top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Credit card firms try out new squeeze tactics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Credit card firms try out new squeeze tactics

    July 10, 2009

    When James received a great credit card offer two years ago – a 4.99 percent interest on balance transfers for the life of the card – he jumped at it. He used the cheap money to remodel the kitchen of his Los Angeles-area home.

    He never expected the new kitchen would turn him into a pawn in a chess match playing out among Congress, bank regulators and credit card firms.

    The offer, from JP Morgan Chase had only one obvious stipulation: No late payments. Because the rate was far lower than a home equity loan at the time, James used the credit card for the construction project, borrowing around $20,000. His monthly payments were very affordable - just under $300. Paying the minimum 2 percent each month, he'd pay off the loan in about 8 years.

    James, who requested anonymity because he’s uncomfortable discussing his personal finances in public –made sure to pay on time each month, jealously guarding the terms of his cut-rate loan. Little did he realize that Chase could find a way to make his life miserable without raising his interest rate.

    But Chase recently threw James-- and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other consumers – a huge credit card curveball. The firm sent letters to customers beginning in late June indicating that minimum payments would be raised from 2 percent to 5 percent. In August, his monthly payment will spike to $750.

    "What they're doing is pushing decent people into such tough situations," he said. "I'm between a rock and a hard place."

    Around the Web, Chase customers are screaming about the change.

    "I’m stuck with a combined monthly payment going from $525 to $1,445," wrote one consumer on a blog devoted to the change in Chase terms. "I explained that this could possibly force me into default for which Chase would not receive any payment. (The customer service agent’s) response? 'Chase obviously factored that possibility into the decision for changing these terms.'”

    New world order

    Consider this the opening salvo in the new world order for credit card firms. Before Congress passed credit card reform legislation in July, bank lobbyists repeatedly warned that the law would cost them revenue and force them to raise rates and fees on consumers. The aggressive step by JP Morgan Chase - effectively a 150 percent increase in required monthly payments -- marks one of the first major changes by a card issuer.

    Chase spokeswoman Stephanie Jacobson said the change impacts "less than 1 percent of their customers," but would not divulge a precise figure. Even 1 percent of Chase cardholders would represent nearly 1 million consumers, however.

    Chase customers like Daniel Lindenbaum of Coatesville, Penn., say they are being given a Hobson’s choice. He said he transferred an $8,000 balance to a Chase card, enticed by a 5 percent interest rate -- and never missed a payment. Nonetheless, his monthly bill will now jump from $163 to more than $350.

    “I don't mind paying a little more than the minimum payment every month, but going to over $300 a month when I was paying $163 a month is a big jump for me,” he said. “It's not easy to come up with extra cash like that. I called customer service and they … suggested for me to transfer my money elsewhere.”

    The problem with that, he said, is that he’d have to open a new account with another company and face recently increased transfer fees. Bank of America, for example, just raised its transfer fee to 4 percent. And Chase has said it plans to raise transfer fees to 5 percent.

    Lindenbaum figured he’d have to pay at least $200 to switch to a new card. He was confused about why Chase would want to drive him away.

    “They are still making money off of me each month and if I pay off my balance faster, they will be losing money in interest,” he said. “If I transfer my money to another credit card company, they will lose my money all together.”

    Surprised by marketing success

    James said he thinks Chase made the change for a simple reason: It wants to squeeze consumers who have low-interest loans, force them into a misstep and then rope them into far less desirable loan terms.

    "They don't want people to have 5 percent loans out forever and ever,” he said. “I don't think they considered how successful their marketing efforts would be.”

    Jacobson, the firm’s spokeswoman, essentially conceded that strategy in an e-mail to msnbc.com.

    "Tens of millions of Chase customers have taken advantage of our promotional low rate financing over the last five years,” she said. “Most of these loans have been paid back in less than 24 months. However, there have been a small percentage of customers that have not made as much progress in paying down these loans. Our desire is to have these balances paid back in a reasonable period of time."

    Bill Hardekopf, who runs LowCards.com, said banks are following through on warnings that credit card expenses for consumers would rise after passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act.

    “From an issuer standpoint, they are looking at their default rates going up, they are in tremendous economic distress and they are trying to minimize their risk as much as possible,” he said. “Issuers feel they need to find ways to make up for revenue they are projecting they are going to lose once the legislation takes effect.”

    Chase told msnbc.com that it would work with consumers who are unable to make their new payments, but James said that's merely an invitation into a lion's den. The only offer he received was a severe change in terms to his account with a much higher, variable interest rate.

    When the new federal regulations take effect next year, they will severely limit banks' ability to change rates unless cardholders have variable-rate agreements, so banks are trying to steer consumers away from fixed-rate cards. Bank of America, for example, recently sent notices to cardholders with fixed rates telling them their accounts will be changed to variable rates starting next month.

    James said all these changes seem particularly unfair because through 2007, even as the recession started, Chase was still aggressively marketing the low interest cards.

    He said he will be able to make the payments with great difficulty, but he wonders about other consumers.

    "I've got to stop my retirement contributions, or maybe even ask for an advance at work," he said. "But I don't know what other people are going to do."

