Jim Cunningham is a freelance writer based in Washington, DC. One of his research and writing areas has been corporate responsibility and ethics. I learned of Jim’s work because he was interested enough in Alessandro Machi’s site, Daily-Protest.com, to write an article for the Examiner.
Jim’s piece, entitled “Exclusive: Lone protester takes on corporate giant,” highlighted Alessandro and his efforts to protest Chase for his abusive practices. Quoting from Jim’s observations, at least as a writer he “gets it,” and seems to have no appreciation for the antics of the credit card industry:
And Machi tugged at my own heartstrings when he went into a rant about how Chase shouldn’t be allowed to succeed because it’ll inspire other banks to follow suit. “If Chase gets away with this, then guys in boardroom s around the country are going to say, why aren’t we doing this?” he said, taking on one of my favorite themes. I’ve often written about how corrupt business practices become part of the standard business model.
As we here at ChangeInTerms.com well know, the missing “opt out” issue is paramount with Chase, especially since its executives testified before Congress about providing opt outs and treating customers “fairly.” I’ve been saying all along that this egregious behavior must not only be stopped presently, the Chase debacle must go down in history as textbook case study about failed leadership, unethical and illegal behaviors, and a PR disaster, such that other card companies know they had better not dare try a stunt like Chase attempted perpetrate. In other words:
If we do not make an example out of Chase, card companies will follow Chase’s example.
I contacted Jim to thank him for his article, and in the course of exchanging some correspondence he sent me another interesting link to a book-length report entitled, “Sold Out – How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America.” In case you’d like to have a preview of what’s inside, Jim also sent me a link to his take on it: ”Required reading for the outraged – a book review.”
In perusing some of Jim’s other pieces, I think we’ve found a friend who seems willing to “tell it like it is.” Here’s another link (the first line says plenty about Jim, and about Chase):
A crooked credit card company (are there any that aren’t?) is issuing “refunds totaling $4.4 million to about 184,000 customers”, for charging fees to their victims, ahem, CUSTOMERS that were deemed illegal.
Loading ...
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I stated this on April 9th on a different article, but starting June 1st Bank of America is implementing Chases plan.
Yesterday Bof implemented the same minimum payment increase (without the 10.00 monthly finance charge) because they saw from Chase that they could. They used the same language which indicates to me that Chase attorneys believe this is a viable stance and based it on the economic picture rather than individual customer defaults. So how many millions of taxpayers are entangled now? If the NY AG had pressed for a full reset of our accounts I don’t believe Bof would be ignorant enough to press their increases…monkey see, monkey do.
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Hi Cathy,
Do you have a link or other documentation regarding Bank of America’s change? If so, please post it, or better yet, contact me using this site’s contact form. Obviously, the “PR nightmare” that I had hoped would dissuade other banks from implementing the same changes was not successfully created. It always seems to boil down to what banks can do under our useless legal and regulatory system — which they obviously own. Thanks for the information (as disappointing as it is to receive).
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
White House to Meet With Credit Card Execs
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-to-meet-with-rb-14952043.html?.v=1
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I apologize, I read the following article incorrectly. Bof is doubling the interest rate on accounts with a 10% or less APR.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123922365800702453.html
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart have also filed Suit for the fees and other issues (from epinions#140)
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Addendum to #3
We must make it sure that our beloved, beloved execs hear what they deserve.
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Just found your blog. I’m with you. And know that there’s a rising anger among merchants too, not just at Chase but at all of them. E-Commerce merchants, in particular are fed up. We pay higher fees for the added risk of accepting cards on-line and yet we’re always responsible for any losses and pay chargeback fees if we’re the victim of fraudulent use of a card. We are responsible for fraud screening but refused access to the very information we need to do it.
Merchants are forced to pay higher rates for ‘rewards’ cards. We can’t opt out and refuse to take them.
And, unlike cardholders, we’re forced to do business with these crooks. On-line merchants that don’t accept credit cards don’t usually stay in business long.
I’m in the early stages of putting together a site related to merchant911.org but aimed at cardholders. Cardholder911.info will provide ID theft and card fraud protection information for cardholders and keep the public informed about all the ripoffs that are going on out there. You can bet you’ll get a link or two from us.
Tom Mahoney, Director
Merchant911.org
Protecting against card fraud since 2001 – 3900 members and growing.
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I followed Kathy’s link and found the following pearl:
“In January, Chase Card Services changed the terms for thousands of customers who had low interest rates but were carrying a balance.”
Is it me, or this is moronic? Of course, these customers were carrying a balance.
on Apr 16th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Addendum to #8
In most cases there was a transfer involved so there was a balance to begin with.
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan Chase, said yesterday that he regrets accepting $25 billion in federal aid. He called the money “a scarlet letter,” pledged quick repayment and renounced further borrowing from the government, saying, “We’ve learned our lesson about that.” NOW YOU KNOW HOW WE FEEL!!!
