Consumer Agency Seems to Soften Limit on Credit Cards Fees

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, introduced a proposal that would make it easier for credit card issuers to charge fees before borrowers’ accounts were officially open.

The bureau, which began overseeing many consumer financial products last year, said it was issuing the proposed rule in response to a federal court decision that challenged how the Credit Card Act was being applied. The act, which took effect in February 2010, put several rules in place aimed at curbing abusive lending practices.

Part of the new law said that credit card issuers could not charge fees equal to more than 25 percent of the borrower’s credit limit in the first year after the account was opened. But after certain credit card issuers started charging application or processing fees before consumers’ accounts were opened, the Federal Reserve expanded the rule so that the fee limit would also apply to those upfront charges. That’s the piece of the rule that the consumer protection agency, which has since assumed regulatory authority, is proposing to eliminate.

The bureau declined to say why it took this course. But some consumer advocates said they believed that the consumer agency, led by Richard Cordray, may be backing down because it has decided to “pick its battles,” while trying to show that it is not unfriendly to business.

But other advocates said they could not understand why the agency was not taking a more aggressive stand. “Even if it is a small rule, it affects the most vulnerable of consumers — consumers with impaired credit records, often of limited means, who end up with these expensive fee-harvester cards,” said Chi Chi Wu, a lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center, referring to cards marketed to people with tarnished credit histories. “Exactly the sort of consumers that we think C.F.P.B. should stand strongest for.”

The bureau’s proposal stems from a ruling in September by the Federal District Court for South Dakota that granted a preliminary injunction blocking the rule on the upfront fees from taking effect. To resolve the matter, the consumer agency said it was seeking comment on whether it should revise the rule so that it no longer applies to fees charged before an account is opened.

The initial lawsuit that led to the federal ruling was brought in July 2011 by First Premier Bank of South Dakota, which issues cards to borrowers with troubled credit records. The bank told the court that it would “suffer irreparable harm” if it were not allowed to collect the upfront fees. “The regulation will threaten First Premier’s very existence by causing the loss of millions of dollars in profits,” the bank said.

It also argued that it is “one of the few businesses in the country that offers such high-risk borrowers the chance to rebuild their credit history.”

A First Premier spokeswoman, Brenda Bethke, said Thursday that the bureau’s proposal is under review by its legal counsel and declined to comment.

Odysseas Papadimitriou, chief executive at CardHub.com, a credit card comparison Web site, said that to his knowledge, First Premier was the only bank that has been trying to make up for revenue that had been crimped by the new credit card regulations by charging more upfront fees. “However, you can count on other banks to start doing the same thing if consumers embrace these high-fee credit cards,” he added. “A smarter strategy for the C.F.P.B. might be to drop the amendment and the associated legal battle but require any issuers that charge fees before the account is opened to send a notice that clearly shows consumers how much their credit card will cost them.”

But some consumer advocates said they still believe that the fees are egregious enough to warrant more of a fight. They said First Premier began charging a $95 processing fee before the card account was opened, as well as a $75 annual fee. Yet the credit limit on the card was $300.

“The C.F.P.B. should not back down in protecting consumers from this sort of chicanery,” Ms. Wu said.

The consumer agency said all comments on its proposal must be received by June 11.

“We welcome and want public feedback on this proposal,” the agency said.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

A Look at Why Consumers Are Using Prepaid Debit Cards

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

It’s clear that prepaid debit cards — cards that you load with cash, spend down and then reload — are hot.

In 2009, consumers loaded roughly $29 billion on such cards, which are especially popular with young adults and those considered underbanked — meaning they have little access to mainstream financial institutions like banks. But by next year, that amount is expected to reach $202 billion, according to an estimate cited in a report from an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Even the budgeting guru Suze Orman is marketing a prepaid card.

So to gain insight into why consumers are using the cards, researchers from Pew’s Safe Checking in the Electronic Age project convened focus groups last fall in Houston and Chicago.

The project recently released some of its findings, along with excerpts from the comments made by participants in the focus groups. The gist of the findings is that users do not like some of the fees associated with prepaid cards, but seem to prefer them over higher and, from their perspective, less predictable fees that come along with traditional checking accounts.

Some of the comments are not only enlightening but also fun to read, so I decided to share some here. (You can read more in the full report).

Here’s one of my favorites, in which a Chicago woman re-enacts a telephone call she made to the customer service number for her prepaid card to question a charge — only to learn that she was being charged for the inquiry. (The card brand isn’t identified.)

Participant: “It was like, ‘Ma’am, you get charged for calling customer service.’ ‘I’m getting charged now for calling you all about the money that I got charged?’ She was like, ‘Yes, I’m sorry.’ I was like, ‘The next time I load my card, I have to pay for the fees that you charge me for talking to you right now?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘O.K. ’Bye.’”

Yet participants seemed to prefer the fees associated with prepaid cards, which Houston participants described as more transparent, to charges like overdraft fees that can come into play with checking accounts at banks.

Male Participant: “Compared to my situation, I went through a lot of late fees with the credit cards, extra fees with the checking accounts. I was paying monthly between $35 to $50 in fees compared to $3.99 that I pay for a maintenance fee to get a card.”

Female Participant, on the prepaid card fees: “I think they are fair because they’re upfront. I’m thinking in contrast to a checking account. I think the ambiance and the idea of the marketing behind a checking account is they’re your friend; they’re your hometown bank. You can depend on them. You can count on them and, really, they’re just lulling you into the sense of comfort because they’re going to whammy you with fees on the backside. Whereas prepaid debit cards, they’re very upfront. This is the cost of the card; this is the cost for the services. It’s up to you at that point.”

Several participants seemed uneasy about the notion of adding credit options to prepaid cards, since they see a major benefit of the cards as helping them stick to a budget and avoid overspending.

Female Participant (Chicago): “It defeats the purpose of a prepaid debit card because it is, like, it’s a credit card. You can use money that you really don’t have to pay back, and I wouldn’t want to do that because I know I’m just going to get myself in some trouble.”

Have you used prepaid debit cards? Are the fees charged for them worth it for the service the cards offer?

View the original article here

Peliculas Online