Credit Card reforms inching closer to reality

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,525
2,727
136
Story

WASHINGTON -- Consumers who are paying more in interest because they have fallen behind on their credit-card bills could regain their older, lower rates if they pay their bills on time for six months, under a compromise proposal reached by senators seeking changes in laws governing the credit card industry.

The Senate proposal was brokered between Republicans, who say lenders should be able to take into account a person's behavior, and Democrats, who contend that the practice of hiking rates on past balances prevent consumers from climbing out of debt.

The agreement was included as part of a broader package on credit card reform, announced Monday by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn. The bill was expected to pass this week with President Barack Obama's support.

Dodd had originally proposed an outright ban on retroactive rate increases. But without Republican support, his bill was considered unlikely to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The latest proposal would prohibit lenders from increasing interest rates on past buys unless the cardholder has fallen at least 60 days behind. At the same time, lenders would be required to review a cardholder's terms every six months.

"It makes a strong point to the industry that if they are going to change the terms of a card based on (risk) factors, it should be a two-way street," said Nick Bourke, manager of the Safe Credit Cards Project at the Pew Health Group.

Under the request by Republicans, the bill also would require the Federal Reserve to report to Congress every two years on the cost and availability of credit.

"Should this legislation become law, it is crucial that Congress carefully monitor its implementation and effect to ensure that this balance in design is also a balance in fact," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Banking Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters on Monday that he thinks Republicans are jumping on board because they don't have a choice.

"I think they've come to the realization that there are a lot of good things they can be involved in. They can go home and take credit for helping us do this," said Reid, D-Nev.

Reid said the recent party switch by Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., also has forced Republicans to become "more realistic."

Debate on the bill comes as the Center for Responsible Lending estimated that some 10 million cardholders have seen their interest rates increase in the last six months for no particular reason. Many cardholders have seen increases of 10 percentage points or more, the group says.

The Senate bill would require that promotional rates last at least six months. It also prohibits rate increases in the first year after an account is opened.

Other provisions in the bill would:

-- Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults.

--Require lenders to give customers 45 days notice before increasing rates and mail their bills 21 days before the balance is due.

--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.

--Prohibit over-the-limit fees unless a cardholder elects to be allowed to go over their limit.

--Require lenders to say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.

--Require that gift cards remain valid for five years.

The bill would go into effect nine months after enactment. The House passed its own version of the bill in April by a 357-70 vote.

Not sure yet, but overall it seems to be pretty positive reform. I like the fact that default would only affect balances going forward.

The one part so far that I don't like is "Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults."

Seriously, if they're 18 and can bind themselves to a contract they should be able to get a card. If they default on that contract, it's on them. This attack on the age of majority is just as ridiculous as the drinking age. You can drive a car, have a kid, buy a house, play professional sports, or serve in the military but you can't have a beer or a credit card. :disgust:
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,037
21
81
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Here's an idea - personal responsibility.

You obviously did not read the article, or care to participate in intellectual debate.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.

I like this idea. Never understood the reasoning behind this, seems like it's just a way to squeeze more money out of people who wait until the last minute and have to pay using these methods. Last I heard BoA charges $15 or something like that just to pay your bill over the phone.

The extra requirements for people under 21 seem reasonable to me. As long as people under 21 can still get cards without having to jump through too many hoops I don't have a problem with it. I just wouldn't want to deprive responsible people under 21 of the convenience of having a credit card.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Here's an idea - personal responsibility.

Ah yes, deal with the normative and not the reality. Compassionate conservatism at its finest.

(this refers more to the orgy of available credit shoved down the throat of college freshmen, a cohort with no jobs, no income, no credit history or experience in dealing with debt, known for notoriously bad judgment, and already indebted thousands in student loans)
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.

I like this idea. Never understood the reasoning behind this, seems like it's just a way to squeeze more money out of people who wait until the last minute and have to pay using these methods. Last I heard BoA charges $15 or something like that just to pay your bill over the phone.

The extra requirements for people under 21 seem reasonable to me. As long as people under 21 can still get cards without having to jump through too many hoops I don't have a problem with it. I just wouldn't want to deprive responsible people under 21 of the convenience of having a credit card.

Really? I paid by phone for no fee. Shrug. No fee online for BoA also.

