Bankers and Congress

| Mon May. 4, 2009 11:02 AM PDT

The power of the financial lobby, even in the wake of an epic economic collapse fueled largely by its own excesses, never ceases to amaze.  The current front, of course, is a Senate proposal to curb credit card abuses.  Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent reports:

The proposal, sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), would prohibit rate hikes on existing balances, give cardholders longer notice to pay their bills, and prevent card companies from charging fees when customers pay their bills on time.

....A similar credit card reform proposal, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), passed the House easily last week, but the Senate bill goes even further to protect card users from unexplained fees and surprise rate hikes. The question now on the minds of many anxious consumer and lending advocates is this: How strong can Senate Democrats keep those consumer protections and still have the bill pass the upper chamber?

....For consumers, there’s a great deal hinging on what credit card reform provisions the Senate can pass. The Maloney bill in the House, for example, allows card companies to hike rates on existing balances when the borrower is more than 30 days late on a payment. The Dodd bill, by contrast, prevents retroactive rate increases in all cases. An analysis conducted by The National Consumer Law Center found that roughly 10 million Americans would still be vulnerable to those retroactive hikes if Maloney’s version of the provision were adopted instead of Dodd’s.

Really, this is beyond belief.  Retroactive rate hikes on existing balances are indefensible under any circumstances.  A third grader on a playground would understand why.  Despite this, every single effort to ban the practice has failed.  Over and over and over, they've failed.  And now, even with the finance industry on its knees, hated and despised for its lavish compensation packages financed by trillions in taxpayer bailout cash, there's still some question about whether Congress can pass this no-brainer of a bill.  Instead, we might end up merely banning retroactive rate hikes for 30 days.

This practice (which goes by the charming name of "universal default") should have been banned the first time it ever reared its ugly head.  The fact that there's even a chance of it continuing to survive in any form at all after the events of the past couple of years should dispel any questions about the death grip the finance industry has on American politics.  It's the smoking gun that bankers own the country.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Always new ways to fuck over "customers"

Discover just informed me that if I want to use my "bonus points" toward paying off my balance, I have to wait until I have a minimum of $50 worth. Before May 1, the minimum was $20. You can still redeem $20 worth, but only toward a bunch of fake self-dealing crap. Need I mention that while I can usually build up $20 worth a month, it takes almost three months to get $50 worth? 90 days for Discover to play the float.

litmus test

This is an important litmus test, hopefully the Democrats pass.

How is changing the rate on

How is changing the rate on a credit card -- as customers are warned can happen when they sign up -- any different from changing the rate on a variable-rate mortgage or home-equity loan? Variable-rate debts are just not that rare in the world. What's so special about credit cards?

The key word is

The key word is "retroactive".

Fine key word, it means the same bloody thing

When a floating rate loan of any sort is repriced (interest rate changes) the rate change applies to the outstanding balance. Period. That includes, in general, the corporate equivalent of credit cards, revolving lines. It has never been considered particularly scandalous that unsecured (no collateral) revolving lines with balances get entirely repriced, not just new added balances, the whole kit. I see nothing wrong with this. The consumer knows its possible, There should be an opportunity to pay off the outstanding debt at the former rate for one cycle, but after that, if one is holding a balance, well, that is the price of unsecured debt. Universal default also does not strike me as particularly scandalous as such, it is quite common in corporate financings that if one misses another loan's payment, that all debt is subject to repricing, as from the Bank POV, your risk is going up. And however much people love to whinge on about evils of banks, if Risk is not priced, then banks blow up ---- but then of course it is the Stupid Bankers Getting It All Wrong. The problem here is people want contradictory things, low cost credit with no inconvenience or waiting, but no risk repricing and oh, banks that are conservative and also don't blow up. Those items do not go together.

"How is changing the rate on

"How is changing the rate on a credit card -- as customers are warned can happen when they sign up -- any different from changing the rate on a variable-rate mortgage or home-equity loan?" With a variable-rate mortgage, you agree to pay a FIXED margin over an indexed rate, say the prime rate or the LIBOR rate. The indexed rate is not controlled by the lender, but by the markets. Thus, if the prime rate or LIBOR happens to change (up or down) your interest rate will change as well (up or down), but the lender has no power to change the rate at will. With a "revolving" loan like a credit card, your agreement allows the card-issuer to change the rate to anything they want, at any time. Your credit-card company could change your interest rate to 50% per annum tomorrow. Or 100%. Or 500%. Whatever they think they can get away with, without the bad PR taking too much of a toll on their future business. At the moment, that seems to be around 30-35%. But who knows what's in store for us? If blog comments are anything to go on, most card issuers are jacking up interest rates now, even on squeaky-clean customers, probably in anticipation of Obama's proposed legislation that would ban retroactive interest-rate increases. There are no longer any federal laws against usury. Congress got rid of them years ago, obeying their banker campaign contributors.

