Finally, Peggy got in a “direct hit” against Chase on national TV about the missing opt out for 400,000 customers, despite the testimony that Chase executives delivered before Congress. As regular ChangeInTerms.com site visitors are aware, I have mentioned this “smoking gun” evidence of corruption and unethical behavior over and over again.
As I was composing my letter of December 3, 2008 to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith (responding to the change in terms that I had just received), I found links to that testimony and noticed the missing opt out. Of course, I “called Chase out” on that issue in my letter. It is just flat-out wrong that these executives have been allowed to get away with telling Congress one thing (as per the transcripts from the testimony), and then turn around and do a 180 degree about-face by imposing a coercive, onerous, precedent-setting change in terms with no opt out.
Clearly, the document trail established by the testimony showed that the executives were using opt outs as their example to demonstrate the means by which Chase treated customers fairly. Since there is no opt out, I have been harping on the issue of their misrepresentations for months. I consider statements made by any corporation’s executives before customers, prospects, shareholders, or Congress, to be part of the “contract” that the corporation has promoted, agreed to, and should abide by. Yet, all we ever hear about from pundits is “read your contract.”
Meanwhile, I’ve been frustrated by journalists’ lack of initiative, skill, or fortitude in bringing these facts about the testimony versus the actual behavior to light. Even though I am not a journalist, I happen to own a few books on investigative reporting, and the lack of coverage or failure to notice the testimony relative to the missing opt outs is frankly, incompetent.
I expect that Peggy would be less than satisfied with the responses from the panelists, given that one recommendation was to switch to the 7.99% (double-my-interest “alternate option” rate, which is exactly what Chase wanted — who wouldn’t want to double their rates?). By the way, this is otherwise known as “bait and switch” as alleged in the class action lawsuits.
Hence, even if the media has failed to make mention, at least Peggy got in a nicely aimed and delivered “direct hit” regarding the lies that Chase told in their testimony before Congress. See the video (starting around 4:48 into the segment):
The segment above aired on CNBC’s “On the Money” program hosted by Carmen Wong Ulrich (April 23, 2009, starting at 10:00 p.m., EST).
Thank you Peggy! You scored one against Chase, and for those of us who have been abused by their “broken contract.”
Loading ...
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Excellent find Robert. I’m going to transcribe Peggy’s words so they actually exist on the internet. In a few hours we’ll be able to actually find Peggy’s words at http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on Apr 24th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Way to go Peg!
They may never recover from that thrashing!
The “expert” may not appreciate the violence of our betrayal as it seems that he was trying to say that since the small print in the users agreement give unfettered freedom to the banks to change terms, we have not actually been mistreated.
HA!
We will show them! All we need is a few more laws and regulators and law enforcement will be bound to find one that they can act on.
A Thousand monkeys….a Thousand Days….A Thousand campaign contributions, that is the remedy.
on Apr 25th, 2009 at 3:29 am
I’ve transcribed her interview, it makes for a powerful read as it should now be google friendly.
http://daily-protest.blogspot.com/2009/04/day-19-chase-bank-protest-peggy-from_2008.html
on Apr 25th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Thanks, Dr. Lahm and Marv – I would like to think this is just the first of many “no opt-out” wounds in Chase’s side.
I wasn’t looking for the panel to give Chase a pass but that is what they seemed to do. My son claims I grimaced when the advice was given to accept the higher interest rate. If so, my facial expression merely reflected what I was thinking, i.e., “NO WAY, I have no intention of doing that.”
Once the panel started talking, I wasn’t given a chance to speak up and say that, “Yes, I was one of the $10/month additional finance charge group.” The panel seemed to think there was some benefit in being part of that group of mistreated Chase customers. Let’s hope so – after the abuse Chase has heaped on us, after denigrating us as there should be something good come out of it.
I really don’t understand why the lack of an opt out provision has garnered so little attention (basically none) from the press. Dr. Lahm’s assessment that the journalists just aren’t doing their job is the best explanation I have heard. But why are the people supposedly in charge of regulating these things also turning a blind eye at Chase’s audacity? The silence on this issue is deafening.
on Apr 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
On a lighter note…..On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase Bank was accused in a civil suit, of negligence, commercial bad faith, and in essence, being an accomplice to Bernie Madoff’s racketeering! Not our sweet little Chase!!!
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-bzbank2512693282apr24,0,5791439.story
on Apr 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Very nicely done, Peggy.
However, based on the response that the 7.99% “option” wasn’t that bad given credit card rates, it certainly would have been better had you been given the opportunity to explain that the 7.99% was for a LIMITED time only and NOT for the life of the loan.
It’s certainly is an eye-opener to see how little these “experts” really know about the topic they are discussing.
on Apr 27th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Elly – How right you are. There is no guarantee of the increased interest rate would stay at 7.99% beyond January, 2010.
