PDA

View Full Version : Some credit card rules to be revamped in the US.


Claydon
12-18-2008, 03:58 PM
Calling many credit card company tactics "unfair," "unreasonable," and "deceptive," federal regulators on Thursday unveiled sweeping new rules aimed at protecting consumers. They then invited card issuers to continue those unfair tactics for the next 18 months.

A 300-page report by the Office of Thrift Supervision described bank misbehavior in great detail, at times using stinging language. It then laid out updated federal regulations that will bar many such practices.

The new rules, for example, limit card issuers' ability to raise interest rates in the first year after they issue a card. They also severely curtail banks' ability to retroactively raise interest rates on consumers' existing balances, including penalties levied when the a payment arrives a few days late.

And card issuers won’t be able to toy with “grace periods,” as they have in the past. Instead, banks must give consumers at least 21 days to pay their bills, and they are prohibited from double-cycle billing, which retroactively applies interest charges to purchases made after a consumer fails to pay their bill on time.

The Office of Thrift Supervision report uses the term "deceptive" more than 100 times in describing the banks’ practices and "unfair" more than 200 times.

But the three agencies cooperating on the rules -- the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Reserve, and the National Credit Union Administration -- also gave the banks a generous grace period. The new rules will not take effect until July 1, 2010.

Linda Sherry, director of national priorities for advocacy group Consumer Action, hailed the rules as "great" for consumers, but sharply criticized the delay in their implementation.

"The fact that they are waiting 18 months in this economy is a disaster," she said. "That will give the credit card companies time to reprice their consumers and do all kinds of tricks. (Regulators) should have made it much shorter."

No ruling on overdrafts, over-the-limit fees
The regulators also decided not to make rules inhibiting banks' ability to hit card users with over-the-limit fees -- an issue of recent concern as many issuers lower consumers' credit limits. And the agencies removed provisions in their initial proposal in May, which would have restricted banks’ ability to levy overdraft fees, another thorn in the side of consumers. Both issues can be reconsidered at a later time.

Despite such omissions, many of the most unpopular credit card tactics will be outlawed by the new rules. For example:
• Banks will have to send bills at least 21 days before payments are due, and midday payment- due cutoff times will no longer be allowed. When due dates fall on weekends, consumers also will be granted extra days to pay.
• When multiple interest rates apply to different types of balances on the same card, banks will be prohibited from applying payments in a way that maximizes interest charges. This is a common problem for those who utilize balance transfers. Transferred balances usually incur interest at very low teaser rates, but new charges are hit with a much higher rate. Traditionally, banks apply interest to the transfer balance, maximizing their return and effectively making a consumer swap out low-priced credit for high-priced credit. The thrift supervisors said banks make an extra $930 million each year by applying payments this way. When the new rules go into effect, payments must be applied evenly across all types of balances, or in a way that's more advantageous to consumers.
• Many banks now go back to the previous billing cycle when computing interest rates, a practice called double-cycle billing. For example, a consumer who fails to pay a bill due Jan. 5 will see interest charges levied on items purchased during December, even if that was a grace period. Once the new rules are in place, interest charges on average daily balances must be computed using only a single month's transactions.
• There are also many provisions for making credit card statements and terms easier to understand.

But the main gain for consumers is a prohibition on many kinds of retroactive interest charges that are routinely charged by credit card companies. Currently, consumers who have their interest rates hiked have their entire outstanding balance subjected to the new rate. For instance, a consumer who borrowed $2,000 for auto repairs 12 months ago, and is paying that back at 9 percent, could see the interest rate on that balance rise to 29 percent "at any time for any reason," according to most card issuers' terms of service. Regulators said banks make $11 billion each year through such retroactive interest charges.

Under the new rules, interest rate increases will only apply to purchases made after the rate hike takes effect for most consumers.

"So people who just kind of miss a payment by a few days will no longer get caught in this," Sherry said.
Consumers who are 30 days late, however, are not exempt from retroactive charges, making the penalty for letting accounts become delinquent quite severe.

The provision might lead to confusion, however. Already, many consumers have three different interest rates on a single credit card – one for purchases, one for cash advances and one for balance transfers. This provision would add a fourth rate, by creating a rate for “new” purchases and a rate for “old” balances.

While consumers cheered regulators through the process -- a record 65,000 comments were filed, most of them positive -- banks resisted the changes, saying the limitations would increase interest rates on good consumers and reduce the availability of credit. Edward L. Yingling, CEO of the American Bankers Association, warned that Congress should expect unintended consequences as the new rules take effect.