Kevin, small quibble with

Kevin, small quibble with your post: retroactive repricing and universal default are two very different things (albeit equally as bad). Retroactive repricing is changing the rates on existing balances, universal default is when Company A raises your rate because you missed a payment on your account with Company B.

Pay to play

Without Joe Biden in the Senate, credit card issuers have lost perhaps their most reliable advocate. What's he doing these days, anyway? Hi De Ho Santa Monica CA

trotsky, the difference is

trotsky, the difference is that variable rate mortgages are advertised as variable rate. How many credit card offers are explicitly marked as "variable rate"? And APR mortgages are written with limits to the interest rate, while credit cards have no upper limit. Mortgages also don't have "default" rates of 5 or 6 times LIBOR that kick in when a payment is even one minute late. Mortgages typically use the actual definition of default, instead of the self-serving version favored my credit cards. I wonder how many people actually understand that when the credit card fine print says "default" it really means "late"?

Actually, credit cards are

Actually, credit cards are advertised as variable rate. But the difference between them and an ARM is that the ARM is generally indexed to an objective rate (Fed funds or LIBOR, for instance), while credit card contracts allow the company to change rates on a whim, more or less. At the same time, both cross-defaults and increased rates following certain triggers are nearly universal in corporate lending and for the same reason we see them in credit cards: when someone defaults on something or misses payments for a certain period, they're very likely headed to bankruptcy and a lender has a legitimate interest in getting as much money before their claims are wiped out by bankruptcy. Because such provisions are motivated by legitimate concerns, disallowing them will result in less credit being available. Many will say that that's a good thing, but we should be above board on this: you're not advocating that the poor be protected from unscrupulous lenders, you're arguing that the sort of credit that can profitably be offered to the poor is unacceptable, and therefore, the poor should not be permitted to buy on credit.

what?

when someone defaults on something or misses payments for a certain period, they're very likely headed to bankruptcy I find this hard to believe, people are frequently "late" and missing payments, i.e. "in default", this very, very rarely indicates pending bankruptcy (unless of course you have predatory practices in place that make it ever more difficult to pull yourself out of this temporary debt, which retroactive higher interest rates are sure to accomplish, and even then bankruptcy is not the most likely outcome; the reality is this is just predatory gouging of your customers for the purposes of profit).

Sancho has it precisely right

It may be that the US needs more protections to give someone ignorant consumers more time to get out, but the rationale - fundamentally the conservative lending practice behind them - is entirely clean.

not the bankruptcy part

The notion they're likely going to be in bankruptcy if they're "late" on a payment is certainly not "precisely right", and I certainly hope that's not the reasoning behind the conservative lending practice. If anything, if this is truly the reasoning, conservative lending practice probably ought to keep up with current bankruptcy law and rates, not from however many decades ago. But I imagine the initial argument I objected to is vastly oversimplified and not the actual reality of the situation (in terms of the bankruptcy claim). Otherwise, I understand what you've been arguing throughout the thread and am considering it.

It's certainly not

It's certainly not "precisely" right, but it's not far off either. One thing to keep in mind is that most reputable (ie nonpredatory) lenders don't use "late" as a repricing trigger, but instead use something called the 30+ day delinquent rule. Simply put, it's when you're more than 30 days overdue on your first missed payment, which means you've now made no payments at all during a period of time when you were supposed to make two. It really is a decent predictor of future bankruptcy, though by no means perfect.