But I still agree that this is all responsibility because basically nothing in CC reform will affect me because why? I pay my bills on time in full.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Really? Maybe I'm mistaken and it was another bank. :eek:

edit: OK, I guess it's free to make a payment by phone from a BoA account, but they charge $15 if the payment is from another bank. There may be some fees between banks so I could understand a small charge, but $15 seems excessive to me.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/c....cfm?template=faq#ccp1

so the bank should amortize the costs across all users instead of charging a fee for a service to the direct user of that service? why should i have to pay for you to have some other payment option?

and why limit 'can you pay this' to 21 and under? anyone who wants credit should have to prove they they can pay it back...

why, the govt should set all the rules and criteria under which it will allow a private company to extend credit to anyone and solve the whole problem...

hell, let's just have the govt take over the entire credit/lending business that's the cure for all of this...
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Well I doubt BoA incurs anywhere near $15 for doing an EFT from another bank. I do EFTs all the time through PayPal for example and they don't charge for this payment method, so I'd assume the fees associated with this are minimal. Like I said I'm not necessarily against a service fee, just saying that $15 seems very excessive.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
As much as I hate gubment interference in any of this I have always had a severe problem with the clauses in card agreements like "can change the terms for any reasons at any time". Some common sense legislation already exists (some bill passed 2-6 years ago? Some consumer protection stuff) and it wouldn't hurt to expand that to prevent the outrageous terms the credit card companies get away with.

Yes I understand that I signed up for it and agreed to it, but really don't like the ability to change the terms so severely. No line of credit that I know of has such a thing either by law or by competition.

-- Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults.
Good idea, gotta prove you can pay it.

--Require lenders to give customers 45 days notice before increasing rates and mail their bills 21 days before the balance is due.
Somewhat already being done.

--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.
Only shitty banks do this anyway


--Prohibit over-the-limit fees unless a cardholder elects to be allowed to go over their limit.
meh, you shouldn't be going over the limit so you face whatever stupidity penalty there is.

--Require lenders to say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.
BIG HELL YES. If only to open people's eyes that never learned how interest works.

--Require that gift cards remain valid for five years.
No reason not to do this.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: spidey07
As much as I hate gubment interference in any of this I have always had a severe problem with the clauses in card agreements like "can change the terms for any reasons at any time". Some common sense legislation already exists (some bill passed 2-6 years ago? Some consumer protection stuff) and it wouldn't hurt to expand that to prevent the outrageous terms the credit card companies get away with.

Yes I understand that I signed up for it and agreed to it, but really don't like the ability to change the terms so severely. No line of credit that I know of has such a thing either by law or by competition.

-- Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults.
Good idea, gotta prove you can pay it.

--Require lenders to give customers 45 days notice before increasing rates and mail their bills 21 days before the balance is due.
Somewhat already being done.

--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.
Only shitty banks do this anyway


--Prohibit over-the-limit fees unless a cardholder elects to be allowed to go over their limit.
meh, you shouldn't be going over the limit so you face whatever stupidity penalty there is.

--Require lenders to say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.
BIG HELL YES. If only to open people's eyes that never learned how interest works.

--Require that gift cards remain valid for five years.
No reason not to do this.

The "consumer protection act" or whatever it was, was nothing more than a sham piece of legislation put forward by credit industry lobbyists and pushed through by pro-corporate Repuglicans. It was said to lower borrowing costs, but all post-act studies who that it *increased* borrowing costs. It also is currently preventing faster renegotiation of mortgages and debt.

Overall, it was a giant scam perpetrated by the credit industry and their cronies.

If you really want credit change, the following are *musts*.


1. No double-cycle billing. Charging interest on interest is a crime when the principal balance was paid off.

2. No "universal defaults". Unless you have cross-default language in the credit agreements, which you have to specifically sign and acknowledge, as a line item, then cross default increased pricing should be outlawed.

3. No rate increases on current balances.

4. Delinquent charges only on 30+ day delinquencies and capped at 1% annual rate, or $10, whichever is more.

5. No interest on charges.

6. No "overlimit" fees. If you are over limit, you get denied. Period. Everything else is bullshit. If you want an override, call the company and then they can charge you, but I would advocate that they give you a temp increase up to 10% of your available credit.

7. No interest -> principal, interest should not be capitalized into the balance on the card, especially considering when they do this they can then charge over-limit fees.

8. No over-limit fees on any delinquency, interest, or over-limit fees. No "extra" fee should create over-limit fees.

9. No decreasing credit limit down to the current outstanding. If there is to be a decrease, it *must* be 10% over the current principal balance.

I worked for a CC company in their treasury/securitization department for a year. I absolutely hated it, I felt like the scum of the planet, just knowing how much they fought for letting consumers continue to get fucked.

It's like indentured servitude and it should be stopped. The above 9 things would help significantly.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I don't think I could disagree with any of those 9 changes. That sounds like a normal line of credit. I just don't know what make credit cards so different.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Here's an idea - personal responsibility.

Ah yes, deal with the normative and not the reality. Compassionate conservatism at its finest.

