record was 35-37.

text: Second Glen Rose era (1953-66)[edit]

text: Glen Rose would take back over in 1953 and would last until 1966. He would not achieve the success he had during his previous run, with the only real success being in the 1958 season, where Arkansas tied for first place of the Southwest conference and would reach the NCAA Regional. Rose's overall record for his time at Arkansas was 325-204.

text: Waller and Van Eman years (1967-74)[edit]

text: Duddy Waller would become head coach for the 1966-67 season, but only lasted until the 1970-71 season. His overall record during his 4 seasons was 31-64, which was the worst overall winning percentage, at 0.326, of any Arkansas basketball coach. Waller was replaced by Lanny Van Eman, who lasted from the 1970-71 season through the 1973-74 season. Van Eman finished his career at Arkansas with a 48-56 record.[2] Arkansas failed to finish above second place under during the tenure of these 2 coaches, and would not receive any invitations to the NCAA tournament.

text: Eddie Sutton era (1975-85)[edit]

text: Eddie Sutton would become head coach for the 1974-75 season and would stay through the 1984-85 season. During these eleven seasons, Arkansas would finish in first or tied for first of the Southwest Conference four times. After two unsuccessful seasons, the Razorbacks would be invited to the NCAA tournament during every season of his tenure. The most successful season was 1978 where they would reach the Final Four. Sutton finished with a 260-75 overall record at Arkansas.

text: Nolan Richardson era (1986-2002)[edit]

text: Nolan Richardson took over for the 1985-86 season and lasted until 2002, when he was fired for controversial remarks. The Razorbacks finished first in the Southwest Conference three times. Arkansas joined the Southeastern Conference for the 1991 season and would win the regular season conference championship in 1992 and 1994, and would win the SEC Western Division title in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. The Razorbacks would also win the 2000 SEC Tournament championship. Arkansas made the NCAA tournament thirteen times during Richardson's seventeen seasons, and made the Final Four during the 1990, 1994 and 1995 season. They won their first National Championship in 1994. The next season, they returned to the Championship game and finished as runner-up, losing to UCLA. Richardson was fired in 2002 after making controversial public statements against the university and then-athletic director Frank Broyles. Assistant coach Mike Anderson coached the rest of the season, going 1-1. Richardson holds the school record for most wins by a head coach, with an overall record of 389-169. Between the 1989-1990 season and 1995-1996 season, Arkansas won more games than any other school in the nation.

text: Stan Heath years (2003-07)[edit]

text: Stan Heath would take over for the 2002-03 season and would last through the 2006-07 season. During his five seasons, Arkansas would not be able to enjoy the success that they achieved under Richardson. They would not finish above third place in the Western division of the Southeastern conference. They were invited to the NCAA tournament for his final two seasons, although they were eliminated in the first round both times. Heath's final record was 82-70.

text: Dana Altman (2007)[edit]

text: Dana Altman was hired as the head coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks on April 2, 2007. However, Altman resigned the next day and returned to Creighton, where he had coached since 1994.

text: John Pelphrey (2007–11)[edit]

text: John Pelphrey was hired as the head coach of the Arkansas Razorbacks on Monday, April 9, 2007. He was hired after Dana Altman accepted the job and resigned within a day.[3][4] Arkansas went 23-12 in Pelphrey's first season, defeating Indiana by 14 points in the first round of the NCAA Tournament before being put away by overall #1 seed North Carolina in the second round. The Razorbacks had an SEC regular season record of 9-7. In his second year, John Pelphrey’s team struggled in conference play after starting the season 12-1 in non-conference games with two notable wins over the nationally ranked Oklahoma Sooners (#4) and the Texas Longhorns (#7). Conference wins were few and far between giving the Razorbacks a final conference record of 2-14. On March 13, 2011 John Pelphrey was dismissed as the head coach of the Razorbacks after an 18-13 season despite an impressive incoming recruiting class.

text: Mike Anderson (2011-Present)[edit]

text: On March 23, 2011, Mike Anderson signed a 7-year contract with Arkansas. Anderson previously coached the UAB Blazers and Missouri Tigers, and was an assistant coach at Arkansas under Coach Nolan Richardson for 17 years. On March 26, 2011, he was introduced in front of 5,000 fans in Bud Walton Arena.[5] He also threw the first pitch at a Razorback Baseball game later that afternoon. After finishing 18-14 and 19-13 in his first two seasons respectively, and missing out on post-season play, Anderson led the Hogs to a 22-12 record in his third year (2013-2014) as head coach, defeating Indiana State in the first round of the NIT Tournament, before losing to the University of California in round two. It was Arkansas' first postseason appearance since 2008. Anderson is the first head coach in Arkansas history to win 18 or more games in each of his first three years. After breaking their 7 year drought they advanced to the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball tournament in 2015, but finished 16-16 in 2016 and did not qualify for the post season.[6]

text: Year-by-year record[edit]

