For What It's Worth
Register  |  Sign In  |  Forums Help
Jump to Page:   1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |  Next Page
blog article
blog info
synopsis

articles
article
description
body It's that time again. Time for the latest in our semi-regular series on one of the most ubiquitous, loved, loathed and misunderstood personal-finance tools: credit cards.

So what has changed in the industry since we broke down the long-awaited rules and regulations that President Obama signed into law last month? And how might the ever-changing credit-card landscape impact your family budget? The answer is a mixture of good, bad and downright ugly. Read on to learn more.

The Good

A common theme among struggling Americans ever since the government started doling out multi-billion-dollar checks to the likes of AIG, Citigroup and GM last fall has been, "When do I get my bailout?" Aside from half-hearted stimulus in the form of marginally lower payroll taxes and credits for home buyers and car buyers, there has been little in the way of a personal bailout.

But that may be about to change. And surprisingly, it's the much-maligned big players in the credit-card industry who are the ones said to be extending a bit of a helping hand.

According to David Streitfeld's article in the New York Times, card issuers are taking the drastic and drastically out-of-character step of reaching out to consumers to offer balance reductions. That's right, I said balance reductions.

Though card companies have long offered rate reductions and modified payment terms to struggling consumers, such olive branches typically only were extended if you asked for them. The two-fold change reported in the Times is that banks are slashing once-untouchable balances (to as much as 50 cents on the dollar in one example Streitfeld cites) and doing so proactively.

The catch-22: The consumers likely to receive such an offer are those most likely to be in dire straits to begin with. Ask yourself... if you're out of work and struggling to survive financially, does scrounging together $2,500 to pay your reduced card balance sound any more likely than pulling together the full $5,000?

The card companies' motives for attempting to broker peace with some consumers aren't necessarily noble. This isn't charity, and that's rather transparent. Streitfeld notes that collection firms are paying less than ever to buy up delinquent accounts from banks (around 5 cents on the dollar as opposed to the historical norm of roughly 15 cents). The new card regulations that loom ominously on the horizon for the industry are another motivating factor.

That said, this story certainly qualifies as good news. In an environment where every penny counts, American families can't go wrong with lower bills.

The Bad

Recent data show that the saving habits of Americans have changed considerably as the recession drags on. The abysmal, negative savings rate that helped contribute to the onset of the downturn has reversed rather nicely. The latest figures showed a savings rate of 5.7 percent in April, a 14-year high.

But this doesn't mean we're not spending at all. And a large share of our expenditures continue to come from credit-card transactions. Which makes the headline of a recent Associated Press piece all the more worrisome: "Weak Security Enables Credit Card Hacks."

Even if you're taking all of the necessary and recommended steps to keep your accounts secure (establishing secure passwords, shredding account statements, avoiding online phishing scams), your sensitive personal financial data are available to hackers in some form or other every time you initiate a credit-card transaction. And the vulnerability of the payment-processing networks that handle each and every swipe is staggering.

According to Jordan Robertson's AP Impact report:
"More than 70 retailers and payment processors have disclosed breaches since 2006, involving tens of millions of credit and debit card numbers, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Meanwhile, many others likely have been breached and didn't detect it. Even the companies that had the payment industry's top rating for computer security, a seal of approval known as PCI compliance, have fallen victim to huge heists."
Think your transactions are safe because you rarely pay via credit card at craft fairs or mom-and-pop stores? Think again. In his article, Robertson dispenses this interesting (and alarming) tidbit: Retailers that process fewer than 6 million card transactions each year aren't even required to audit their security practices. So more than 99 percent of all merchants are left on their own with your precious account info.

Halting all credit-card purchases would be impractical and downright silly. But be mindful that the purchase process doesn't necessarily end when you swipe. Continue taking common-sense preemptive account-security steps, and consider the potential benefits of proactively monitoring the news and your credit report so that you can spot and eliminate any breaches before an inconvenience snowballs into financial ruin.

