U.S. No Banking thread:4-19-07 Democratic led congress to fix "broken" system

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
About time:

Here is something Democrats are doing about the corruption that Republicans are the cause of.

Of course banking is not new but the fees, interest rates and charges that have occured the last seven years by Republican mob rule is in fact new.

Democrats are threatening to regulate the corrupt banking industyr but I bet they won;t because many of them I'm sure have deep ties to the industry as well as every other corrupt industry.

It's just good to see the pure theivery by the Republicans is being brought out in the open now:

3-7-2007 Democratic Panel slams banks over credit practices allowed to happen by Republicans

WASHINGTON - An Ohio man whose $3,200 credit card debt mushroomed to $10,700 with interest and fees told his story Wednesday to senators who denounced the industry for confusing billing practices and shifting interest rates.

Executives of three major banks defended their credit card practices as responsible and responsive to consumers' needs in testimony at the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' investigative subcommittee.

Those from Citigroup Inc. and Chase Bank USA said their companies were eliminating some practices ? including the one that hit Wesley Wannemacher of Lima, Ohio, with over-limit fees on his Chase card account 47 times although he went over his credit limit only three times.

The interest charges and fees on Wannemacher's account more than tripled his debt despite his having made payments averaging $1,000 a year over six years, noted Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the subcommittee's chairman.

"Unfair? Clearly, I think," Levin said. He said an investigation by the panel found that "sky-high interest charges and fees are not uncommon in the credit card industry. While the Wannemacher account happened to be at Chase, penalty interest rates and fees are also employed by Bank of America, Citigroup and other major credit card issuers."

Wannemacher used a new Chase card in 2001 and 2002 to pay for expenses mostly related to his wedding.

He had $3,200 in purchases, interest charges of $4,900, 47 over-limit charges totaling $1,500, late fees of $1,100, for total charges of $10,700 as of February.

He paid $6,300, leaving a $4,400 balance ? which Chase agreed to waive after he contacted the subcommittee staff.

While the credit card practices in question are legal, Levin is threatening possible legislation to outlaw them as a spur to the banking industry for voluntary changes.

Citigroup, the nation's largest financial institution, announced last week that it was eliminating the practice of so-called universal default ? raising interest rates for card customers because of their failure to pay other creditors on time. In addition, Citigroup said it would eliminate some types of interest rate increases that have been criticized.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,521
598
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.

Actually...they will raise your interest rate just because your credit score is lowered.

We remodeled our house a bit last year and relied on credit for some of it.

My wife was never late and for no reason she would get letter in the mail saying that her rate was going from 10.99 to 29.99.

She could opt out and it would close the account. We complained the first two times it happened and they would fix the rate. On the third time we told them to close the account. When its paid off we are done with them forever.

We owe them a total of about $2600 and have never been late.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: JD50
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.

Actually...they will raise your interest rate just because your credit score is lowered.

We remodeled our house a bit last year and relied on credit for some of it.

My wife was never late and for no reason she would get letter in the mail saying that her rate was going from 10.99 to 29.99.

She could opt out and it would close the account. We complained the first two times it happened and they would fix the rate. On the third time we told them to close the account. When its paid off we are done with them forever.

We owe them a total of about $2600 and have never been late.

I have heard of that kind of thing happening, although its never happened to me. I even had a few late payments when I was younger and less responsible. But it cases like yours, it is definitely messed up, even though technically we all agree to that kind of thing in the terms of the card.

But I was mainly referring to the part of the OP that said "He had $3,200 in purchases, interest charges of $4,900, 47 over-limit charges totaling $1,500, late fees of $1,100, for total charges of $10,700 as of February."
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.

/agree.

But

W T F does this have to do with Dems or Repubs? Dems cant do ANYTHING but "suggest" banks lower their fees. They certainly cant strongarm them lol
 

DerekP

Member
Mar 7, 2007
32
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.

Under normal circumstances, I would write this off as what I call a stupid tax. Go over the limit, pay the fee, remember next time. However, 47 charges for 3 events? Don't you think that's excessive?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
The controls on credit have been an issue since credit began. Even the bible talks of Jesus and the moneychangers.
Credit is something that all governments regulate ,as it should be. It seems that perhaps the credit card companies need to be reigned in a bit with legislation.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Mardeth
Lower credit score = higher risk = higher rates....
Money loaned at one rate, should stay at that rate, with only adjustments made according to the prime rate, as along as the person pays his or her payments on time, or only has a one or two minor late payments. Fees agreed upon at the issuance of the card should only be allowed to change with inflation and no additional fees can be added on money already borrowed.
Simple as that.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: DerekP
Originally posted by: JD50
Here's a thought, if you aren't responsible enough to pay your credit card bills on time and not go over the limit, don't get a credit card. Or better yet, don't spend more than you make. Problem solved.

