Obama administration officials plan to meet with credit card company executives at the White House next Thursday, April 23, 2009. Various reports leave it unclear as to whether or not the President will be in attendance. According to CNBC, which is citing a Reuters report, he will not. Rather, “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and other officials are planning to attend the meeting.” However, according to FoxBusiness “sources do not rule out” that the President will attend.
The aforementioned Reuters report indicated a list of credit card industry representatives that may be involved, which was as follows: Discover Financial Services, Visa, Mastercard Incorporated, JPMorgan Chase and Co, Wells Fargo and Co, Citigroup Inc, American Express Co, Bank of America Corp, Capital One Financial. If the banks do face any changes, I expect that they’ll whine that they need plenty of time to comply. (Remember, Chase argued customers should only need 15 days to comply with its new rules, but it wanted 18 months to comply with new FED Regulation Z rules.)
I note that an unnamed official was quoted to say the meeting is “basically just a part of our normal outreach to different groups to hear some of their concerns.” A Capital One spokesperson said that “We have been invited to the White House.” I’m also willing to bet that at the meeting these supposedly competitive company representatives will all get along with one another famously — they operate like a drug cartel, so I’m sure it will be one big happy family gathering. Perhaps the White House chef will have some wine ordered in from the “old country” to serve with lunch (no fryer leg quarters with cream of mushroom soup for these invited guests).
We already know that the theme on the part of the bankers will be the one we always hear: we have to manage risk. But the reality is that what banks really mean (as evidenced by their actions) is that “if we can’t rate-jack and payment-jack account holders, and design card products with built in traps such that we can ‘have our way’ with customers [victims] any time we want,” we’re going to threaten that credit availability will suffer and costs will be higher. And you know what? I hope that when these banks later try to prove their point, it backfires on them and leads to a resurgence of community banks and credit unions. Once gasoline prices double again (they will), we’ll all need to stay closer to home, anyway.
Somehow, in the minds of these bankers, they have grown accustomed to thinking that it’s “normal” and a valid “business model” to offer customers one set of terms, with the premeditated intent to change those terms into an altogether different proposition as soon as the account holder is “hooked.”
In any other industry, this is called bait and switch, but with banks, they call it “managing risk.” I do wonder how much risk all of those “clever MBAs and lawyers” working for these banks think is entailed in alienating a group of good-paying customers who have done nothing wrong?
Of course, Chase has been the worst in recent times, using a blatantly coercive tactic to get customers to give up their previously promised promotional rates. How does it help to manage risk, making payment terms so onerous (raising them to two-and-a-half times the previous rate) that customers can’t pay — literally pushing more and more American consumers into default? These customers, already paid these banks once, by the way, with bail out money (so the banks want to double-dip).
Well, I think it’s about time that our government did some “outreach” to “hear the concerns” that banks have created for consumers and small businesses, instead. It’s ordinary working people, not banking executives, who are being massacred with an avalanche of change in terms notices by this group of thugs. Hear some of mine (”Bob the Professor”):
1) Sooner or later, the bail out costs will come out of payroll deductions and increased fees and taxes on everything you buy: gasoline, cigarettes, car tags, property taxes, utilities, sales tax (have you noticed list of fees and taxes on your phone bill?).
2) Your children and grandchildren are going to be footing the bill for this bail out debt, too.
3) Talking about risk, I fear a new era of economic slavery (our ever-shrinking paychecks will be what’s left over after working for the government and the bankers most of the year).
4) The problem that started this all in terms of consumer confidence and the tumble was the housing market (which has caused a year of separation/commuting in my family thus far); the bail out funds would have been less or perhaps not necessary at all if instead of bailing out banks, government had addressed the housing issue, first.
5) Banks are knee-capping entrepreneurs – next to war or acts of terrorism, there is no greater risk to the possibility of an economic recovery, than that.
Given that a significant portion of our so-called free press serves as nothing more than a mouth-piece for the financial services industry – as one of the most aggressive industries of all relative to advertising expenditures — I am also not surprised that reports about “invitations” to speak to Congress or the White House practically all include a “poor, poor, banks have to control risk” justification.
Noting that Chase executives already lied about providing opt outs in testimony before Congress, I gather that there’s a good chance that they will not be held accountable by the media (or anyone else in our government) for whatever they say when they attend a meeting at the White House, either.
Have you seen any significant coverage about these lies and misrepresentations with regard to the missing opt out despite the prior testimony in the major media? Not me. If I tune in to the national brand 24-hour news stations, it’s more likely that the story I’ll see 7 times in one hour is ”a woman found an alligator in Florida.”
Where’s the “Chase executives lied to Congress about opt outs” headline?
Loading ...