text:
Season
Coach
Overall
Conference
Standing
Postseason

1923–24
Francis Schmidt
17–11
3–9
7th
N/A

1924–25
Francis Schmidt
21–5
9–3
5th
N/A

1925–26
Francis Schmidt
23–2
11–1
1st
N/A

1926–27
Francis Schmidt
14–2
8–2
1st
N/A

1927–28
Francis Schmidt
19–1
12–0
1st
N/A

1928–29
Francis Schmidt
19–1
11–1
1st
N/A

1929–30
Charles Bassett
16–7
10–2
1st
N/A

1930–31
Charles Bassett
14–9
7–5
T-3rd
N/A

1931–32
Charles Bassett
18–6
8–4
3rd
N/A

1932–33
Charles Bassett
14–7
6–6
4th
N/A

1933–34
Glen Rose
16–8
6–6
3rd
N/A

1934–35
Glen Rose
14–5
9–3
T-1st
N/A

1935–36
Glen Rose
24–3
11–1
1st
N/A

1936–37
Glen Rose
12–6
8–4
2nd
N/A

1937–38
Glen Rose
19–3
11–1
1st
N/A

1938–39
Glen Rose
18–5
9–3
2nd
N/A

1939–40
Glen Rose
12–10
6–6
4th
N/A

1940–41
Glen Rose
20–3
12–0
1st
NCAA National Semifinal

1941–42
Glen Rose
19–4
10–2
T-1st
N/A

1942–43
Eugene Lambert
19–7
8–4
3rd
N/A

1943–44
Eugene Lambert
16–8
11–1
T-1st
N/A

1944–45
Eugene Lambert
17–9
9–3
2nd
NCAA National Semifinal

1945–46
Eugene Lambert
16–7
9–3
2nd
N/A

1946–47
Eugene Lambert
14–10
8–4
T-2nd
N/A

1947–48
Eugene Lambert
16–8
8–4
3rd
N/A

1948–49
Eugene Lambert
15–11
9–3
T-1st
NCAA Regional Semifinal

1949–50
Presley Askew
12–12
8–4
T-1st
N/A

1950–51
Presley Askew
13–11
7–5
4th
N/A

1951–52
Presley Askew
10–14
4–8
T-6th
N/A

1952–53
Glen Rose
10–11
4–8
T-5th
N/A

1953–54
Glen Rose
13–9
6–6
T-3rd
N/A

1954–55
Glen Rose
14–9
8–4
T-2nd
N/A

1955–56
Glen Rose
11–12
9–3
2nd
N/A

1956–57
Glen Rose
11–12
5–7
5th
N/A

1957–58
Glen Rose
17–10
9–5
T-1st
NCAA Regional Semifinal

1958–59
Glen Rose
9–14
6–8
T-5th
N/A

1959–60
Glen Rose
12–11
7–7
T-4th
N/A

1960–61
Glen Rose
16–7
9–5
3rd
N/A

1961–62
Glen Rose
14–10
5–9
6th
N/A

1962–63
Glen Rose
13–11
8–6
4th
N/A

1963–64
Glen Rose
9–14
6–8
6th
N/A

1964–65
Glen Rose
9–14
5–9
5th
N/A

1965–66
Glen Rose
13–10
7–7
4th
N/A

1966–67
Duddy Waller
6–17
4–10
T-7th
N/A

1967–68
Duddy Waller
10–14
7–7
5th
N/A

1968–69
Duddy Waller
10–14
4–10
8th
N/A

1969–70
Duddy Waller
5–19
3–11
8th
N/A

1970–71
Lanny Van Eman
5–21
1–13
8th
N/A

1971–72
Lanny Van Eman
8–18
5–9
6th
N/A

1972–73
Lanny Van Eman
16–10
9–5
T-2nd
N/A

1973–74
Lanny Van Eman
10–16
6–8
5th
N/A

1974–75
Eddie Sutton
17–9
11–3
2nd
N/A

1975–76
Eddie Sutton
19–9
9–7
4th
N/A

1976–77
Eddie Sutton
26–2
16–0
1st
NCAA First Round

1977–78
Eddie Sutton
32–4
14–2
T-1st
NCAA National Semifinal

1978–79
Eddie Sutton
25–5
13–3
T-1st
NCAA Regional Final

1979–80
Eddie Sutton
21–8
13–3
2nd
NCAA First Round

1980–81
Eddie Sutton
24–8
13–3
1st
NCAA Sweet Sixteen

1981–82
Eddie Sutton
23–6
12–4
1st
NCAA First Round

1982–83
Eddie Sutton
26–4
14–2
2nd
NCAA Sweet Sixteen

1983–84
Eddie Sutton
25–7
14–2
2nd
NCAA First Round

1984–85
Eddie Sutton
22–13
10–6
2nd
NCAA Second Round

1985–86
Nolan Richardson
12–16
4–12
7th
N/A

1986–87
Nolan Richardson
19–14
8–8
5th
NIT Second Round

1987–88
Nolan Richardson
21–9
11–5
T-2nd
NCAA First Round

1988–89
Nolan Richardson
25–7
13–3
1st
NCAA Second Round

1989–90
Nolan Richardson
30–5
14–2
1st
NCAA National Semifinal

1990–91
Nolan Richardson
34–4
15–1
1st
NCAA Elite Eight

1991–92
Nolan Richardson
26–8
13–3
1st
NCAA Second Round

1992–93
Nolan Richardson
22–9
10–6
3rd
NCAA Sweet Sixteen

1993–94
Nolan Richardson
31–3
14–2
1st
NCAA National Champion

1994–95
Nolan Richardson
32–7
12–4
T-1st (West)
NCAA Finalist

1995–96
Nolan Richardson
20–13
9–7
T-2nd (West)
NCAA Sweet Sixteen

1996–97
Nolan Richardson
18–14
8–8
2nd (West)
NIT Semifinals

1997–98
Nolan Richardson
24–9
11–5
2nd (West)
NCAA Second Round

1998–99
Nolan Richardson
23–11
9–7
2nd (West)
NCAA Second Round

1999–00
Nolan Richardson
19–15
7–9
3rd (West)
NCAA First Round

2000–01
Nolan Richardson
20–11
10–6
2nd (West)
NCAA First Round

2001–02
Nolan Richardson
Mike Anderson
14–15
6–10
4th (West)
N/A

2002–03
Stan Heath
9–19
4–12
T-5th (West)
N/A

2003–04
Stan Heath
12–16
4–12
6th (West)
N/A

2004–05
Stan Heath
18–12
6–10
4th (West)
N/A

2005–06
Stan Heath
22–10
10–6
T-2nd (West)
NCAA First Round

2006–07
Stan Heath
21–14
7–9
3rd (West)
NCAA First Round

2007–08
John Pelphrey
23–12
9–7
2nd (West)
NCAA Second Round

2008–09
John Pelphrey
14–16
2–14
6th (West)
N/A

2009–10
John Pelphrey
14–18
7–9
T-3rd (West)
N/A

2010–11
John Pelphrey
18–13
7–9
T-3rd (West)
N/A

2011–12
Mike Anderson
18–14
6–10
9th
N/A

2012–13
Mike Anderson
19–13
10–8
7th
N/A

2013–14
Mike Anderson
22–12
10–8
5th
NIT Second Round

2014–15
Mike Anderson
27–9
13–5
2nd
NCAA Second Round

2015–16
Mike Anderson
16–16
9–9
9th
N/A

2016–17
Mike Anderson
26–10
12–6
T-3rd
NCAA Second Round

2017–18
Mike Anderson
23–11
10–8
T-3rd
NCAA First Round

Total:
1670–938

      National champion         Postseason invitational champion
      Conference regular season champion         Conference regular season and conference tournament champion
      Division regular season champion       Division regular season and conference tournament champion
      Conference tournament champion

tag: table

text: Postseason[edit]

text: NCAA tournament results[edit]

text: The Razorbacks have appeared in the NCAA Tournament 32 times. Their combined record is 42–32. They were National Champions in 1994.

text:
Year
Seed
Round
Opponent
Result

1941

Elite Eight
Final Four
Wyoming
Washington State
W 52–40
L 53–64

1945

Elite Eight
Final Four
Oregon
Oklahoma A&M
W 79–76
L 41–68

1949

Elite Eight
Regional 3rd Place Game
Oregon State
Wyoming
L 38–56
W 61–48

1958

Sweet Sixteen
Regional 3rd Place Game
Oklahoma State
Cincinnati
L 40–65
L 62–97

1977

Round of 32
Wake Forest
L 80–86

1978

Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
Final Four
National 3rd Place Game
Weber State
UCLA
Cal State Fullerton
Kentucky
Notre Dame
W 73–52
W 74–70
W 61–58
L 59–64
W 71–69

1979
#2
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
#7 Weber State
#3 Louisville
#1 Indiana State
W 74–63
W 73–62
L 71–73

1980
#10
Round of 48
#7 Kansas State
L 53–71

1981
#5
Round of 48
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
#12 Mercer
#4 Louisville
#1 LSU
W 73–67
W 74–73
L 56–72

1982
#4
Round of 32
#5 Kansas State
L 64–65

1983
#4
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
#5 Purdue
#1 Louisville
W 78–68
L 63–65

1984
#2
Round of 32
#7 Virginia
L 51–53 OT

1985
#9
Round of 64
Round of 32
#8 Iowa
#1 St. John's
W 63–54
L 65–68

1988
#11
Round of 64
#6 Villanova
L 74–82

1989
#5
Round of 64
Round of 32
#12 Loyola Marymount
#4 Louisville
W 120–101
L 84–93