(this refers more to the orgy of available credit shoved down the throat of college freshmen, a cohort with no jobs, no income, no credit history or experience in dealing with debt, known for notoriously bad judgment, and already indebted thousands in student loans)

How is it that personal responsibility can not be reality?
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: spidey07
As much as I hate gubment interference in any of this I have always had a severe problem with the clauses in card agreements like "can change the terms for any reasons at any time". Some common sense legislation already exists (some bill passed 2-6 years ago? Some consumer protection stuff) and it wouldn't hurt to expand that to prevent the outrageous terms the credit card companies get away with.

Yes I understand that I signed up for it and agreed to it, but really don't like the ability to change the terms so severely. No line of credit that I know of has such a thing either by law or by competition.

-- Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults.
Good idea, gotta prove you can pay it.

--Require lenders to give customers 45 days notice before increasing rates and mail their bills 21 days before the balance is due.
Somewhat already being done.

--Ban fees if customers want to pay their bills by phone or online.
Only shitty banks do this anyway


--Prohibit over-the-limit fees unless a cardholder elects to be allowed to go over their limit.
meh, you shouldn't be going over the limit so you face whatever stupidity penalty there is.

--Require lenders to say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.
BIG HELL YES. If only to open people's eyes that never learned how interest works.

--Require that gift cards remain valid for five years.
No reason not to do this.

The "consumer protection act" or whatever it was, was nothing more than a sham piece of legislation put forward by credit industry lobbyists and pushed through by pro-corporate Repuglicans. It was said to lower borrowing costs, but all post-act studies who that it *increased* borrowing costs. It also is currently preventing faster renegotiation of mortgages and debt.

Overall, it was a giant scam perpetrated by the credit industry and their cronies.

If you really want credit change, the following are *musts*.


1. No double-cycle billing. Charging interest on interest is a crime when the principal balance was paid off.

2. No "universal defaults". Unless you have cross-default language in the credit agreements, which you have to specifically sign and acknowledge, as a line item, then cross default increased pricing should be outlawed.

3. No rate increases on current balances.

4. Delinquent charges only on 30+ day delinquencies and capped at 1% annual rate, or $10, whichever is more.

5. No interest on charges.

6. No "overlimit" fees. If you are over limit, you get denied. Period. Everything else is bullshit. If you want an override, call the company and then they can charge you, but I would advocate that they give you a temp increase up to 10% of your available credit.

7. No interest -> principal, interest should not be capitalized into the balance on the card, especially considering when they do this they can then charge over-limit fees.

8. No over-limit fees on any delinquency, interest, or over-limit fees. No "extra" fee should create over-limit fees.

9. No decreasing credit limit down to the current outstanding. If there is to be a decrease, it *must* be 10% over the current principal balance.

I worked for a CC company in their treasury/securitization department for a year. I absolutely hated it, I felt like the scum of the planet, just knowing how much they fought for letting consumers continue to get fucked.

It's like indentured servitude and it should be stopped. The above 9 things would help significantly.

Nice list. I would add one more I absolutely hated.
10.) Regular and consistent due dates.

My mortgage payment is always due the same day, as are my car payments, cell bills, etc etc. They bounce around the due date to screw you up and get to charge late fees. No reason the card cant be due every 3rd day of the month or whatever.

CCs are heavily designed to have traps to trip up customers into paying huge fees and interest. I don't see how letting them continue frankly abusive practices benefits the public. Not only that, due to interstate banking laws, individual states cannot enforce consumer protection laws to reign in the CCs. Instead CCs camp out in a few states with very lax laws and pay so much money into the state, the local lawmakers dare not challenge them. Ever notice how nearly all your CCs come from either DE or ND?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/view/">
PBS Frontline: Fantastic program on the inner workings and evolution of the CC industry. Must watch.</a>
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Dodd had originally proposed an outright ban on retroactive rate increases. But without Republican support, his bill was considered unlikely to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

Ahh nice, repubs voting in the interests of their constituents again.

We know how much retroactive rate bumps help the average american.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Really? Maybe I'm mistaken and it was another bank. :eek:

edit: OK, I guess it's free to make a payment by phone from a BoA account, but they charge $15 if the payment is from another bank. There may be some fees between banks so I could understand a small charge, but $15 seems excessive to me.

http://www.bankofamerica.com/c....cfm?template=faq#ccp1

I had a BOA card for a little while, and they did charge 12 or 15 for a phone payment. You cold pay online, but you had to pay several days before the due date or it was late.

Eg: due on the 12th, you had to pay by the 9th or 10th or it was late. You could pay on the 11th, but you had to pay an "expedited payment fee" of $12 so it wasn't late. Even if you paid on the 12th, that was considered late, and you get charged ~$45. Bullshit. For somebody making min wage or so, that fee could equal a whole days wage.