Confusion in terms

First, as I am not nor have I ever been a credit or financial officer in the US, I am not speaking at all to the precise issue of bankruptcy (although it seems to me there is much inexact talk here about what credit card lenders are doing, and doubtless over-generalisation off of the worst). Second, presuming that the general practise is based on accumulated late payments (as I see in other markets), that is a very good - if not 100% accurate - indicator of emerging inability to pay (whether technical bankruptcy of course is a legal question). It is in this context that I said "precisely right" - perhaps not the precise language, but the general concept. Consumers, of course, generally being rather less sophisticated than firms, should have extra protections, so allowing them an out before their whole balance goes to a new rate seems reasonable (and the industry should propose as a regulatory best practise), but there is nothing at all unreasonable about having the rate go up on a carried balance on a revolving loan. Nor to see one's rate go up in case of cross default. That is an old standard credit practise for the simple reason that the lender is exposed to the entire economic situation of the borrower, and multiple markets / countries experiences over the years indicate that when a borrower begins to experience financial stress, it often quickly propagates - i.e. everything starts going south. But no, Drum calls this indefensible and the like. But he wants more conservative and boring lending. Apparently he doesn't actually know what conservative and boring lending actually looked like

However, on other items

Such as deliberately compressing the payment cycle and a number of other rather non-transparent plays to squeeze cents out of the consumer, this I would agree is not defensible. In particular as consumers are not particularly good at managing such information. However, regulatory disclosure should always require "plain English" rather than Lawyer Fine Print.

Universal Default

Universal Default is not when your interest rate is changed because you're late on a payment. Universal Default is when your interest rate is changed on your credit card because you're late on some other unrelated debt from an unrelated lender, i.e. your car loan. There's a big difference between the two.

What a strange posting. It

What a strange posting. It failed to present any evidence at all to support its assertion that these decisions were influenced by lobbying.

even stranger

Even stranger would be the notion that these decisions were not influenced by lobbying, given the reality of the situation.

credit card reform

Do readers a favor and list the names of all the DEMOCRATS who voted against the Senate bill, inclluding Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu/

Delayed implementation

The other cave in to be on the look out for is having whatever provisions do pass not go live until 2011 or 2012. And the delay will be included in the law for no other reason than to give the banks more profits. I expect banks could flip a few switches in their software and discontinue these practices within two months, but every day's delay is money in their pockets.

Joe Biden and Andrew

Joe Biden and Andrew Sullivan are for it. Shouldn't you be?

another option

What if we just voted for bankers and did away with the middle men? Think of the money we could save on those 535 salaries!

Statism

When private industry can bring to a standstill, dilute, rewrite or defeat legislation that does not serve their sole purpose, the governmental body, by default, becomes an extension of industry; this is classically referred to as Statism. To break the deadlock it would appear on the surface that the solution is for government to nationalize the offending industry. The problem with this solution is that government and private industry become indistinguishable; this is referred to as Fascism. Unless the government body reasserts its sole authority over legislation, the slide from Statism to Fascism becomes inevitable or the government body collapses completely. Looking at our current economic and political situation, does any of this sound familiar?

A True Story

Sorry for the late comment, but when I hear people lecturing me about credit responsibility, it gets my panties all in a bunch (I'm looking at you, lounsbury). Anyway, here's my story: In February I scheduled an EFT to BoA for my wifes' credit card payment. Somehow, it wasn't credited until the next day at 6AM. Since the same thing apparently happened in October they raised her rate from 7.9% to 24.9% on our existing balance. When we contacted them, they refused to compromise at all. I am not asking for any sympathy, I just want people to know what they are doing. I decided to refinance my house and use my equity to pay off the blood sucking leeches at BoA in full. Apparently, this changed my FICO score enough that my credit card company (US Bank) decided to change my rate from 9.9% to 21.9%. How is this fair? I have never been more than 30 days late on anything and both my wife and I carry a FICO score well North of 700. We have held these accounts for over a decade and have never failed to pay in a timely manner or exceeded our credit limit. Since I have been careful to mind my credit, it is not hard for me to transfer my debt to a more reasonable vehicle, but it infuriates me that these corrupt enterprises are digging their hands into my pockets as deep as they can reach. It's not enough that they demand billions of tax dollars to appear solvent, but the fact that they feel the need to prey on those of us whose hard work has produced the wealth of this country over the past decade is indefensible, in my opinion. I can only hope that someone in Congress will stand up for the working people who make this country great, but I know that my hope is probably in vain. Dodd talks a good game, but he did fold on the telecom immunity issue.

Leo, they are laughing all the way to the . . .

Well, you know. But this concept of 'fairness' interests me. It sounds quaint. I'm pretty sure the only meaningful terms these days are 'legal' and 'illegal,' and since the banks make the laws . . . Well, you know. On the bright side we are one step closer to the Libertarian utopia. Just wait until we get there, it will be paradise. Tripp

thnks for your post. it's

thnks for your post. it's wonderful.....

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.