Under normal circumstances, I would write this off as what I call a stupid tax. Go over the limit, pay the fee, remember next time. However, 47 charges for 3 events? Don't you think that's excessive?


Yea, it could be, but who knows how it happened, what the charges were, etc... Just not enough information given. My guess is that he got most of those charges on the second or third time. But I could be wrong. Sounds to me like the guy got in way over his head, and not just for living expenses because he was laid off or something like that. I just avoid the whole thing, I don't buy what I can't pay for at that time. I do use credit cards and things for furniture, big purchases, things like that if its one of those no interest for a year deals. But I make sure that I have the cash sitting in a bank getting %5 interest the whole time, so if something like that does happen I can pay it off right away.
 

DerekP

Member
Mar 7, 2007
32
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50

Yea, it could be, but who knows how it happened, what the charges were, etc... Just not enough information given. My guess is that he got most of those charges on the second or third time. But I could be wrong. Sounds to me like the guy got in way over his head, and not just for living expenses because he was laid off or something like that. I just avoid the whole thing, I don't buy what I can't pay for at that time. I do use credit cards and things for furniture, big purchases, things like that if its one of those no interest for a year deals. But I make sure that I have the cash sitting in a bank getting %5 interest the whole time, so if something like that does happen I can pay it off right away.

True. I think Americans would be a lot better off if we could learn to live within their means and wean ourselves off the credit.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Mardeth
Lower credit score = higher risk = higher rates....

Having just left a credit card company's treasury function and being privy to some of the practices that go on in the industry (not at this company) I can say that it's not that cut and dry.

1. Universal repricing. Credit reports get hit for any number of items, including loan inquiries, apartment credit checks, or a myriad of other reasons. Every one of these items can lower your credit score. The result of which can be a repricing of your card. It doesn't even have to be an actual credit event, such as a delinquency, default, or anything like that. Furthermore, they are very reluctant to actally reprice *DOWN*. Many companies will auto reprice up and not auto reprice down and only do repricing based upon inquiries, which is then sometimes hard to get.

2. Trailing interest. As mentioned in other articles, even though you may pay an intra-month balance of 5,000 off in the billing cycle for that month *and* agreements state you get a 30-day grace period, some companies *still* charge you interest, receiving the bill in the following month. Then, if you get charged interest from that it's thjen charged interest on top, thus you can get get charged for two additional months.

3. Hard to read print, leagalese, auto-repricing, no notice of change in terms...etc. All of these are really abused in the industry. Many companies hide stuff, make them intentionally confusing, and also intentionally mislead.

4. 1-day late fees over computer. Many companies treat payment remittance differently. It used to be that if you were within 48hrs of due-date your payment was on time. Now they have changed that to much shorter time periods, if not the same day. Even if you *never* had a credit event in your life and you are 12 hours late on a payment, you get repriced. Even though it will never hit your credit report.

In this industry risk doesn't always equate to a cost in alignment with that risk. A 1-day late payment doesn't equate to increased risk, but they take it as a reason to reprice instantly, no matter actual historical or even current events.

The credit card industry, as a whole, is pretty deplorable. Their losses aren't that huge, not nearly as big as they'd like you to believe, but their interest charges are very very high. For most super-prime customers you should never get charged more than 8-9% and you should not be repriced unless you have an actual bureau reported event. Yet CC companies will reprice you up to 19.99+ in a heartbeat.

Why? Because they'll still pay rock-bottom funding costs for your asset and their spread will be much higher. It's a money printing machine for them.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Aside from Dave's usual partisan hackery, I agree.

Banks, CC institutions have some really bad, unfair and deceptive practices.

And some of you who are saying late fees are the consequences of irresponsible people, think again. The banks/CC co.s allege late payments in many case where it's not true.

I know a couple of people in this town who've taken the companies to court and won nice awards. They had the "smarts" to send their payments "certified", and even though the payments were timely (and they could prove it) they got dinged for late fees and interest rate increases.

Fern
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Mardeth
Lower credit score = higher risk = higher rates....

Having just left a credit card company's treasury function and being privy to some of the practices that go on in the industry (not at this company) I can say that it's not that cut and dry.