Have a card thru barclays now, and they don't pull that shit. You can pay upto 7pm or so on the day its due and its fine. BOA can rot. Maybe diff cards have diff rules, but the BOA card I had def worked like that.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
The reason I do not use credit cards... I can make a purchase. Get home in 10 minutes, log in to my account and see the transaction. But if I try to make a payment online on a Friday at 3:00 p.m., the earliest it will post is Monday or Tuesday. Not all cards are like this... but they know who they are!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Bitek

Nice list. I would add one more I absolutely hated.
10.) Regular and consistent due dates.

My mortgage payment is always due the same day, as are my car payments, cell bills, etc etc. They bounce around the due date to screw you up and get to charge late fees. No reason the card cant be due every 3rd day of the month or whatever.

CCs are heavily designed to have traps to trip up customers into paying huge fees and interest. I don't see how letting them continue frankly abusive practices benefits the public. Not only that, due to interstate banking laws, individual states cannot enforce consumer protection laws to reign in the CCs. Instead CCs camp out in a few states with very lax laws and pay so much money into the state, the local lawmakers dare not challenge them. Ever notice how nearly all your CCs come from either DE or ND?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/view/">
PBS Frontline: Fantastic program on the inner workings and evolution of the CC industry. Must watch.</a>


Ahhh, good one that I missed. As you said, this is one that they love playing. The "days in billing cycle" game.

I had one card that went from a due date of the 23rd one month to 18th the next. I had a small balance on it and was paying it off, supposedly, on the 23rd, since I only get paperless statements, but do check the cards every week for activity, I noticed the change.

When I called up, they said it was the "billing cycle" that changed, according to the number of days in the month. I then asked her what the maximum number of days differential between one month to the next could be, she said 5, since that is how many mine switched. LOL.

I asked her name the three months with greatest day disparity. She said January, February, March. I asked how many days disparity is there. She said 3.

How the fuck does 3 = 5?

Does Jan or March suddenly have 33 days? Or does Feb only have 26?

I work in securitization, for a CC company, a timeshare company, and I have structured or managed more than 2 dozen other deals, and can tell you that the *only* time that an asset backed securitization bond will have a different payment date is if that date falls on the weekend or holiday, otherwise it is *always* the same exact day. For maybe 90% of securitization deals, that day is the 15th of every month.

Why is it that almost all loans/credit keep the same date, almost all securitizations backed by those loans/credit keep the same date, but magically, these fuckers can make any date the due-date?
 

txrandom

Diamond Member
Aug 15, 2004
3,773
0
71
I'm glad I turn 21 soon. I don't want to prove to them that I can pay back debt...when I already have for nearly the past three years.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller [...]
6. No "overlimit" fees. If you are over limit, you get denied. Period. Everything else is bullshit. If you want an override, call the company and then they can charge you, but I would advocate that they give you a temp increase up to 10% of your available credit.

[...]

:thumbsup:
I l really like this.
They allow overages as a 'courtesy'. Then are 'courteous' and charge you an over the limit fee.

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
While I'm not normally supportive of government constraints on contracts between private parties, I won't shed any tears for the CC industry. The fact that their "contracts" are written such that they get to change the terms of the contract at any time, for any reason basically flips the bird to contract law.

Let 'em rot.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,525
2,727
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
-- Require anyone under 21 to prove that he or she can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off the debt if he or she defaults.
Good idea, gotta prove you can pay it.

My problem with this item is the ridiculosity of it. Why does your ability to pay change suddenly when you hit 21? Most people that go to college straight out of HS are still in school at 21. People who work out of HS have been working for 3-4 years. It's an arbitrary and ridiculous limit that further erodes the age of majority. Either EVERYONE has to prove ability to repay or no one does. Anything else is stupid.
 

coloumb

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,096
0
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Why is it that almost all loans/credit keep the same date, almost all securitizations backed by those loans/credit keep the same date, but magically, these fuckers can make any date the due-date?

Because they can and have been getting away with this crap for a long time. Just as they can raise interest rates to make up for lost profits due to the recession - they can pretty much get away with anything they want.

Here's another kick in the face to the consumer which I've only encountered with one credit card [which has since been closed]:

One of my former credit cards payment system was setup so it wouldn't add in any overdue balance into the next billing cycle - it would just spit out the minimum balance due and then automatically add late fees to the previous months unpaid balance. So - if for some reason, you missed a payment - next month's billing cycle would only show the minimum amount due [it would be the same] and the system wouldn't add in the payment you missed from the previous month. How fucked up is that?

If anything needs serious reform next - it's the damn credit card system.