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Hi Tom,
I certainly agree that the issues you raise with respect to merchants are troubling. Somewhat ironically, as an entrepreneurship professor, I literally must point out to students that accepting credit cards is necessary for e-commerce oriented businesses (and unless one provides a cash versus credit card price, is probably going to be needed to meet customer expectations in brick and mortar businesses).
Given the above practical realities, I also understand what you meant regarding “we’re forced to do do business with these crooks.” However, I want to provide some additional remarks for site visitors who may not understand some of the nuances of the issue. Unfortunately, the stranglehold that credit card companies have managed over time to create is universal, affecting consumers and merchants alike. If cardholders are in a position such that they must carry a balance, then they are “forced to do business with these crooks” as well.
As you know, due to big bank mergers and consolidations (which occurred unchallenged by anti-trust regulators — imagine that, the credit card industry getting special treatment!), there are only a few choices relative to card issuers for all intents and purposes. For the most part, customers can select between Bank of America, CitiBank, Chase, American Express, Capital One, or Discover (relative to a short-list of the biggest issuers). And, as the post above suggests, they all tend to copy one another’s business practices. In many cases, store cards and those issued by local/regional banks, are actually serviced by one of the aforementioned “big” credit card companies (along with a plethora of affinity cards).
Meanwhile, it is an insult to anyone who is charged a fee because they were given a fraudulent payment. As it relates to this, the bank where I have a checking account charged a $30 fee when a rebate check that my wife deposited bounced. I think that the person or entity that negligently bounces a check (or charge) should be the only recipient of a fee (even if that means doubling the NSF charge to the check writer, such that the person who innocently accepts the bad instrument is held harmless). I hesitate in saying this without a caveat, because credit card companies have been playing games with credit line reductions, unbeknown to card holders, only to turn around and impose over limit fees; I have already indicated in other posts that this is loathsome behavior on the part of banks (and not an act of negligence on the part of the card holder).
I certainly appreciate any and all inbound links (and you are welcome to use the supporter badges on the ChangeInTerms.com site). I’ll be happy to provide reciprocal links to your site(s). One of my biggest concerns has been small businesses. Indeed, I have not thus far addressed the merchant side of the credit card debacle to any great extent, thus far, as I have been focusing on the borrowing side on the part of consumers and small businesses. Thus, your present and future dialog is highly valued. Take care.
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am
This article was edited. In yesterday’s quote, Dimon said that they’re RICH, RICH and could return money as soon as regulations allowed.
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Hi anna22,
Regarding “carrying a balance” (and moronic, #8), one of the original public quotes was from Chase’s spokesperson, and stated similarly along these lines: “a relatively small number but they carry billions in unsecured debts.”
In every instance, Chase’s approach has been to demean account holders, cry “poor, poor, bank” and portray customers as though they were risky, slow-paying laggards who deserved it. And did you notice the word choice, “unsecured”? That too, was moronic. By nature, all credit card accounts are unsecured, excepting some with specific clauses.
I might add that one type of informally imposed security exists: the fear of credit scores that consumers had better have. One’s credit score is now having an increasingly frightening impact, affecting job searches, insurance, mortgages, car loans (and more). What is arising amounts to life of “universal damnation” (related to “universal default”), should one be impacted by a lowered credit score.
No, your mental processes are not short-circuiting! Chase has been making moronic decisions, which it has consistently tried to justify with moronic statements.
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 7:07 am
I love this team! Lets keep growing as a community and maybe we can make a difference.
Joel Grover of KCBS Los Angeles broke a story about how AMEX is closing accounts of their best customers. The customers then lose ALL of their frequent flyer miles! One gentleman lost 7 million miles!
However, I then put two and two together when I found an internet article about Citibank and American Airlines. So I broke a story a week ago about how AMEX is closing long time customers cards which renders their frequent flyer miles worthless. Then American Airlines is reselling those same frequent flyer miles to citibank in exchange for favorable loan terms. (Jim Cunningham, does that qualify as a conspiracy?) It is such an unbelievable story, but will it ever make the mainstream media?
http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2009/04/breaking-news-amex-and-citibank-have.html
By the way, I was told that Citibank is next on the list of the change in terms by a citibank employee at an actual Citibank Branch, but it is possible that she did not know the exact scenario. Citibank has stepped up its six month zero interest offer with a 3% fee (that equals 6 percent up front because it is for only half a year). Maybe they will hold off and simply try and lure people who have life of the loan privileges to go for another offer that is short term and then will explode into a high interest rate offer.
While Democrats and Republicans throw Tea into the River, The Credit Card Companies are taking off with the real loot.
Nowadays, anybody with a credit card that has an interest rate lower than 10% is considered a “Toxic Asset” by the credit card companies.
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on Apr 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
No Tea for you
on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
Found this on YouTube this morning. Humorous, but not that far from the truth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-a_8LYzrw