4. 1-day late fees over computer. Many companies treat payment remittance differently. It used to be that if you were within 48hrs of due-date your payment was on time. Now they have changed that to much shorter time periods, if not the same day. Even if you *never* had a credit event in your life and you are 12 hours late on a payment, you get repriced. Even though it will never hit your credit report.

The credit card industry, as a whole, is pretty deplorable.

Their losses aren't that huge, not nearly as big as they'd like you to believe, but their interest charges are very very high. For most super-prime customers you should never get charged more than 8-9% and you should not be repriced unless you have an actual bureau reported event. Yet CC companies will reprice you up to 19.99+ in a heartbeat.

Why? Because they'll still pay rock-bottom funding costs for your asset and their spread will be much higher. It's a money printing machine for them.

I'm a bit surpised top see your post. :shocked:

Also glad to see you touched upon the nefarious use of the computer by this scam industry with the time issue. :thumbsup:
 

dwcal

Senior member
Jul 21, 2004
765
0
0
There's another part to this. Remember the bankruptcy bill that passed about a year ago? It was a total one-sided giveaway to the corporate lobbyists. The banks were saying that by making it harder to file bankruptcy, it reduces their risk of lending and therefore they could charge lower interest rates. Seen any lower rates on your credit cards yet? I didn't think so.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
Originally posted by: techs
The controls on credit have been an issue since credit began. Even the bible talks of Jesus and the moneychangers.
Credit is something that all governments regulate ,as it should be. It seems that perhaps the credit card companies need to be reigned in a bit with legislation.

THe CCs arent the only ones to blame. A lot of these people lack personal responsibility.

The guy in the article is just totally incompetent if he let his account get that way.

People need to stop living outside their means, or face the consequences.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: techs
The controls on credit have been an issue since credit began. Even the bible talks of Jesus and the moneychangers.
Credit is something that all governments regulate ,as it should be. It seems that perhaps the credit card companies need to be reigned in a bit with legislation.

THe CCs arent the only ones to blame. A lot of these people lack personal responsibility.

The guy in the article is just totally incompetent if he let his account get that way.

People need to stop living outside their means, or face the consequences.
How ,much money are you making off these irresponsible idot Americans you hate so much?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
First off, no credit card transactions occur w/o authorization. Anytime the card issuer authorizes a transaction that puts the borrower's balance above the theoretical limit, they've fundamentally raised that borrower's credit limit. They can decline any charge on that basis alone, yet didn't do so...

It's also fundamentally unreasonable to raise rates on balances outstanding for any reason, no matter what the fine print allows. The practice should be banned entirely. Reasonable late charges should be allowed. If a borrower's risk factor changes, then that should be reflected in any new borrowing.

Banks have also been using some exceedingly shady practices wrt overdraft charges on checking accounts, not to mention the means employed to sell people mortgages on overpriced property that the borrower really can't afford...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
First off, no credit card transactions occur w/o authorization. Anytime the card issuer authorizes a transaction that puts the borrower's balance above the theoretical limit, they've fundamentally raised that borrower's credit limit. They can decline any charge on that basis alone, yet didn't do so...

It's also fundamentally unreasonable to raise rates on balances outstanding for any reason, no matter what the fine print allows. The practice should be banned entirely. Reasonable late charges should be allowed. If a borrower's risk factor changes, then that should be reflected in any new borrowing.

Banks have also been using some exceedingly shady practices wrt overdraft charges on checking accounts, not to mention the means employed to sell people mortgages on overpriced property that the borrower really can't afford...
Yeah, because irrationally exhuberant buyers singing "You can't lose with real estate!" had nothing to do with that!

:roll:

Please tell me what industry you work in so that I can slam it with a tirade of lies based on ignorance and half-truths.


On topic, credit cards are like a double-edged sword. On one side, you can borrow, pay off, and re-borrow at your convenience. On the other side, they are monthly revolving accounts. It is the average consumer's ignorance of the latter that leads to the majority of the problems and abuses. It shouldn't be a mystery, but for some reason it is.
If you don't like it, there are other, far superior, more cost-effective, and more stable ways of borrowing money, as any financial planner would tell you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Yeah, because irrationally exhuberant buyers singing "You can't lose with real estate!" had nothing to do with that!

We both know they're just singing along with the bouncing ball, Vic. That exuberance has been heavily promoted by the lending industry. It's how they generate their fees. The same sort of stuff presaged the stock market downturn a few years back, with brokerages leading the song...