The Ugly

News yesterday that credit-card defaults reached record highs in May came as little surprise to industry watchers. Card defaults typically mirror the unemployment rate, and although the pace of job losses has slowed, it certainly hasn't yet reversed and turned positive.

But insiders and average Americans alike may be shocked by the staggering heights to which the credit-card damage has climbed.

According to the just-released figures, Bank of America, the largest U.S. bank, saw its "chargeoff" rate -- the share of accounts it doesn't expect will ever be paid back -- reach 12.5 percent last month, more than 2 percentage points above the 10.47 percent level seen in April. A mind-boggling one in eight BofA cardholders will not be paying back their balance owed... ever.

Other banks, including American Express, Citigroup, Capital One and J.P. Morgan Chase, didn't fare nearly as poorly in May. But the fact that their default rates in the range of 8.36 percent to 10.5 percent are seen as good news is a clear indication of just how bad things have become.

Yesterday's data also included a second fleeting nugget of so-called good news: For the third consecutive month, credit-card delinquencies actually fell. But hold the celebratory champagne. Experts say the improvement in this figure is actually just a seasonal statistical anomaly tied to income-tax refund checks. A Reuters report offers this shower of rain on the proverbial parade:
" 'I find it hard to believe that it is really a trend. You need to see stabilization in unemployment before you see anything else,' said Chris Brendler, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus. 'It is too early to see some kind of improvement.' "
What's next for credit cards? Will the new rules on the horizon truly offer additional protection for struggling American consumers? Will card issuers load up on money-making tactics before the rules take effect? Tell us what you think.