1990
#4
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
Final Four
#13 Princeton
#12 Dayton
#8 North Carolina
#10 Texas
#3 Duke
W 68–64
W 86–84
W 96–73
W 88–85
L 83–97

1991
#1
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
#16 Georgia State
#8 Arizona State
#4 Alabama
#3 Kansas
W 117–76
W 97–90
W 93–70
L 81–93

1992
#3
Round of 64
Round of 32
#14 Murray State
#6 Memphis State
W 80–69
L 80–82

1993
#4
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
#13 Holy Cross
#5 St. John's
#1 North Carolina
W 94–64
W 80–74
L 74–80

1994
#1
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
Final Four
National Championship Game
#16 North Carolina A&T
#9 Georgetown
#12 Tulsa
#3 Michigan
#2 Arizona
#2 Duke
W 94–79
W 85–73
W 103–84
W 76–68
W 91–82
W 76–72

1995
#2
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
Elite Eight
Final Four
National Championship Game
#15 Texas Southern
#7 Syracuse
#6 Memphis
#4 Virginia
#2 North Carolina
#1 UCLA
W 79–78
W 96–94 OT
W 96–91 OT
W 68–61
W 75–68
L 78–89

1996
#12
Round of 64
Round of 32
Sweet Sixteen
#5 Penn St
#4 Marquette
#1 Massachusetts
W 86–80
W 65–56
L 63–79

1998
#6
Round of 64
Round of 32
#11 Nebraska
#3 Utah
W 74–65
L 69–75

1999
#4
Round of 64
Round of 32
#13 Siena
#5 Iowa
W 94–80
L 72–82

2000
#11
Round of 64
#6 Miami (FL)
L 71–75

2001
#7
Round of 64
#10 Georgetown
L 61–63

2006
#8
Round of 64
#9 Bucknell
L 55–59

2007
#12
Round of 64
#5 USC
L 60–77

2008
#9
Round of 64
Round of 32
#8 Indiana
#1 North Carolina
W 86–72
L 77–108

2015
#5
Round of 64
Round of 32
#12 Wofford
#4 North Carolina
W 56–53
L 78–87

2017
#8
Round of 64
Round of 32
#9 Seton Hall
#1 North Carolina
W 77–71
L 65–72

2018
#7
Round of 64
#10 Butler
L 62–79

text: NIT results[edit]

text: The Razorbacks have appeared in the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) three times. Their combined record is 5–4.

text:
Year
Round
Opponent
Result

1987
First Round
Second Round
Arkansas State
Nebraska
W 67–64
L 71–78

1997
First Round
Second Round
Quarterfinals
Semifinals
3rd Place Game
Northern Arizona
Pittsburgh
UNLV
Michigan
Connecticut
W 101–75
W 76–71
W 86–73
L 62–77
L 64–74

2014
First Round
Second Round
Indiana State
California
W 91–71
L 64–75

text: Current coaching staff[edit]

text:
Mike Anderson – Head Coach
Melvin Watkins – Associate Head Coach
Scotty Thurman -- Assistant Coach
T.J. Cleveland – Assistant Coach

tag: ul

text: Arkansas's All-Americans[edit]

text:
Player
Position
Year(s)
Selectors

Glen Rose

1928
Helms Athletic Foundation

Tom Pickell

1929
College Humor Magazine

Gene Lambert

1929
Helms Athletic Foundation

Wear Schoonover
Forward
1930
College Humor Magazine

James "Doc" Sexton (2)

1931, 1932
College Humor Magazine

Ike Poole
Forward
1936
Helms Athletic Foundation, Converse Yearbook

Jack Robbins

1938
Newspapers Enterprise Association

John Adams
Guard/Forward
1941
Helms Athletic Foundation, Converse Yearbook

Clayton Wynne

1943
Pic Magazine

Bill Flynt

1946
Helms Athletic Foundation

George Kok (2)
Center
1946, 1948
Associated Press, The Sporting News

Fred Grim
Guard
1958
Associated Press

Clyde Rhoden
Forward
1960
Converse Yearbook

Jerry Clayton (2)
Guard
1961, 1962
Converse Yearbook

Tommy Boyer
Guard
1963
UPI, Converse Yearbook

Martin Terry
Guard
1973
Helms Athletic Foundation

Ron Brewer (2)
Guard
1977, 1978
Associated Press, Helms Athletic Foundation, Converse Yearbook, United States Writers Basketball Association, Basketball Weekly

Marvin Delph (2)
Guard
1977, 1978
Associated Press, The Sporting News, Converse Yearbook

Sidney Moncrief (3)
Guard
1977, 1978, 1979
The Sporting News, Associated Press, UPI, NABC, Helms Athletic Foundation, Converse Yearbook, United States Writers Basketball Association

Scott Hastings (2)
Center
1981, 1982
Helms Athletic Foundation, Associated Press

Darrell Walker
Guard
1983
Associated Press, UPI, Helms Athletic Foundation, Converse Yearbook

Todd Day (3)
Guard
1990, 1991, 1992
John Wooden Award, The Sporting News, Associated Press, UPI, NABC, Helms Athletic Foundation, United States Writers Basketball Association, Basketball Weekly, Basketball Times

Oliver Miller (2)
Center
1991, 1992
Associated Press

Lee Mayberry
Guard
1992
Associated Press, NABC, Basketball Times

Scotty Thurman
Guard
1994, 1995
Associated Press, Basketball Times

Corliss Williamson (2)
Forward
1994, 1995
Associated Press, John Wooden Award, The Sporting News, Basketball Weekly, NABC, UPI, United States Writers Basketball Association, Basketball Times

Pat Bradley
Guard
1999
Associated Press

Joe Johnson
Guard/Forward
2001
Associated Press

Ronnie Brewer
Guard/Forward
2006
Associated Press, Basketball Times, CollegeBasketballInsider.com

Bobby Portis
Forward
2015
Associated Press, United States Writers Basketball Association, Sporting News

Source: Arkansas Razorbacks Media Guide"Arkansas All-Americas". Arkansas Razorbacks. Archived from the original on 2008-05-28. Retrieved 2015-01-11.

text: Razorbacks after the University of Arkansas[edit]

text: NBA[edit]

text:
Corey Beck
Patrick Beverley
Ron Brewer
Ronnie Brewer
Tony Brown

Todd Day
Courtney Fortson
Scott Hastings
Steven Hill
Derek Hood

Joe Johnson
Joe Kleine
Andrew Lang
Lee Mayberry
Clint McDaniel

Mel McGaha
Oliver Miller
Sidney Moncrief
Isaiah Morris
Jannero Pargo
Bobby Portis

Alvin Robertson
Dean Tolson
Darrell Walker
Sonny Weems
Corliss Williamson

text: Other professional leagues[edit]

text:
Pat Bradley
Billy Pharis
Ulysses Reed
Kareem Reid
Darnell Robinson
Dwight Stewart
Charles Thomas (born 1986), basketball player for Maccabi Rishon LeZion of the Israeli Basketball Premier League
Scotty Thurman

text: Arkansas Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

text:
Gordon Carpenter
Marvin Delph
George Kok
Ike Poole

text: Olympians[edit]

text:
Gordon Carpenter
Joe Kleine
R. C. Pitts
Alvin Robertson


document_title: Payday loan

question_text: when does a pay day loans typically mature

text: Payday loan

text: The loan process[edit]

text: The basic loan process involves a lender providing a short-term unsecured loan to be repaid at the borrower's next payday. Typically, some verification of employment or income is involved (via pay stubs and bank statements), although according to one source, some payday lenders do not verify income or run credit checks.[13] Individual companies and franchises have their own underwriting criteria.