It's not personal, it's just the truth. Lenders have bent over backwards the last few years to find ways to qualify homebuyers, to earn their fees. Some of the truly creative financing options available merely reinforce that POV. Few mortgages are held past a few years by the original lenders, they're discounted and sold off to maintain liquidity, often via quasi-governmental agencies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Risk exposure to the original lender is quite low as a consequence.

If you don't like it, there are other, far superior, more cost-effective, and more stable ways of borrowing money, as any financial planner would tell you.

True, to a point, which in no way justifies the practices of the credit card industry.

And there are a lot of other money making ventures available to lenders, as well. If legal requirements wrt credit cards don't suit their fancy, they can avail themselves of those avenues. Meanwhile, of course, they'll seek to maximize profit using whatever means the law allows.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeah, because irrationally exhuberant buyers singing "You can't lose with real estate!" had nothing to do with that!

We both know they're just singing along with the bouncing ball, Vic. That exuberance has been heavily promoted by the lending industry. It's how they generate their fees. The same sort of stuff presaged the stock market downturn a few years back, with brokerages leading the song...

It's not personal, it's just the truth. Lenders have bent over backwards the last few years to find ways to qualify homebuyers, to earn their fees. Some of the truly creative financing options available merely reinforce that POV. Few mortgages are held past a few years by the original lenders, they're discounted and sold off to maintain liquidity, often via quasi-governmental agencies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Risk exposure to the original lender is quite low as a consequence.

If you don't like it, there are other, far superior, more cost-effective, and more stable ways of borrowing money, as any financial planner would tell you.

True, to a point, which in no way justifies the practices of the credit card industry.

And there are a lot of other money making ventures available to lenders, as well. If legal requirements wrt credit cards don't suit their fancy, they can avail themselves of those avenues. Meanwhile, of course, they'll seek to maximize profit using whatever means the law allows.

You didn't answer my question. Your skewed view of the world is lovely but stupid. I imagine though that it feels you with a warm glow believing that all is conspiracy to fsck people over. Unfortunately, it blinds you to the fact that if your premise is wrong, then so must be your conclusions.

So what glorious profession was that you had? Obviously you must do only charity and other such good deeds, refusing all payment for your services...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
First off, no credit card transactions occur w/o authorization. Anytime the card issuer authorizes a transaction that puts the borrower's balance above the theoretical limit, they've fundamentally raised that borrower's credit limit. They can decline any charge on that basis alone, yet didn't do so...

It's also fundamentally unreasonable to raise rates on balances outstanding for any reason, no matter what the fine print allows. The practice should be banned entirely. Reasonable late charges should be allowed. If a borrower's risk factor changes, then that should be reflected in any new borrowing.

Banks have also been using some exceedingly shady practices wrt overdraft charges on checking accounts, not to mention the means employed to sell people mortgages on overpriced property that the borrower really can't afford...

Funny you mention that.

I had Wells Fargo (Denver) just recently wipe my checking account out with bogus overdraft charges where they said I initiated the transactions that caused the overdraft. I did no such thing as I had not touched that account in four months.

I wrote them a letter asking them to explain why they stole all the money out of my account and they have yet to respond.

I am in touch with BBB and contacting the Attorney General's office.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
I just got a mailing the other day, that because of something obtained from my Equifax file, my interest rate is being raised from the 9.9% it was, to an ungodly 27.88% I have zero late payments, and zero overlimits on that card.

This would effect me only if I carried a balance on that card. I pay it in full each month, so they gain nothing.

Now, here's something funny. I had a $1500 limit on that card. I get a second mailing yesterday, congratulating me on my prompt payment history, and informing me that new credit limit is $5000.

I had to chuckle, as I can see the game. They want me to max out that $5000 card, then have to pay it back at 27.88% I guess they figured if they gave me a substantial limit increase, I would hang myself, and not be able to pay off my balance. Oh well. I cut up the card, and while I won't close it, I'm sure they'll wonder why I'm no longer charging on it. :)

Credit card companies are evil, and need to be brought to task, for these kinds of things. OTOH, people who don't pay on time, or constantly exceed their limits, well I think fees are appropriate.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Somewhere in all of this, you haven't really shown that my comments were untrue, Vic, just expressed your usual derision and bitterness, seeking to justify corrupt, predatory and exploitative practices.

That's what stupid and/or uneducated people are for, right? It's the basic moral underpinning of "Libertarian" posturing.

Your snide question? And the usual personal vendetta? Off topic. You'd already know the answer, anyway, if it wasn't all about you.