Message Edited by Anthony_Catalano on 06-16-2009 04:26 PM
Comments
comments
article
description
  • comment number 1
  • date 06-18-2009 05:19 AM
  • author Juls58 writes:
body I think they are a big rip off and have ridiculous rules. My husband has a medical only credit card for a surgery he had last year. I was 5 days late past the due date twice and they raised the interest rate 6%! If I pay it on time for 6-months, they will lower it back to 10%. BS!!! I think they are the root of an evil and we shouldn't even have them...period!
article
description
  • comment number 2
  • date 06-18-2009 07:01 AM
  • author EveningJoe writes:
body Well, it's obvious that people who use credit cards don't have the money to buy what they want. They charge it and a small miniority forget about it. Then they **bleep** when the payment is due. It's like using to much electric or water and when the bill comes in, you don't understand why it's so much and only pay what you can afford if anything at all. Simple really, if ya can't pay now, what makes ya think you can pay at the end of the month. Charge off's are the reason "everyone" has to pay such a high interest rate. Why don't some people get it?
article
description
  • comment number 3
  • date 06-18-2009 08:33 AM
  • author hardertokill writes:
body i THINK EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF, (MY WIFE AND I HAVE EXCELLENT CREDIT) SHOULD "MAX OUT" THEIR CARDS, THEN DO WHAT ALL THE LOW LIFES DO, STICK IT TO THE BANKS WITH THE RIDICULOUS RATES, AND DON'T PAY THEM. THERE ARE WEBSITES, YOU CAN HIRE PEOPLE, TO NOT PAY THEM A DIME! LEGALLY! WHY SHOULD THEY GET "BAILOUTS", AND BORROW AT 1 TO 2%, AND CHARGE 10, 15, 20, OR 28%? SCREW THEM, LIKE THEY'VE DONE US!!
article
description
  • comment number 4
  • date 06-18-2009 09:00 AM
  • author Luke10n19 writes:
body How they are breaching the contract.
Essentially the way it works, and I am going to use a signature loan for an example. It's easier to understand the transaction. Then I am going to relate how it translates to a credit card. A lot of people think it's the application for the credit card that the bank is using for the asset, which is actually incorrect.
What happens with a signature loan: You walk into the bank with the intention of borrowing money. You want the bank to give you some money because you don't have the money.
So you go into the bank. You sit down with the banker and he says okay I am going to lend you $10,000. You think great! That's exactly what I need. You go in there. You sit down and you fill out a loan application. Basically, the loan application is an IOU. a promise to pay.
You fill that out, signing it saying I promise to pay you back $10,000 plus interest. You fill that out, you give it to the banker,
the banker takes that IOU or that promise to pay as if you were giving him a check or cash. He can use it the same way. So when you give him that promise to pay, you are actually giving him that asset.
They can take that promise to pay and record that on their books as an asset because you promised to pay them back $10,000 plus interest some time in the future. To them, that gives them an asset. They can record that down as an asset. Now their assets are $10,000 higher than before you gave them that IOU.
So what they do is create an account for the loan. One side the $10,000 goes in as a credit. Now they can turn around and use that $10,000 to fund a check that they can turn around and write to you and you walk out the door with a $10,000 check in your hand.
Now in your mind, the bank is DOWN $10,000 because they gave it to you and you are UP $10,000. So logically you would think I need to pay the bank back my $10,000 plus the interest or else they will have a damage.
So that's why when they send you a bill, you pay it. What is happening is that the bank is not taking that $10,000 from some account somewhere and giving it to you. They are using your promise to pay, that $10,000, to electronically fund the new account, in a sense creating money from your asset.
So when you walk out of the bank, the bank has gone up $10,000 in assets with your promise to pay and they have gone down $10,000 with a check they just wrote you. Essentially, the banks books are now balanced at the point you walk out of the bank. They are EVEN.
So if you pay them back $10,000 plus interest, now they actually have a profit of $10,000 plus the interest, not JUST the interest.which is what you agreed upon.
The original agreement is you are getting a loan of $10,000 and you are going to pay back the principle so the bank is even. Then they are going to throw on some interest on that for their opportunity costs and the risk they took for risking their assets loaning you the money.
Okay, you may have bad credit so that they have to charge you 25% because you might not pay it back and the bank will be out all that money.
That's basically what they tell you. So in reality if you don't pay them back they are not out that $10,000 because they were even when you walked out the door. What happens now is the bank wants to sue you for not paying them back. Well they come into court and they allege a breach of contract. They are saying that they have a damage of $10,000. In any lawsuit situation, the bank is the plaintiff. The bank is the moving party. They first have the burden of proof that they have a damage.
And all the banks will do is send statements and say we loaned so and so some money. They got a credit card, they used the credit card so therefore they owe the money. Because A and B happened then C should happen. If they got the credit card, they used the credit card, they owe the money.
NO - NO - NO! The bank is coming in with unclean hands. The bank breached the agreement first. Their agreement was that they were going to loan you some of THEIR money and you don't think the bank did that.
So basically what we do is say that we want them to prove their damage first. Show us the underlining accounting entries that show where the money came from to fund this account. The banks can NEVER do that.
They have NEVER once been able to do that. The reason they can't do that is because they can't show the accounting entries that funded the account.
They breached the agreement, they didn't fund this account with any of their assets so therefore they don't have a damage and they don't have a standing to sue.
Unless a third party can prove that they have a damage, they can't sue you. They have to show where their damage is. Statements don't show where their damage is. I can send anybody some statements that you owe me some money. That doesn't prove anything. So that's basically the core of our defense.
We are saying this account has already been paid for because they used your assets. They used your note to raise the asset to pay for the account.
They didn't credit our promise to pay to our account. If they did that, which they should have done, the account would be paid for. It wasn't disclosed to me that the bank would be using my IOU to raise an asset to fund the account and therefore lacks the damages.