text: In the traditional retail model, borrowers visit a payday lending store and secure a small cash loan, with payment due in full at the borrower's next paycheck. The borrower writes a postdated check to the lender in the full amount of the loan plus fees. On the maturity date, the borrower is expected to return to the store to repay the loan in person. If the borrower does not repay the loan in person, the lender may redeem the check. If the account is short on funds to cover the check, the borrower may now face a bounced check fee from their bank in addition to the costs of the loan, and the loan may incur additional fees or an increased interest rate (or both) as a result of the failure to pay.

text: In the more recent innovation of online payday loans, consumers complete the loan application online (or in some instances via fax, especially where documentation is required). The funds are then transferred by direct deposit to the borrower's account, and the loan repayment and/or the finance charge is electronically withdrawn on the borrower's next payday.

text: User demographics and reasons for borrowing[edit]

text: According to a study by The Pew Charitable Trusts, "Most payday loan borrowers [in the United States] are white, female, and are 25 to 44 years old. However, after controlling for other characteristics, there are five groups that have higher odds of having used a payday loan: those without a four-year college degree; home renters; African Americans; those earning below $40,000 annually; and those who are separated or divorced." Most borrowers use payday loans to cover ordinary living expenses over the course of months, not unexpected emergencies over the course of weeks. The average borrower is indebted about five months of the year.[14]

text: This reinforces the findings of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) study from 2011 which found black and Hispanic families, recent immigrants, and single parents were more likely to use payday loans. In addition, their reasons for using these products were not as suggested by the payday industry for one time expenses, but to meet normal recurring obligations.[15]

text: Research for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation found that a majority of Illinois payday loan borrowers earn $30,000 or less per year.[16] Texas' Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner collected data on 2012 payday loan usage, and found that refinances accounted for $2.01 billion in loan volume, compared with $1.08 billion in initial loan volume. The report did not include information about annual indebtedness.[17] A letter to the editor from an industry expert argued that other studies have found that consumers fare better when payday loans are available to them.[18] Pew's reports have focused on how payday lending can be improved, but have not assessed whether consumers fare better with or without access to high-interest loans. Pew's demographic analysis was based on a random-digit-dialing (RDD) survey of 33,576 people, including 1,855 payday loan borrowers.[19]

text: In another study, by Gregory Elliehausen, Division of Research of the Federal Reserve System and Financial Services Research Program at the George Washington University School of Business, 41% earn between $25,000 and $50,000, and 39% report incomes of $40,000 or more. 18% have an income below $25,000.[20]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: In the UK Sarah-Jayne Clifton of the Jubilee Debt Campaign said, “austerity, low wages, and insecure work are driving people to take on high cost debt from rip-off lenders just to put food on the table. We need the government to take urgent action, not only to rein in rip-off lenders, but also to tackle the cost of living crisis and cuts to social protection that are driving people towards the loan sharks in the first place.”[21]

text: Draining money from low-income communities[edit]

text: The likelihood that a family will use a payday loan increases if they are unbanked or underbanked, or lack access to a traditional deposit bank account. In an American context the families who will use a payday loan are disproportionately either of black or Hispanic descent, recent immigrants, and/or under-educated.[15] These individuals are least able to secure normal, lower-interest-rate forms of credit. Since payday lending operations charge higher interest-rates than traditional banks, they have the effect of depleting the assets of low-income communities.[22] The Insight Center, a consumer advocacy group, reported in 2013 that payday lending cost U.S communities $774 million a year.[23]

text: A report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that, "We ... test whether payday lending fits our definition of predatory. We find that in states with higher payday loan limits, less educated households and households with uncertain income are less likely to be denied credit, but are not more likely to miss a debt payment. Absent higher delinquency, the extra credit from payday lenders does not fit our definition of predatory."[24] The caveat to this is that with a term of under 30 days there are no payments, and the lender is more than willing to roll the loan over at the end of the period upon payment of another fee. The report goes on to note that payday loans are extremely expensive, and borrowers who take a payday loan are at a disadvantage in comparison to the lender, a reversal of the normal consumer lending information asymmetry, where the lender must underwrite the loan to assess creditworthiness.

text: A recent law journal note summarized the justifications for regulating payday lending. The summary notes that while it is difficult to quantify the impact on specific consumers, there are external parties who are clearly affected by the decision of a borrower to get a payday loan. Most directly impacted are the holders of other low interest debt from the same borrower, which now is less likely to be paid off since the limited income is first used to pay the fee associated with the payday loan. The external costs of this product can be expanded to include the businesses that are not patronized by the cash-strapped payday customer to the children and family who are left with fewer resources than before the loan. The external costs alone, forced on people given no choice in the matter, may be enough justification for stronger regulation even assuming that the borrower him or herself understood the full implications of the decision to seek a payday loan.[25]

text: Advertising practices[edit]

text: In May 2008, the debt charity Credit Action made a complaint to the United Kingdom Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that payday lenders were placing advertising which violated advertising regulations on the social network website Facebook. The main complaint was that the APR was either not displayed at all or not displayed prominently enough, which is clearly required by UK advertising standards.[26][27]

text: In 2016, Google announced that it would ban all ads for payday loans from its systems, defined as loans requiring repayment within 60 days or (in the US) having an APR of 36% or more.[28][29]

text: Unauthorized clone firms[edit]

text: In August 2015, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) of the United Kingdom has announced that there have been an increase of unauthorized firms, also known as 'clone firms', using the name of other genuine companies to offer payday loan services. Therefore, acting as a clone of the original company, such as the case of Payday Loans Now.[30] The FCA strongly advised to verify financial firms by using the Financial Services Register, prior to participating in any sort of monetary engagement.[31]

text: Aggressive collection practices[edit]

text: In US law, a payday lender can use only the same industry standard collection practices used to collect other debts, specifically standards listed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using abusive, unfair, and deceptive practices to collect from debtors. Such practices include calling before 8 o'clock in the morning or after 9 o'clock at night, or calling debtors at work.[32]

text: In many cases, borrowers write a post-dated check (check with a future date) to the lender; if the borrowers don't have enough money in their account by the check's date, their check will bounce. In Texas, payday lenders are prohibited from suing a borrower for theft if the check is post-dated. One payday lender in the state instead gets their customers to write checks dated for the day the loan is given. Customers borrow money because they don't have any, so the lender accepts the check knowing that it would bounce on the check's date. If the borrower fails to pay on the due date, the lender sues the borrower for writing a hot check.[33]

text: Payday lenders will attempt to collect on the consumer's obligation first by simply requesting payment. If internal collection fails, some payday lenders may outsource the debt collection, or sell the debt to a third party.

text: A small percentage of payday lenders have, in the past, threatened delinquent borrowers with criminal prosecution for check fraud.[34] This practice is illegal in many jurisdictions and has been denounced by the Community Financial Services Association of America, the industry's trade association.