    RED TAPE WRESTLING TIPS

    Consumers who don’t like changes to the terms of their current credit card can attempt to transfer balances to a new card, but the process is full-of booby traps, warns Hardekopf of LowCards.com. But there are still cards worth applying for, he said. Here’s what to watch for.

    Transfer fees can turn a good deal into a bad deal. A 5 percent transfer fee on an $8,000 balance means a $400 fee. Consumers can choose to roll that fee into the balance of the card, making it seem relatively painless. That’s a mistake, Hardekopf said, because it can wipe out any savings from a new low-interest card.

    The low transfer rate often doesn’t apply to new purchases. Until February 2010, consumers who switch cards for a lower rate will see their payments applied to the lowest-rate portion of the balance, meaning consumers tend to swap low-interest balances for high interest balances, leaving them back where they started after they pay off the transfer amount.

    Previously, transfer fees were capped by many banks at $50 or $75. Not anymore. And the terms on low-rate offers like “0 percent for 12 months” are shrinking – many last only 6 months now


    Source: MSNBC
    by Bob Sullivan
    Go to NBCNews.com for breaking news, videos, and the latest top stories in world news, business, politics, health and pop culture.

    _______________________

    I think there will be more and more people joining this forum. They are pushing the entire country into BK.
    Last edited by Flamingo; 07-10-2009, 05:25 PM. Reason: To conform with forum posting rules - OP PLEASE REVIEW POSTING RULES
    Filed Chapter 7: 7/3/09
    341 Hearing: 8/6/09 - Went Smoothly!
    Discharged: 11/30/2009
    Closed: 12/16/2009

    #2
    Yet not one of these creditors would have to explain their moves at a 341. This is why the whole BK process is biased. You're on trail they are not. The trustee and UST are skewed towards the creditors favor. They only place we have a little leverage is BK court but that obviously means thousands in extra lawyer fees, at a time people have almost zero to their name.

    "Chase made the change for a simple reason: It wants to squeeze consumers who have low-interest loans, force them into a misstep and then rope them into far less desirable loan terms."
    My comments are solely based on my opinion. The information and links that I have
    posted are provided solely for informational purposes, and do not constitute legal advice

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by shabam View Post
      Yet not one of these creditors would have to explain their moves at a 341. This is why the whole BK process is biased. You're on trail they are not.
      Unfortunately, the 341 Meeting is about the Debtor, not the creditors. If you actually want to challenge a creditor, you bring forth a complaint (Adversary Proceeding/AP) against them. The UST and Trustee's job is actually to make sure you pay your creditors. Nothing skewed about that... it's plain, obvious, and actual.

      So, you elude correctly that your only recourse is BK, but if you want to get them on some sort of fraud or deceptive practices, you need to get a Class created or sue them inside or outside the BK.
      Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
      Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
      Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog

      Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.

      Comment


        #4
        This is the last straw that is causing me to file. After lowered credit limits back in January, then hiked interest rates in March (on all my cards), now Chase deals us this impossible blow. I have canceled all of my automatic payments to my cc's and retained a lawyer yesterday. Thanks Chase.

        Comment


          #5
          I think what was the most amazing to me, is that at as soon as I quit paying my CC's, I received from Citi, Chase and BofA offers to settle my debt, pay less payments, lower the interest, etc. But they want until you don't pay to do that.
          Filed Chapter 7: 7/3/09
          341 Hearing: 8/6/09 - Went Smoothly!
          Discharged: 11/30/2009
          Closed: 12/16/2009

          Comment


            #6
            If you money for the trustee to disburse (he'll sell a rental property) how does it get decided who gets what?

            Comment


              #7
              Ultimately the trustee however there are priorities like priority debt (taxes, alimony, child support) is paid first.
              May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
              July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
              September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.

              Comment


                #8
                This is exactly what pushed us into BK. I know we spent the money I never have denied that. We probably would have kept paying min payments forever, but when the first card upped our rate we knew the others would follow. So we learned our lesson, never again will I trust a cc.

                When I discuss credit ratings with people, I always say I don't care about that. We had excellent credit, we had great rates, we paid on time faithfully, we went hungry but we never missed a payment and still they raised our rates. I thought cc were our friends until then, they aren't. They are nothing more then loan sharks, only difference, the government made them legal loan sharks!
                Filed Chapter 7 June 4 ~ 341 July 20 ~Last day of objections Sept 18~Discharged/Closed Sept 21

                Comment


                  #9
                  Justplain,

                  Our situation sounds like a mirror of yours.

                  It should be illegal to use currently "accepted" accounting.

                  We actually charged about 50k in total over a 10 year period.

                  We actually PAID about 160k which made no dent in the principal. It was ALL interest.