Now how it applies to credit card transactions. Remember, a signature loan they used your, it's a one time deal, you signed the application, you get the check. It's a one-time deal then you pay it back.
The credit card is different. It's more like a revolving line of credit. It's an open-ended credit. So let's say you have a credit card for $10,000. It's not your application for the credit card, it wouldn't make any sense. Let's say you have a credit card for 20 years and the credit card limit is $10,000. Well over 20 years time, you are going to charge and payback a lot more than $10,000. So having the application wouldn't make sense. What they do is, every time you make a purchase, that's a new loan. When you think about it, you go to the store, you spend $100. What does the merchant do? He gives you a slip, you sign that slip that says I promise to pay $100. That slip is what they use. The slip is the note. The merchant sends the slip to the bank for $100. The bank gets that $100, that piece of paper with your name on it, that says you promise to pay back $100. They use that to credit $100 to the account as an asset which they in turn electronically send back to the merchant as a $100 payment.
So the merchant gets PAID, the bank is even, and you got your stuff. Now if anything the bank would be entitled, at that point, to is a transaction fee. Basically what the banks are doing is they are taking your future labor and they are turning it into something the merchant will accept for a good right now.
Because you don't have the money, the bank is taking something, your future labor, and giving it to the merchant so you can get whatever you want at that point in time.
In an honest banking system, the bank at that point would be entitled to some form of transaction fee or interest charge. But because they have breeched the agreement and get double payment, now they are not entitled to anything because they committed basically "FRAUD". But banks get away with that and are ripping off the American people !! 2 Chronicles 7:14 God Help Us !!!
article
description
  • comment number 5
  • date 06-18-2009 10:36 AM
  • author JoleneM writes:
body Ok....that al makes sense, now what do we do about it? jolene316@comcast.net
article
description
  • comment number 6
  • date 06-18-2009 10:53 AM
  • author Keith876 writes:
body That's an interesting way to look at it but the point is you still owe the money. Regardless of the banks accounting practices which are probably completely legal and the industry standard, YOU are responsible to pay back your obligation. What are trying to say-that because of a perceived disshonesty or technical loop hole that you shouldn't have to pay back the loan because you think you could win in court? Take the road of personal responsibility and pay back what you owe! If you want a Bible verse to throw out how about Romans 13:8.
article
description
  • comment number 7
  • date 06-18-2009 11:09 AM
  • author bosfoss writes:
body Agreed on all points including the reference in Romans
article
description
  • comment number 8
  • date 06-18-2009 11:29 AM
  • author jerseypeet writes:
body Hey Keith876,
What Luke is trying to tell you is that the entire banking system is one that is a complete fraud. Whether it is through credit card issuance, or manipulation of balance sheets, the banking system is completely empty. Money doesn't really exist like the banks say it does, or in the real sense in which people believe it does. That is why the economy is so succeptible to these dramatic up and down swings. When the economy starts to go bad, and banks start "calling in" their loans(demanding repayment on their loans), that is what starts the panic...how can you pay back loans with money that doesn't really exist? So when do the banks lose? Never! They can't lose what they never had. But, because their "manipulations" of the economic system(which they have created by the way), you have real people and real families losing their homes and more. When banks couldn't pay back their loans with money that doesn't exist, they couldn't keep lending the fake money to company A to help continue financing their operations. Joe Smith winds up losing his job because of his companies credit crunch, and now he loses his house. So, who gets the house? The bank. Why? They didn't pay for it...remember? They can't pay for something with fake money! I would recommend anyone interested in learning about the banking system search on youtube for federal banking system scam. You might learn some things like there is really no law on the books that says you have to pay an income tax. It was never ratified by the 35 necessary states that would have made it a constitutional ammendment. The income tax was created to pay the interest on the loans the federal government takes from the federal reserve bank which is a PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION!
article
description
  • comment number 9
  • date 06-18-2009 11:34 AM
  • author jerseypeet writes:
body And one more thing...if you want to know what to do about it, you should have voted for Ron Paul. The only congressman trying to create awareness of the fraud of the banking system, and taking fed chairman to task on monetary policy. Search Ron Paul on youtube as well.
Jump to Page:   1 · 2 · 3 · 4  |  Next Page