text: Pricing structure of payday loans[edit]

text: The payday lending industry argues that conventional interest rates for lower dollar amounts and shorter terms would not be profitable. For example, a $100 one-week loan, at a 20% APR (compounded weekly) would generate only 38 cents of interest, which would fail to match loan processing costs. Research shows that on average, payday loan prices moved upward, and that such moves were "consistent with implicit collusion facilitated by price focal points".[35]

text: Consumer advocates and other experts[who?] argue, however, that payday loans appear to exist in a classic market failure. In a perfect market of competing sellers and buyers seeking to trade in a rational manner, pricing fluctuates based on the capacity of the market. Payday lenders have no incentive to price their loans competitively since loans are not capable of being patented. Thus, if a lender chooses to innovate and reduce cost to borrowers in order to secure a larger share of the market the competing lenders will instantly do the same, negating the effect. For this reason, among others, all lenders in the payday marketplace charge at or very near the maximum fees and rates allowed by local law.[25]

text: Proponents' stance and counterarguments[edit]

text: Industry profitability[edit]

text: In a profitability analysis by Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, it was determined that the average profit margin from seven publicly traded payday lending companies (including pawn shops) in the U.S. was 7.63%, and for pure payday lenders it was 3.57%. These averages are less than those of other traditional lending institutions such as credit unions and banks.

text: Comparatively the profit margin of Starbucks for the measured time period was just over 9%, and comparison lenders had an average profit margin of 13.04%. These comparison lenders were mainstream companies: Capital One, GE Capital, HSBC, Money Tree, and American Express Credit.[36]

text: Charges are in line with costs[edit]

text: A study by the FDIC Center for Financial Research[37] found that "operating costs are not that out of line with the size of advance fees" collected and that, after subtracting fixed operating costs and "unusually high rate of default losses," payday loans "may not necessarily yield extraordinary profits."

text: However, despite the tendency to characterize payday loan default rates as high, several researchers have noted that this is an artifact of the normal short term of the payday product, and that during the term of loans with longer periods there are frequently points where the borrower is in default and then becomes current again. Actual charge offs are no more frequent than with traditional forms of credit, as the majority of payday loans are rolled over into new loans repeatedly without any payment applied to the original principal.[9][10][11]

text: The propensity for very low default rates seems to be an incentive for investors interested in payday lenders. In the Advance America 10-k SEC filing from December 2011 they note that their agreement with investors, "limits the average of actual charge-offs incurred during each fiscal month to a maximum of 4.50% of the average amount of adjusted transaction receivables outstanding at the end of each fiscal month during the prior twelve consecutive months". They go on to note that for 2011 their average monthly receivables were $287.1 million and their average charge-off was $9.3 million, or 3.2%.[12] In comparison with traditional lenders, payday firms also save on costs by not engaging in traditional forms of underwriting, relying on their easy rollover terms and the small size of each individual loan as method of diversification eliminating the need for verifying each borrowers ability to repay.[38] It is perhaps due to this that payday lenders rarely exhibit any real effort to verify that the borrower will be able to pay the principal on their payday in addition to their other debt obligations.[39]

text: Markets provide services otherwise unavailable[edit]

text: Proponents of minimal regulations for payday loan businesses argue that some individuals that require the use of payday loans have already exhausted other alternatives. Such consumers could potentially be forced to illegal sources if not for payday loans. Tom Lehman, an advocate of payday lending, said:

text: These arguments are countered in two ways. First, the history of borrowers turning to illegal or dangerous sources of credit seems to have little basis in fact according to Robert Mayer's 2012 "Loan Sharks, Interest-Rate Caps, and Deregulation".[41] Outside of specific contexts, interest rates caps had the effect of allowing small loans in most areas without an increase of "loan sharking". Next, since 80% of payday borrowers will roll their loan over at least one time [11] because their income prevents them from paying the principal within the repayment period, they often report turning to friends or family members to help repay the loan [42] according to a 2012 report from the Center for Financial Services Innovation. In addition, there appears to be no evidence of unmet demand for small dollar credit in states which prohibit or strictly limit payday lending.

text: A 2012 report produced by the Cato Institute found that the cost of the loans is overstated, and that payday lenders offer a product traditional lenders simply refuse to offer. However, the report is based on 40 survey responses collected at a payday storefront location.[43] The report's author, Victor Stango, was on the board of the Consumer Credit Research Foundation (CCRF) until 2015, an organization funded by payday lenders, and received $18,000 in payments from CCRF in 2013.[44]

text: Household welfare increased[edit]

text: A staff report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concluded that payday loans should not be categorized as "predatory" since they may improve household welfare.[45] "Defining and Detecting Predatory Lending" reports "if payday lenders raise household welfare by relaxing credit constraints, anti-predatory legislation may lower it." The author of the report, Donald P. Morgan, defined predatory lending as "a welfare reducing provision of credit." However, he also noted that the loans are very expensive, and that they are likely to be made to under-educated households or households of uncertain income.

text: Brian Melzer of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University found that payday loan users did suffer a reduction in their household financial situation, as the high costs of repeated rollover loans impacted their ability to pay recurring bills such as utilities and rent.[46] This assumes a payday user will rollover their loan rather than repay it, which has been shown both by the FDIC and the Consumer Finance Protection bureau in large sample studies of payday consumers [11][15][47]

text: Petru Stelian Stoianovici, a researcher from Charles River Associates, and Michael T. Maloney, an economics professor from Clemson University, found "no empirical evidence that payday lending leads to more bankruptcy filings, which casts doubt on the debt trap argument against payday lending."[48]

text: The report was reinforced by a Federal Reserve Board (FRB) 2014 study which found that while bankruptcies did double among users of payday loans, the increase was too small to be considered significant.[49][50] The same FRB researchers found that payday usage had no positive or negative impact on household welfare as measured by credit score changes over time.[51]

text: Aid in disaster areas[edit]

text: A 2009 study by University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professor Adair Morse[52] found that in natural disaster areas where payday loans were readily available consumers fared better than those in disaster zones where payday lending was not present. Not only were fewer foreclosures recorded, but such categories as birth rate were not affected adversely by comparison. Moreover, Morse's study found that fewer people in areas served by payday lenders were treated for drug and alcohol addiction.

text: Country specific[edit]

text: Australia[edit]

text: Prior to 2009 regulation of consumer credit was primarily conducted by the states and territories. Some states such as New South Wales and Queensland legislated effective annual interest rate caps of 48%.[53] In 2008 the Australian states and territories referred powers of consumer credit to the Commonwealth. In 2009 the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) was introduced, which initially treated payday lenders no differently from all other lenders. In 2013 Parliament tightened regulation on the payday lending further introducing the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 (Cth) which imposed an effective APR cap of 48% for all consumer credit contracts (inclusive of all fees and charges). Payday lenders who provided a loan falling within the definition of a small amount credit contract (SACC), defined as a contract provided by a non authorised-deposit taking institution for less than $2,000 for a term between 16 days and 1 year,[54] are permitted to charge a 20% establishment fee in addition to monthly (or part thereof) fee of 4% (effective 48% p.a.).[55] Payday lenders who provide a loan falling within the definition of a medium amount credit contract (MACC), defined as a credit contract provided by a non-deposit taking institution for between $2,000–$5,000 may charge a $400 establishment fee in addition to the statutory interest rate cap of 48%. Payday lenders are still required to comply with Responsible lending obligations applying to all creditors. Unlike other jurisdictions Australian payday lenders providing SACC or MACC products are not required to display their fees as an effective annual interest rate percentage.[citation needed]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Bill C28 supersedes the Criminal Code of Canada for the purpose of exempting Payday loan companies from the law, if the provinces passed legislation to govern payday loans.[56][57] Payday loans in Canada are governed by the individual provinces. All provinces, except Newfoundland and Labrador, have passed legislation. For example, in Ontario loans have a maximum rate of 14,299% Effective Annual Rate ("EAR")($21 per $100, over 2 weeks). As of 2017, major payday lenders have reduced the rate to $18 per $100, over 2 weeks.

