Credit card companies jacking rates, etc. to beat new consumer law

[wmw999 2,452]

Actually according to the article over the last two years they cut their balance in half.

Not sure if it's good that it's half of what it used to be, or bad that at one time they were $36,000 in credit-card debt

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BartsDaddy 7]

On the way to work today. There was a woman that worked at the radio station I listen to complaining about credit card companys harrasing her.
She stated her story that she always paid off her balance in full every month. Then her husband lost his job and for seven months they lived off her salary and credit cards until her husband got another job. In that seven months they racked up $60,000.00 in credit card debt. And now she is blaming the credit card company for wanting to be paid.
The radio station was getting down on the credit card companies like the were the bad guy not her for racking up over $8,500.00 in debt a MONTH.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[marks2065 0]

Chase, IMO, is the worst. My wife and I had 4 chase cards 2with zero balance and 2 with 5k balance. so that is 4 cards with 30k limit and 5k balance(most of the balance is for her business to purchace supplies). Chase doubled the rates on all 4 cards. there answer was because of the new laws enacted from government. we canceled all 4 cards and locked the lower interest rate. My wife and I have an excellent credit score and have never missed a payment. We have 3 other credit cards that have lowered the rates in the last 3 months. My prime lock card from capital one last month was 3.25% with 1% cash back for food and gas.

The help the government said they were going to get the people is only hurting those that do things right and pay their bills. the increase in rates is to offset the restrictions government is putting on them and those that are going to suffer are the ones that pay their bills and are responsible.

Thank you washington! Any one still want government to fix health care? only if you are stupid!

[DougH 270]

Quote

The help the government said they were going to get the people is only hurting those that do things right and pay their bills. the increase in rates is to offset the restrictions government is putting on them and those that are going to suffer are the ones that pay their bills and are responsible.

Blame congress not Chase. The new regulations make the business more expensive to the credit card companies.

You get to share the expense, regardless of how resposible you were with your use of credit in the past.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Darius11 12]

Quote

HSBC is the worst right now

The worst company I have ever dealt with. I am fighting them right now and most likely will end up in court.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, this bothers me. I'm not defending everything the CC companies do. Credit is a dangerous game, but like it or not, credit companies are indeed companies. They are businesses trying to stay afloat just like everyone else in the country. If they jack their rates up as their contracts allowed, then it sucks... but they're trying to survive the recession, too.

Boohoo?

They are banks who are used to making a certain level of profit, one that is dramatically higher than it was 20 years ago (examine the change in practices to see this). And they behaved rather badly, so much so that Congress finally slapped them back. Many are reaping what they sowed. At least now I get significantly less junk mail - only Citi trying to sucker me into a really stupid balance transfer offer.

It's amazing that we had this uneven arrangement for so long. Consumers committed to the terms of a contract, but the banks had the right to redefine the terms for any reason. It's certainly fair to say that future balances could be charged at a new rate, but it's hard to see their defense for applying that to current balances. And soon that will go away.

This has been debated here before, but the bank's definition of a fixed rate is really not what any reasonable definition would use. Variable means based on a benchmark like prime or LIBOR. Fixed means doesn't change except when the bank feels like it.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Blame congress not Chase. The new regulations make the business more expensive to the credit card companies.

If you really think deregulation is a consumer-beneficial activity, I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too!

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

Blame congress not Chase. The new regulations make the business more expensive to the credit card companies.

If you really think deregulation is a consumer-beneficial activity, I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too!

I am a low credit risk with all three scores in the 760+ range. I read my credit agreements and I understand the variability of the business arangment.

If this regulation causes my credit related expense to go up then I would have to conclude that this legislation is bad for me, and I was better off before.

If this regulation is good for some, it has to bad for some consumers too. The reverse would also be true.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Boohoo?

They are banks who are used to making a certain level of profit, one that is dramatically higher than it was 20 years ago (examine the change in practices to see this).

As much as it aggrivates people, banks are businesses. They aren't charities. Of course they should operate within the law but it's unreasonable to be mad that they're making profits.

Quote

And they behaved rather badly, so much so that Congress finally slapped them back

And then bailed them out...

If they behaved that badly then they should've been allowed to fail.

Quote

Many are reaping what they sowed. At least now I get significantly less junk mail - only Citi trying to sucker me into a really stupid balance transfer offer.

And that's the key. Don't sign up for stupid shit you get in the mail.

Quote

It's amazing that we had this uneven arrangement for so long. Consumers committed to the terms of a contract, but the banks had the right to redefine the terms for any reason. It's certainly fair to say that future balances could be charged at a new rate, but it's hard to see their defense for applying that to current balances. And soon that will go away.

Agreed. It's shitty to think they could suddenly change the rate on current balances. However, and a big however, people who are irresponsible enough to sign a contract and run up thousands worth of debt don't have much room to bitch, IMO.

Quote

This has been debated here before, but the bank's definition of a fixed rate is really not what any reasonable definition would use. Variable means based on a benchmark like prime or LIBOR. Fixed means doesn't change except when the bank feels like it.

Maybe I'm wrong and lawrocket could help out, but if you sign a contract specifically stating fixed rate with no exceptions then I find it hard to believe you would be unsuccessful taking it to court.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This has been debated here before, but the bank's definition of a fixed rate is really not what any reasonable definition would use. Variable means based on a benchmark like prime or LIBOR. Fixed means doesn't change except when the bank feels like it.

Maybe I'm wrong and lawrocket could help out, but if you sign a contract specifically stating fixed rate with no exceptions then I find it hard to believe you would be unsuccessful taking it to court.

There are no such contracts. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Payday loans are the extreme case and hotly debated, and always at the threat of being legislated into 'fairness.' The banks have to walk a careful line between profits and fairness or the government will settle the matter for them.

BTW, success in court requires the reward to be worth the effort. Frequently companies rely on the fact that it isn't, and so will deliberately act in violation. Baldness medications sold on cable TV may be a good example. Only class action lawsuits can correct these.