David Lazarus
Consumer Confidential

Banks' credit card bluster rings hollow

May 7, 2008

I just love it when the credit card industry threatens to take its toys and go home.

That, in effect, was what card issuers said in response to the announcement by federal regulators last week that they planned to crack down on some of the industry's more consumer-unfriendly practices.

To increase fairness, the Federal Reserve and two other agencies would, among other things, require card issuers to mail out statements at least 21 days before a payment's due date and prohibit issuers from applying partial payments only to balances with the lowest interest rates -- thus leaving costlier, higher-rate balances intact.

Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Assn., said in a statement that the Fed's proposals represent "an unprecedented regulatory intrusion into marketplace pricing and product offerings."

He said the measures would "result in less competition, higher consumer prices, fewer consumer choices and reduced consumer access to credit cards."

In other words, if the industry had to play by the proposed rules, it wouldn't be able to offer as much plastic to as many people.

Nonsense. No amount of regulation has ever resulted in card issuers scaling back their offerings. More than 5 billion solicitations were mailed to U.S. households last year alone.

But if banks suddenly decided not to make plastic as readily available to people with spotty credit records, fine. All things considered, that would probably be a good thing.

Just ask Victoria Ramirez. The San Jose elementary school teacher once had as much as $45,000 in debt on six different cards.

Now she and her husband have whittled that down to a balance of about $10,000 on a single card.

Ramirez, 37, said card issuers make it all too easy to get into trouble.

"They loan you a big amount of money that you can't take care of," she said.

This isn't so different from what's happening in the housing market. One reason so many people are in danger of losing their homes right now is because banks handed out high-risk loans to folks who had no business getting deep into debt.

To be sure, many such loan recipients deserve a share of the blame for being so reckless with their personal finances. But they wouldn't have gotten into trouble without the willing complicity of lenders, which encouraged virtually all home buyers to take the plunge, regardless of their ability to repay loans.

According to the Fed, Americans are now carrying $951.7 billion in revolving credit card debt, up 5.9% from a year ago. The average household with credit card debt runs a balance of about $8,000.

We could use a little tough love. Efforts to teach people to be more debt-savvy clearly haven't worked out. (The banking industry's "education" programs have always struck me as being much like the tobacco industry's programs to discourage smoking. Somehow they just don't seem sincere.)

Yingling of the American Bankers Assn. said he found the Fed's proposed safeguards "particularly perplexing" because they'd result in "a reduction in credit availability at the very time the Fed is working to increase access to credit in the marketplace."

Perhaps he'd be less perplexed if he understood that the Fed isn't seeking a credit free-for-all out there. What it wants, and what consumers should have, is access to the credit that they're qualified to handle.

Of course, that's not what the banking industry is about. Lenders collected a record $18.1 billion in credit card penalty fees last year, up 69% from 2003, according to consulting firm R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers in Thousand Oaks.

Banks aren't about to cut back on credit for anyone. Why? Because they don't care whether consumers can handle debt. Cynical as it may be to say, they're happiest when we can't.





Post Comment

Name
Enter your comments and post to forum
By participating you agree to our Terms of Service and represent that you are not under the age of 13.
 
Discussion

Does the credit-card industry need tighter regulation?
 
1. Amex is tightening up on people who live in places or have jobs it considers risky. So now you can be a credit risk based solely on where you live, or the job you do. If you're one of these people, as you pay down your balance, your limit is reduced to just above what you owe. Your Amex card is always nearly maxed out not because of your spending habits, but because Amex is keeping it that way. This affects your credit score, causing your other cards to raise your interest rates! If you have an Amex card, carry a balance, and you haven't already encountered this, pray your address or job isn't added to their list!
Submitted by: Diane
7:01 AM PDT, May 8, 2008
 
2. The credit card industry has found so many creative ways to grab more and more of our money. What's the deal with a credit card company raising my interest rate because I'm late paying on another card? Or even better, because my water bill was paid late? The industry will use any excuse to charge us more and more. If you're in financial trouble for any reason, it will destroy you with higher interest rates and excessive fees, and now the kind of games Amex is playing.
Submitted by: Diane
6:55 AM PDT, May 8, 2008
 
3. It's pretty clear why people are not saving anymore. The banks are removing an obscene amount of capital from the economy with their fees and interest. Even people that pay off balances or receive "cash back" credits are stoking the fire because the vendor pays and you see it in increased prices. It is pretty clever how we have come to accept a 3% charge for every purchase. Three percent for a float of two weeks is loaning money at close to 80% a year. We all would be better off simply eliminating credit cards; pay as you go, and start saving again.
Submitted by: Ransome
5:46 AM PDT, May 8, 2008
 


Here are the states AAA found to be the cheapest vacation spots for 2008. 10 most expensive states
 
Patients are rating doctors online, but can consumers simply rate an M.D. like they'd review an HDTV?