“While the new rules are designed to increase protections for consumers, the Fed itself has recognized that they may result in increased costs for most card users and reduced credit availability, particularly for consumers with lower credit scores or limited credit history," he said. "With the uncertainty facing our financial system, it’s absolutely vital for policymakers to understand the full impact of these regulations on consumers and the economy before judging their success or further restricting the marketplace."

'Monetary harm constitutes injury'
In its report, the Office of Thrift Supervision rejected many of the arguments put forth by the credit card issuers to try and fend off the new rules, including the suggestion that cardholders can avoid all interest and fees by simply paying their bills on time. Credit cards are designed as borrowing instruments, the agency reasoned, and consumers shouldn't be expected to avoid mistreatment only "by paying their balances in full each month."

It also rebutted one bank argument that provides some insight into credit card issuer strategies: that the agency does not have jurisdiction because no harm could be proven against consumers "merely because other, less costly allocation methods exist."

The Office of Thrift Supervision replied that "it is well established ... that monetary harm constitutes an injury."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who has led the charge in Congress to enact similar protections through federal legislation, applauded the new rules. But she said there was still a need for her law, called the "Credit Card Users Bill of Rights." The legislation bill passed the House of Representatives earlier this year, but a companion bill stalled in the Senate.

“As one who’s been working for years to bring consumers the protections they need, I’m delighted to see the regulators take substantive action,” she said. “Finally, these practices have been declared what they are: ‘unfair’ and ‘deceptive. But while these new rules are a strong first step, I’ll be working with (Congress) to fill any gaps in protections for cardholders. These new rules aren’t scheduled to take effect until 2010; Congress should act sooner to protect American consumers."


http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/12/feds-banks-must.html

Morfin
12-18-2008, 08:49 PM
Yeah, all those mean credit card companies, forcing all those consumers to charge 'til they're way in over their heads.

Yes, some credit card companies are sleezy. But if people charged within their means and paid off their balance, or kept them at a reasonable size, none of these sleezy tactics would matter. I think this is another example of excusing reckless conduct and not forcing people to be responsible for the poor choices they are making.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 08:55 PM
Yeah, all those mean credit card companies, forcing all those consumers to charge 'til they're way in over their heads.

Yes, some credit card companies are sleezy. But if people charged within their means and paid off their balance, or kept them at a reasonable size, none of these sleezy tactics would matter. I think this is another example of excusing reckless conduct and not forcing people to be responsible for the poor choices they are making.

I agree with you to a point, however I was burned by a credit card company a number of years ago, they would delay posting payments until 1 day following the due date if payment was received within 6 days of the due date.

I think there needs to be a bit more regulation on credit card companies, and if that means they will only lend to 'credit worthy' types...so be it.

Genius
12-18-2008, 09:13 PM
It's all of the fine print that pisses me off. If this is the date, then your interest rate is this, but 73 days from last month, it will be this, until next week. If your balance is this, then your interest rate is this, but if it exceeds this at this time, then it jumps to this retroactive to three months ago. That is intentionally deceptive.

Debo
12-18-2008, 09:36 PM
It's all of the fine print that pisses me off. If this is the date, then your interest rate is this, but 73 days from last month, it will be this, until next week. If your balance is this, then your interest rate is this, but if it exceeds this at this time, then it jumps to this retroactive to three months ago. That is intentionally deceptive.

Blame the tort bar. If the CC companies weren't scared shitless of getting sued, we would have pages and pages of disclaimers to read through.

I agree with Morfin's statement above. Credit is extended, on an unsecured basis mind you, and it is up to you to show a bit of self control when you use your line of credit. The interest rate charge must be based on the credit profile of the borrower. And as your credit profile changes, the rate that you pay should change with it.

Since I know that someone (i.e., taters) is going to bitch about usury laws, here is a preemptive defense of usury. Here (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthUs1.html) is the best defense of usury out there.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 09:38 PM
Blame the tort bar. If the CC companies weren't scared shitless of getting sued, we would have pages and pages of disclaimers to read through.

I agree with Morfin's statement above. Credit is extended, on an unsecured basis mind you, and it is up to you to show a bit of self control when you use your line of credit. The interest rate charge must be based on the credit profile of the borrower. And as your credit profile changes, the rate that you pay should change with it.

Since I know that someone (i.e., taters) is going to bitch about usury laws, here is a preemptive defense of usury. Here (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthUs1.html) is the best defense of usury out there.

If your fico is below 600 due to bad debt, defaults, bankruptcy, then you shouldn't get a credit card.

just me

Debo
12-18-2008, 09:52 PM
If your fico is below 600 due to bad debt, defaults, bankruptcy, then you shouldn't get a credit card.

just me

That is up to the people that are willing to lend them money. No?