                  Unreal. There should be a CREDITOR's prison.
                  11-20-09-- Filed Chapter 7
                  12-23-09-- 341 Meeting-Early Christmas Gift?
                  3-9-10--Discharged

                  Comment


                    #10
                    America for the past two or so decades has been all about having it now. Advertising forced everyone to buy bigger and better to look good and look like you were doing well. To do that, many used credit and just went beyond their means. Having a lot of credit cards was also like a status symbol - just pull out that Platinum Mastercard at the dinner table and pay for the whole meal showing your friends just how well off you were when you were carrying credit cards with credit lines used almost up to the limit. No one cared cause they would just get more credit cards and move balances. It was all a time bomb waiting to happen. All it took was a job loss, major medical situation, dovrce or some other life altering event to be staring at that debt and wondering where it all came from and you could not pay it back. Also no one remembers the terms and conditions for which they accepted the credit. Lending money is a for-profit business. It's all geared for the creditor to make money. You pay them for the use of their money. America is finally waking up and realizing what really occurs when one does not budget and lives beyond their means. It is everyone's fault; from the for-profit tactics used by lenders to America's lack of financial sense and also greed on both parts.

                    It usually takes a big wake up call such as losing a job, hour cuts, etc. to realize one got in over their heads and cannot get out due to a multitude of reasons and the only person that really put themselves in that situation is that person themselves by overextending and getting caught up in the hype of having to have it now and you have to have it to look better than your neighbors...we all need to remember that next time we fill out a credit application.
                    _________________________________________
                    Filed 5 Year Chapter 13: April 2002
                    Early Buy-Out: April 2006
                    Discharge: August 2006

                    "A credit card is a snake in your pocket"

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Yes, this is exactly what happened to us, then we received our July statement from Chase, after we decided we are filing because we cannot make that payment. These are debts that we accrued from almost a year of my husband being laid off and looking for work, then finally taking work as an irrigation manager rather than an engineer and I went back to work and now we are drastically "underemployed" on top of medical bills from no insurance. We have not used credit cards for almost 5 years and struggled every month to make our payments so we could maintain or GOOD CREDIT RATING. Guess what, after we got the notice about payment increasing in August, then our July statement came, and it shows that our available credit, which was 28,000, has been cut to 18,000 on one card, our current balance, and from 25,000 to 14,000 on the other chase card, also our current balance. We went from 21,000 available credit to maxed out. So even if we found a way to make the payment at this new crazy amount, they have ruined our credit score so they will be justified in jumping our interest rate to 20%+.

                      Screw them. If we were not already done, this would be the icing on the cake. So just wait, it is going to get worse for the consumer. And yesterday saw an article that BOA is going to start doing the same thing before December, from an insider there.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Chase "chased" me to the lawyer's office with their antics... they won't get another penny from me.
                        7-2-2009 Filed
                        8-28-09 341 Concluded, no assets
                        10-28-09 DISCHARGED/CLOSED!!!!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Chase did it to too. They took there card and left me my junk.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by justbroke View Post
                            Unfortunately, the 341 Meeting is about the Debtor, not the creditors. If you actually want to challenge a creditor, you bring forth a complaint (Adversary Proceeding/AP) against them. The UST and Trustee's job is actually to make sure you pay your creditors. Nothing skewed about that... it's plain, obvious, and actual.

                            So, you elude correctly that your only recourse is BK, but if you want to get them on some sort of fraud or deceptive practices, you need to get a Class created or sue them inside or outside the BK.
                            I am not arguing the status quo, I am arguing that the system is unethically skewed. The entire process is about hanging the debtor our to dry. As I stated in another thread, I have seen someone else go through this overseas and the process is by no means skewed to the creditors advantage. While they have measures to prevent fraud, the trustee and laws are neutral. Furthermore, ethically protect the debtor. Our laws and the Bk process are skewed towards protecting the creditor. Our BK process and system makes it out as if everyone is guilty and must prove themselves innocent. Go have a look at the credentials required just to obtain a credit card in the UK. Now compare them to our one line household income fields.

                            The thought of suing a multibillion dollar company post bk is laughable. Most people hardly have enough money to pay a lawyer for a 7 or 13. Where are they going to find a few hundred thousand to sue a bank? The government is supposed to protect the consumer (the little guys / family). Whereas, the actions of the above creditor shows exactly how little protection the consumer has. It shows that a creditor makes the rules as they go along and then have the legal right to turn your life upside down. Is that fair? Is that the America you want to live in?

                            I would like to see chase call a relative of their cardholders in the UK to apparently "get in touch with you"; which you known perfectly well is a bull crap excuse. They wouldn't even be able to call your spouse, without explicit permission (from you) to discuss 'your' account or circumstances. Multiple collection calls are considered harassment, as per a recent ruling there.

                            I was a born and bred republican. After going through this, I never want to hear the word republican in my house. I realize what a bunch of self-serving crooks they are. Country first my ass. Whoever lines their pockets is who comes first. After all, it was these morons who passed the recent bk changes.
                            My comments are solely based on my opinion. The information and links that I have
                            posted are provided solely for informational purposes, and do not constitute legal advice

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by shabam View Post
                              I was a born and bred republican. After going through this, I never want to hear the word republican in my house. I realize what a bunch of self-serving crooks they are. Country first my ass. Whoever lines their pockets is who comes first. After all, it was these morons who passed the recent bk changes.
                              I couldn't agree more!
                              Filed Chapter 7 June 4 ~ 341 July 20 ~Last day of objections Sept 18~Discharged/Closed Sept 21

                              Comment

                              bottom Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X