text: UK[edit]

text: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) estimates that there are more than 50,000 credit firms that come under its widened remit, of which 200 are payday lenders.[58] Payday loans in the United Kingdom are a rapidly growing industry, with four times as many people using such loans in 2009 compared to 2006 – in 2009 1.2 million people took out 4.1 million loans, with total lending amounting to £1.2 billion.[59] In 2012, it is estimated that the market was worth £2.2 billion and that the average loan size was around £270.[60] Two-thirds of borrowers have annual incomes below £25,000. There are no restrictions on the interest rates payday loan companies can charge, although they are required by law to state the effective annual percentage rate (APR).[59] In the early 2010s there was much criticism in Parliament of payday lenders.

text: In 2014 several firms were reprimanded and required to pay compensation for illegal practices; Wonga.com for using letters untruthfully purporting to be from solicitors to demand payment—a formal police investigation for fraud was being considered in 2014[61]—and Cash Genie, owned by multinational EZCorp, for a string of problems with the way it had imposed charges and collected money from borrowers who were in arrears.[62]

text: Changes in the UK law[edit]

text: On 1 April 2014 there was a major overhaul in the way payday loans are issued and repaid.

text: First of all the FCA will be making sure all lenders can abide by two main goals;

text:
"to ensure that firms only lend to borrowers who can afford it", and
"to increase borrowers' awareness of the cost and risk of borrowing unaffordably and ways to help if they have financial difficulties".

text: On top of the main goals Martin Wheatley, the FCA’s chief executive officer, said:[63]

text: In order to achieve these goals the FCA has proposed the following:

text:
Initial cost cap of 0.8% per day,
Fixed default fees capped at £15, and
Total cost cap of 100%.

text: United States[edit]

text: Payday loans are legal in 27 states, and 9 others allows some form of short term storefront lending with restrictions. The remaining 14 and the District of Columbia forbid the practice.[64] The annual percentage rate (APR) is also limited in some jurisdictions to prevent usury.[65] And in some states, there are laws limiting the number of loans a borrower can take at a single time.

text: As for federal regulation, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) specific authority to regulate all payday lenders, regardless of size. Also, the Military Lending Act imposes a 36% rate cap on tax refund loans and certain payday and auto title loans made to active duty armed forces members and their covered dependents, and prohibits certain terms in such loans.[66]

text: The CFPB has issued several enforcement actions against payday lenders for reasons such as violating the prohibition on lending to military members and aggressive collection tactics.[67][68] The CFPB also operates a website to answer questions about payday lending.[69] In addition, some states have aggressively pursued lenders they felt violate their state laws.[70][71]

text: Payday lenders have made effective use of the sovereign status of Native American reservations, often forming partnerships with members of a tribe to offer loans over the Internet which evade state law.[72] However, the Federal Trade Commission has begun the aggressively monitor these lenders as well.[73] While some tribal lenders are operated by Native Americans,[74] there is also evidence many are simply a creation of so-called "rent-a-tribe" schemes, where a non-Native company sets up operations on tribal land.[75][76]

text: Variations and alternatives[edit]

text: Alternatives to payday loans[edit]

text: Other options are available to most payday loan customers.[77] These include pawnbrokers, credit union loans with lower interest and more stringent terms which take longer to gain approval,[78] employee access to earned but unpaid wages,[79][80][81][82][83][84] credit payment plans, paycheck cash advances from employers ("advance on salary"), auto pawn loans, bank overdraft protection, cash advances from credit cards, emergency community assistance plans, small consumer loans, installment loans and direct loans from family or friends. The Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2013 their study on the ways in which users pay off payday loans that borrowers often took a payday loan to avoid one of these alternatives, only to turn to one of them to pay off the payday loan.[85]

text: If the consumer owns their own vehicle, an auto title loan would be an alternative for a payday loan, as auto title loans use the equity of the vehicle as the credit instead of payment history and employment history.

text: Other alternatives include the Pentagon Federal Credit Union Foundation (PenFed Foundation) Asset Recovery Kit (ARK) program.[86]

text: Basic banking services are also often provided through their postal systems.[87]

text: Comparisons payday lenders make[edit]

text: Payday lenders do not compare their interest rates to those of mainstream lenders. Instead, they compare their fees to the overdraft, late payment, penalty fees and other fees that will be incurred if the customer is unable to secure any credit whatsoever.

text: The lenders may list a different set of alternatives (with costs expressed as APRs for two-week terms, even though these alternatives do not compound their interest or have longer terms):[88]

text:
$100 payday advance with a $15 fee = 391% APR
$100 bounced check with $54 NSF/merchant fees = 1,409% APR
$100 credit card balance with a $37 late fee = 965% APR
$100 utility bill with $46 late/reconnect fees = 1,203% APR

text: Variations on payday lending[edit]

text: A minority of mainstream banks and TxtLoan companies lending short-term credit over mobile phone text messaging offer virtual credit advances for customers whose paychecks or other funds are deposited electronically into their accounts. The terms are similar to those of a payday loan; a customer receives a predetermined cash credit available for immediate withdrawal. The amount is deducted, along with a fee, usually about 10 percent of the amount borrowed, when the next direct deposit is posted to the customer's account. After the programs attracted regulatory attention,[89][90] Wells Fargo called its fee "voluntary" and offered to waive it for any reason. It later scaled back the program in several states. Wells Fargo currently offers its version of a payday loan, called "Direct Deposit Advance," which charges 120% APR. Similarly, the BBC reported in 2010 that controversial TxtLoan charges 10% for 7-days advance which is available for approved customers instantly over a text message.[91]

text: Income tax refund anticipation loans are not technically payday loans (because they are repayable upon receipt of the borrower's income tax refund, not at his next payday), but they have similar credit and cost characteristics. A car title loan is secured by the borrower's car, but are available only to borrowers who hold clear title (i.e., no other loans) to a vehicle. The maximum amount of the loan is some fraction of the resale value of the car. A similar credit facility seen in the UK is a logbook loan secured against a car's logbook, which the lender retains.[92] These loans may be available on slightly better terms than an unsecured payday loan, since they are less risky to the lender. If the borrower defaults, then the lender can attempt to recover costs by repossessing and reselling the car.