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am
As I have stated before, I have two accounts with Chase.
It turns out that one account was returned to its original terms, while the other account was changed to the 7.99% rate until 2011.
I called Chase Customer NO Service and asked them why one account had been changed back to the original terms and the other account not returned. They said that it had occurred after an account review. They refused to reveal what that criteria was, but refused to return both accounts to its original terms. The individual that I talked too did admit that they reason for the “change-in-terms” was based initially on the fact that my accounts were unprofitable.
I then brought up the $10 Service/Finance charge, which she said had been dropped after the company re-evaluated the fee. I then brought up the Cuomo press release, and that the fee had been withdrawn because the fee was clearly a violation of “Contract Law”. She said that was a matter of opinion, and that their were many opinions out there.
I then said that if I had known that the $10 finance charge was going to be dropped, or that the “change-in-terms” would have applied to only one of my accounts, and if we hadn’t been in the middle of applying for a construction loan, then I would have never accepted the “change-in-terms” in the first place.
THEY REFUSED TO BUDGE!
THEY REFUSE TO ADMIT TO ANY MISTAKES!
THEY ARE HOLDING FAST TO THEIR POSITION!
I really despise this company, and can hardly wait to be rid of them.
I did send an e-mail to New York Attorney General Cuomo’s office, but they referred me to the OCC. They said my issue was beyond the scope of their issue with Chase.
Would my contacting the OCC do any good? And, how else can I be of help with taking on this unethical company.
Side Note: I told the Lady on the phone that she seemed nice enough and I had no personal beef with her, but suggested on her free time at home she should check out Changeinterms.com. That did not sit well with her.
Best Regards to all!!!!!!!!!!!
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“reason for the “change-in-terms” was based initially on the fact that my accounts were unprofitable”
OK, you know, I am thinking again about my “bad, bad wife” analogy.
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I’m so glad my blood pressure is on the low side because every time I read someone else’s story (just like mine), I can feel it going up and up! My feelings exactly, Brent… “I really despise this company”!!!
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Hey Barabra, hang in there. Momentum is on our side. Remember Chase has not sent out all of their 250% monthly minimum payment billings yet. You can help http://www.Daily-Protest.com by simply putting up a Daily-Protest.com sign somewhere where people will see it.
Please read a specific topic I have about this request, http://daily-protest.blogspot.com/2009/04/day-11-chase-bank-protest-van-nuys-post.html, for those interested in promoted a growing protest movement, it is important that all signs be safely posted.
I have added Change in Terms.com to my http://www.dailypuma.com site.
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Brent I also have 2 credit cards with Chase, one was affected the other was not. The difference is balance…I believe the line to be a balance of $10,000.00. Those accounts with balances below that amount did not have a minimum payment increase, those above did.
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The monkeys at Chase don’t know why they did what they did. I have been doing business with them for almost 20 years in one form or another.
In all this time I have not felt that I could ever communicate with them.
I think they must hire from some sort of “special” pool.
I am serious. They are simple, without exception.
Somewhere there must be someone lucid pulling levers but I don’t know how to get in touch with him/her.
on Apr 19th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
The WSJ has a surprisingly superficial article about Obama and the credit card industry.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124015800037232541.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Cathy, I had two Chase cards that had identical 5.99 until they were paid off. They had been paid down from around 7,500 dollars to 2,000 dollars. Both were infected, uh, affected. I have one more, when the shoe drops on that one, I will be really royally upset and I won’t have much to lose and plenty to gain by protesting them.
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 2:28 am
“I believe the line to be a balance of $10,000.00.”
Kathy, I doubt it. I have two lines; both were below 10,000.00. One is affected (3.99); the other not (4.99). It’s difficult to guess “the monkeys’” thinking.
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Ann I guessed at 10,000 as most of the complaints I’ve read, and there have been hundreds, were all above that number, the average being 12,000. Then again, those with 5,000 balances who didn’t really mind their 250.00 a month payments may simply not be complaining. My 3.99 was not affected and it had the lower balance and more current activity, my 4.99 was the original transfer and had a higher balance and is the older of the accounts and it was changed. The magic number is out there whether it’s a balance amount or a last activity date.
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 5:30 am
They told me 20 months plus but I took it with a grain of salt
on Apr 20th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“Somewhere there must be someone lucid pulling levers but I don’t know how to get in touch with him/her.”
Oh Marv, I am pretty sure that “someone lucid pulling levers” is a real problem.
Once again, scientists shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
on May 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
[...] A customer service experience that is based on we (banks) “want ya!” and your business, as compared to we “gotcha!” and you can take it, and take it, and take it (abuses, that is, especially with no “opt out,” like the one Chase executives described in testimony before Congress, and then failed to provide); [...]