If they lend enough money out to people with bad credit and they charge them the proper interest rate (i.e., L + 850 or Prime + 600), everything will be fine.

Problems happen when people with bad credit pay the same rate as people with good credit (e.g., present day).

Remember that these are unsecured loans. Nobody puts up collateral for a credit card*. There are other penalties associated with defaulting on your CC, but losing your house, your car or the latest Girls Gone Wild video that you bought on your CC isn't any of them.

* Since these loans are not secured, people that are a higher credit risk need to pay a higher rate. I want to be very clear about this.

riseabove!
12-18-2008, 10:19 PM
The easiest solution would have been for people to stop buying more than they earn. Owait

Debo
12-18-2008, 10:39 PM
The easiest solution would have been for people to stop buying more than they earn. Owait

I don't think that congress can issue a law stating that you can't spend more than you earn seeing how we have run a budget deficit for something like 40 of the last 45 years.

Nature's Folly
12-18-2008, 11:04 PM
I agree with you guys, although i'm in a good bit of debt and i have only myself to blame. If a CC company still goes on and gives me a card with my credit the way it is, then they should have to eat some of the crap if i'm late with payments. I'm fucking stupid, you can see that, why give me more money to piss away?

Debo
12-18-2008, 11:16 PM
I agree with you guys, although i'm in a good bit of debt and i have only myself to blame. If a CC company still goes on and gives me a card with my credit the way it is, then they should have to eat some of the crap if i'm late with payments. I'm fucking stupid, you can see that, why give me more money to piss away?

They give you money because not everyone is stupid and that eventually you will pay it off. And when you do pay if off, the juice has been running at 28% a clip for five years.

They are going to make a fucking killing off of you.

Stax
12-18-2008, 11:18 PM
They give you money because not everyone is stupid and that eventually you will pay it off. And when you do pay if off, the juice has been running at 28% a clip for five years.

They are going to make a fucking killing off of you.

Yeck. I'm a damn teenager and I don't understand why someone would get a card with that kind of interest rate.

mongo
12-18-2008, 11:23 PM
people that can't handle credit deserve whatever they fucking get.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 11:24 PM
I blew my credit away years ago, I paid off what I could and the companies that wouldn't deal with me I told them to go fuck themselves. So I was cash and carry until 2005 when i got my car loan and 9.9%. Now I have oodles of credit at or near 6.9% (unsecured mind you). I refused to do those bullshit cards with 29% interest and $200 one time fees etc.

mongo
12-18-2008, 11:26 PM
you can't lump fees into the same cluster as interest rates. certain fees, no matter what the cost, are fucking worth it.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 11:27 PM
you can't lump fees into the same cluster as interest rates. certain fees, no matter what the cost, are fucking worth it.

no card is worth a $200 fee.

they had better send over some asian hoooker and give me a blow job for that kind of fee.

yah it was like $200 one time fee, $80 annual fee charged to the card with a limit of $300 right off the bat.

fuck that

Nature's Folly
12-18-2008, 11:30 PM
I only have one card to be honest. My debt comes from other things. The one card is with my bank. If i don't pay they lock my accounts until i do make a payment. It's always a good motivator.

mongo
12-18-2008, 11:32 PM
My debt comes from other things.

blowjobz on credit are always a bad idea.

Claydon
12-18-2008, 11:33 PM
here is what i do not get.

the credit union approved me for a refi on my car at a fantastic rate, and a visa for 10k at 7.9%.

Citibank would only give me a 2k credit card at 14%........ yah...whatever i hope they die.

Nature's Folly
12-18-2008, 11:52 PM
blowjobz on credit are always a bad idea.

Tell me about it.

freegood
12-19-2008, 12:04 AM
Stupid people=CC regulation

In all seriousness, none of our public schools teach anything about home or business finance. How hard is it to devote 6 weeks to teaching our future students the principles of money?

Some of the new rules are mostly gotcha rules for procrastinators or lazy people. I don't think it's too unreasonable to pay on time, but the process to dispute late charges is tedious and very stressful. A lot of that could be solved with patient and competent customer service...

Claydon
12-19-2008, 12:35 AM
Stupid people=CC regulation

In all seriousness, none of our public schools teach anything about home or business finance. How hard is it to devote 6 weeks to teaching our future students the principles of money?

Some of the new rules are mostly gotcha rules for procrastinators or lazy people. I don't think it's too unreasonable to pay on time, but the process to dispute late charges is tedious and very stressful. A lot of that could be solved with patient and competent customer service...

why do that when we are teaching them how to feel good about themselves! and teaching about love, and flowers.

vasili denisov
12-20-2008, 02:42 AM
fNqoLRy4VHw