text: Postal banking[edit]

text: Many countries offer basic banking services through their postal systems. The United States Post Office Department offered such as service in the past. Called the United States Postal Savings System it was discontinued in 1967. In January 2014 the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service issued a white paper suggesting that the USPS could offer banking services, to include small dollar loans for under 30% APR.[93] Support and criticism quickly followed; opponents of postal banking argued that as payday lenders would be forced out of business due to competition, the plan is nothing more than a scheme to support postal employees.[94][95]


document_title: Keith Lemon: The Film

question_text: who plays evil steve in keith lemon film

text: Keith Lemon: The Film

text: Plot[edit]

text: Keith Lemon (Leigh Francis) is an aspiring business entrepreneur from Leeds, who is trying to secure investment for his invention, the Securipole (a metal pole put in the driveway to prevent car theft). He travels to London to present the Securipole at an inventor's convention, putting his friend Dougie (Kevin Bishop) in charge of his business while he is away. Keith's girlfriend Rosie (Laura Aikman) advises that he should start the Securipole business slowly and try to sell some poles in Leeds first, but Keith is too eager for the Securipole to be an overnight success and ignores her.

text: At the convention, Keith's demonstration of the Securipole fails to attract investors and leaves the public underwhelmed. Keith is devastated by his failure, but is approached by another entrepreneur named Kushvinder (Harish Patel), who offers to give him rights to his own unsuccessful invention, a touch-screen mobile phone without buttons, which Keith reluctantly accepts. In Leeds, a shipment of one million Securipoles arrives at Keith's office, to Rosie and Dougie's dismay. Before going to London, Keith had ordered the Securipoles (his dyscalculia leading him to believe that he had only ordered one thousand), from a benefactor named Evil Steve (Leigh Francis), who is notorious for torturing and even killing clients who fail to pay him. Rosie and Dougie are unable to pay for the poles or contact Keith, so Evil Steve kidnaps Rosie. Before she is taken away, she orders Dougie to travel to London and find Keith.

text: After Keith is attacked by a group of muggers, a talking satellite navigation app on Kushvinder's phone leads him to the office of Archimedes (Verne Troyer), an advice guru who tries to solve the problems of those in need. Archimedes hears out Keith's plight and manages to get him an appearance on a television chat show hosted by David Hasselhoff (playing an exaggerated version of himself). On the show, Keith tries to promote Kushvinder's phone, but the audience is uninterested. Thinking quickly, he sticks a lemon-shaped sweet on the phone, making it look like it has a lemon on the cover, which immediately impresses the audience. The "Lemon Phone" becomes an overnight success, and Keith is instantly propelled into the life he has always wanted. He becomes a household name, earns billions of pounds from the Lemon Phone, and starts dating Kelly Brook (playing an exaggerated version of herself) who, unbeknownst to Keith, is only dating him so she can divorce him and take his money later. Despite Archimedes' advice however, Keith prefers his new celebrity lifestyle and decides not to return to Leeds, the Securipole business or Rosie.

text: Keith hosts a toga party at a luxury venue, but during the party he is confronted by Dougie, who tells him Evil Steve has kidnapped Rosie and is going to kill her unless he pays for the Securipoles. Refusing to listen and no longer caring about what he left behind in Leeds, Keith dismisses Dougie and throws him out. This angers Archimedes, who also leaves. Going back to Leeds, Dougie decides to rescue Rosie himself, dressing up as Rambo and storming into Evil Steve's warehouse lair, but his plan fails when he accidentally knocks himself out on a metal bar. Back at the party, as Keith and Kelly take to the stage to sing together, the Lemon Phone is suddenly revealed to have a major technical fault that causes the owner's mouth to sag, giving them a speech impediment. The mouths of everyone who was using the phone immediately sag, including those of Kelly and some of Keith's celebrity friends. Outraged, the crowd at the party turn on Keith and chase him on to the roof of the building. Realising the error of his ways, Keith finds Archimedes and begs for forgiveness, but Kelly and the angry mob force him over the balcony. As he falls to the ground, he is saved by Archimedes, who reveals that he is a guardian angel, and explains that he put Keith through this experience to teach him not to ignore his friends and loved ones in the pursuit of success.

text: Archimedes flies Keith back to Leeds, dropping him over Evil Steve's lair and proceeding to Heaven. Keith falls through the roof, causing rubble to fall on top of Evil Steve, and rescues Rosie from being lowered into a vat of liquid hot metal. He apologises to his friends for ignoring them, and proposes to Rosie. At first, Rosie is angered by Keith's actions and refuses to forgive him (especially when Keith off-handedly confesses that Kelly Brook was the superior girlfriend), but she soon accepts both his apology and proposal, and with their relationship repaired, Keith, Rosie and Dougie leave the warehouse. During the end credits, Keith explains through a voice-over that he settled down and had a family with Rosie, and converted the Securipoles into water pumps for countries in the "Fourth World".

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Leigh Francis as Keith Lemon, Craig David, Mel B, Evil Steve, The Bear and Avid Merrion
Verne Troyer as Archimedes
Kevin Bishop as Dougie
Laura Aikman as Rosie
Kelly Brook as Herself
Harish Patel as Kushvinder
Nina Wadia as Pat
Paddy McGuinness as Gary
Graeme Keast as Crazy audience member (Hoff Hour)

text: Celebrity cameos[edit]

text:
Peter Andre
Gary Barlow
Fearne Cotton
Emma Bunton
Melanie Chisholm
Gino D'Acampo
Jason Donovan
David Hasselhoff
Jedward
Vernon Kay
Ronan Keating
Chris Moyles
Billy Ocean
Rizzle Kicks
Phillip Schofield
Tinchy Stryder
Holly Willoughby
Denise van Outen

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The film was universally panned. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a rare 0% score, based on twelve reviews.[5]

text: In a one-star review in The Daily Telegraph, Robbie Collin said "it may be the most staggeringly perfunctory piece of filmmaking I have ever seen."[6] Phelim O'Neill, in another one-star review for The Guardian, said "the script ... must have taken longer to read than it did to write."[7] Writing in The Sun, Alex Zane was slightly less critical in a two-star review entitled "This Lemon sucks", saying that "this film just doesn’t capture the anarchy that makes Keith Lemon enjoyable, unpredictable and, most importantly... amusing."[8] In writing for Total Film, George Bass describes the funniest moment in the film as "a bus sign (“T’LEEDS”). Six letters and an apostrophe. Save yourself the ticket."[9] Chris Tookey of the Daily Mail named the film as one of the worst British comedies of all time and said that, "Nothing funny happens... In some inner circle of Hell, this movie will be for ever playing."[10]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The movie debuted at #5 at the UK Box Office, earning £1,196,310 in revenue. In its opening weekend, the film was the highest ranking debut film at the box office.[11] During its second weekend, the movie dropped to #9, earning £370,735, for a two-week total gross of £2,531,902.[12] It went on to make a total of £4,017,234.

text: Awards[edit]

text: The film won three BARFTA awards (a spoof award given to poorly-reviewed films, similar to the Razzies); Worst Film, Worst Dialogue and Worst Female Acting Performance.[13]

text: Distribution[edit]

text: Keith Lemon: The Film was released on DVD and Blu-ray in the UK on 10 December 2012. The set includes an uncut version of the film which was not shown in cinemas.


document_title: List of European countries by population

question_text: what country in europe has the largest population

text: Table[edit]

text:
Rank[1]
Country
(or dependent territory)
July 1, 2015
projection[2]
% of
pop.
Average
relative
annual
growth
(%)[3]
Average
absolute
annual
growth
[4]
Estimated
doubling
time
(Years)[5]
Official
figure
(where
available)
Date of
last figure
Source
Regional grouping

1
 Russia[6]
144,031,000
17.15
0.20
294,285
368
146,839,993
January 1, 2017
[1]
EAEU

2
 Germany
81,459,000
9.87
1.20
600,000
90
82,800,000
December 30, 2016
Official estimate
EU

3
 Turkey
79,817,849
9.50
1.34
1,035,000
52
77,695,904
December 31, 2016
Official estimate

4
 France[7][Note 1]
66,991,000
7.97
0.39
261,022
177
66,991,000
March 1, 2017
[2]
EU

5
 United Kingdom
65,110,276
7.75
0.75
484,000
92
64,596,800
December 30, 2016
Official estimate
EU

6
 Italy
60,589,445
7.21
0.49
298,000
141
60,788,845
January 1, 2017
Monthly official estimate
EU

7
 Spain
46,423,064
5.53
-0.06
-28,000
-
46,449,565
January 1, 2015
Official estimate
EU

8
 Ukraine[8]
42,850,000
5.10
-0.32
-136,000
-
42,726,067
March 1, 2015
Monthly official estimate

9
 Poland
38,494,000
4.58
0.05
20,000
1,334
38,484,000
December 31, 2014
Official estimate
EU

10
 Romania
19,822,000
2.36
-0.41
-81,000
-
19,942,642
January 1, 2014
Official estimate
EU

11
 Netherlands
17,003,777
2.02
0.37
62,000
189
17,086,900
October 24, 2017
Official population clock
EU

12
 Belgium
11,455,474
1.34
0.52
58,000
134
11,370,968
August 1, 2017
Monthly official estimate
EU

13
 Greece
11,183,716
1.28
0.16
-12,000
-
10,816,286
May 24, 2011
Final 2011 census result
EU

14
 Czech Republic
10,535,000
1.25
-0.06
-6,000
-
10,588,063
July 30, 2017
Official estimate
EU

15
 Portugal
10,311,000
1.23
-0.56
-58,000
-
10,309,573
December 31, 2016
Official estimate
EU

16
 Sweden
9,858,794
1.17
1.03
100,000
68
10,081,396
August 31, 2017
Official estimate
EU

17
 Hungary
9,835,000
1.17
-0.28
-28,000
-
9,849,000
December 31, 2014
Official estimate
EU

18
 Azerbaijan
9,651,000
1.15
1.23
117,000
57
9,593,000
January 1, 2015
Official estimate

19
 Belarus
9,481,000
1.13
0.00
0
-
9,481,100
April 1, 2015
Official estimate
EAEU

20
 Austria
8,608,000
1.02
0.67
57,000
104
8,794,267
July 1, 2018
Official estimate
EU

21
  Switzerland
8,265,000
0.98
0.87
71,000
80
8,211,700
September 30, 2014
Official estimate
EFTA

22
 Bulgaria
7,185,000
0.86
-0.57
-41,000
-
7,245,677
December 31, 2013
Official estimate
EU

23
 Serbia
7,103,000
0.85
-0.41
-29,000
-
7,146,759
January 1, 2014
Official estimate

24
 Denmark
5,673,000
0.68
0.48
27,000
145
5,659,715
January 1, 2015
Official estimate
EU

25
 Finland
5,475,000
0.65
0.11
6,000
632
5,473,465
March 31, 2015
Monthly official estimate
EU

26
 Slovakia
5,426,000
0.65
0.13
7,000
537
5,415,949
September 30, 2014
Official estimate
EU

27
 Norway
5,194,000
0.62
1.11
57,000
63
5,165,802
January 1, 2015
Official estimate
EFTA

28
 Ireland
4,630,000
0.55
0.35
16,000
200
4,761,865
April 2016
Preliminary 2016 census result
EU

29
 Croatia
4,230,000
0.50
-0.31
-13,000
-
4,267,558
July 1, 2012
Official estimate
EU

30
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
3,750,000
0.45
-0.64
-24,000
-
3,791,622
October 1, 2013
Preliminary 2013 census result

31
 Georgia
3,707,000
0.44
-1.23
-46,000
-
3,729,500
January 1, 2015
Official estimate

32
 Moldova
3,564,000
0.42
0.48
17,000
145
3,555,200
January 1, 2015
Official estimate

33
 Armenia
3,010,000
0.36
-0.03
-1,000
-
3,010,600
December 31, 2014
Monthly official estimate
EAEU

34
 Lithuania
2,906,000
0.35
-0.85
-25,000
-
2,912,566
April 1, 2015
Monthly official estimate
EU

35
 Albania
2,887,000
0.34
-0.41
-12,000
-
2,893,005
January 1, 2015
Official estimate

36
 Macedonia
2,071,000
0.25
0.15
3,000
478
2,069,172
December 31, 2014
Official estimate

37
 Slovenia
2,065,000
0.25
0.15
3,000
477
2,062,731
October 1, 2014
Official estimate
EU

38
 Latvia
1,979,000
0.24
-0.90
-18,000
-
1,983,300
April 1, 2015
Monthly official estimate
EU

 Kosovo
1,867,000
0.22
1.08
20,000
64
1,815,606
December 31, 2012
Official estimate

39
 Estonia
1,315,000
0.16
0.46
6,000
152
1,315,635
January 1, 2017
Official estimate
EU

40
 Cyprus
876,000
0.10
0.46
4,000
151
865,900
December 31, 2012
Official estimate
EU

41
 Montenegro
620,000
0.07
0.00
0
-
620,029
April 1, 2011
2011 census result

42
 Luxembourg
570,000
0.07
2.52
14,000
28
562,958
December 31, 2014
Official estimate
EU

43
 Malta
425,000
0.05
0.47
2,000
147
417,432
November 20, 2011
2011 census result
EU

44
 Iceland
331,000
0.04
1.22
4,000
57
329,100
January 1, 2015
Official estimate
EFTA

 Jersey (UK)
103,000
0.01
0.98
1,000
71
97,857
March 27, 2011
2011 census result

 Isle of Man (UK)
89,000
0.01
1.14
1,000
61
84,497
March 27, 2011
2011 census result

45
 Andorra
78,000
0.01
1.30
1,000
54
76,949
2014
Official estimate

 Guernsey (UK)
66,000
0.01
1.54
1,000
45
65,150
March 31, 2014
Official estimate

 Faroe Islands (Denmark)
49,000
0.01
0.00
0
-
48,693
February 1, 2015
Monthly official estimate

46
 Liechtenstein
37,000
0.00
0.00
0
-
37,370
December 31, 2014
Official estimate
EFTA

47
 Monaco
37,000
0.00
0.00
0
-
36,950
December 31, 2013
Official estimate

 Gibraltar (UK)[9]
34,000
0.00
3.03
1,000
23
30,001
2012
Official estimate
EU

48
 San Marino
33,000
0.00
0.00
0
-
32,798
February 28, 2015
Monthly official estimate

 Åland Islands (Finland)
29,000
0.00
0.00
0
-
28,666
December 31, 2013
Official estimate
EU

 Svalbard (Norway)
3,000
0.00
0.00
0
-
2,575
July 1, 2014
Official estimate
EFTA

49
  Vatican City
451
0.00
0.00
0
-
0
2012
Official estimate

Total
840,023,805
100.00
0.33
2,746,307
210