I notice that the panel wanted me to accept the 7.99% interest so I could go back to paying 2% of the outstanding balance….but then advised me to pour my money into getting the loan paid off so I could invest that money with a financial planner! That advice doesn’t make sense….if I have money to rapidly pay down the debt, why wouldn’t I continue to pay 5% of the outstanding balance a month to keep the 3.99% locked in? Incidentally, that is what I am doing.
Investing with a financial planner isn’t all that appealing – we have done that and now our retirement (IRA) funds are worth far less then the amount invested – about 40% less. Our IRA’s had just recovered from the post 9-11 plunge about a year before this latest financial debacle. We’d have been better off to hide cash in our mattress for the last 25 years.
Allessandro – Thanks for putting the transcript of my question on your website. That had to have taken a lot of time – I hope it helps the cause!
on Apr 28th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Ha.
More about our beloved Chase.
Italy Seizes Millions in Assets From Four Banks
The article in the NYT (business section), but the link didn’t work, so I am providing the one which seems to work
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090427-720562.html
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Ha. More about Chase again.
Feeling Secure, Some Banks Want to Be Left Alone
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/business/economy/29bank.html?hp
Dimon declares that Chase is doing fine, just fine.
I have the following questions/comments:
How fine can a company do if the number of law suits is immense: class actions, Madoff related, Italian and many, many others?
Who is paying Chase’s legal expenses: taxpayers? customers? employees? Apparently Chase’s legal trouble don’t affect top management at all.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I just got off the phone with Chase. My due date was changed to reflect 2 payments due in April with no refund of the interest obtained from the monthly 10.00 finance charge. Chase advised me we are now on 20 day billing cycles. I asked where the interest refund was that accumulated for those 10.00 charges and was told that interest refunds were not guaranteed. I asked how to start the dispute process and was told there is none, I cannot dispute billing issues only purchases. I asked if they changed their position on the 5% minimum after the chat at the White House and was told their position remained. I told them that Congress was assured that those who had damage such as myself on the debt/ratios could get a real opt out and requested it. I was told that the only opt out remained at the variable rate card transfer.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Oh, and they told me it was for my own good to reduce my indebtedness.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“they told me it was for my own good”
I think I am getting angrier and angrier.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Hello Cathy: You mentioned debt/income ratios.
Imagine trying to refinance a mortgage after one has detrimentally relied upon the fraudulent inducement to enter in a guaranteed “life of the loan” terms offered by Chase.
Since, underwriters only consider minimum payments on credit card debt in order to determine debt/income ratios, the 250% monthly increase for some individuals could be a deal-breaker as far as qualifying for a loan.
Damages for the lawsuits?
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Elly,
That is exactly what happened to me to invoke the quoting of Carter Frankes’ testimony to Congress. “For example, if a customer’s overall credit profile deteriorates significantly, and therefore exposes us to an increased risk that their balance will not be paid, we provide that customer with an “opt out” option. This means that the customer may reject any change in terms, close their account, and pay off the balance under their existing terms.”…seems they forgot about that in my case even though I showed them damage. They tried to tell me it was an overall income/debt and I corrected them that it was the monthly minimums out vs income not yearly…didn’t help.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I am not a lawyer and I am wondering if according to American law a murderer can go home free because he declares that he murdered someone for his/her own good.
on Apr 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Pay them off and get your card from a reputable bank
http://www.simmonsfirst.com/
I have had a card with these guys since 1984 and they have never once changed my terms to my detriment.
They have several times lowered my rate.
They are 7.25% fixed no fee.
on Apr 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Another update: A representative from Chase Executive offices just called me about my email to Gordon Smith. Their position is that the statements made to Congress about Chase having an opt out program for those who do not agree with changes to their terms is outdated. They state that 2 changes have occurred since that testimony and therefore Carter Franke’s assurances do not carry forward to our claims as they were promised on a different type of account and different circumstances.
on Apr 30th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Cathy – This “explanation” makes me furious. Typical spin by Chase. How low can they go? Apparently there are no depths to which they will not lower themselves.
Honor, integrity, keeping your word (which is what offering an opt out as promised would be) are “OUTDATED”???
The Carter Franke testimony meant absolutely nothing. He lied, pure and simple – like a little kid who gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar….saying anything to get out of trouble. How can he sleep at night?
By all rights, Chase and Carter are going down. There is no way that a company can treat people the way Chase has treated hundreds of thousands of (formerly) loyal customers and come out with their business in tact. If someone had told me six months ago, that Chase would shamelessly promulgate these egregious, unjust, punitive change in terms upon the very people who have been the lifeblood of their business, I would have bet the farm against it. Now if you told me Chase executives are busy tying widows and orphans to railroad tracks to extract every last dime they have from them, I’d believe it!
Chase’s actions are beyond belief. It is a nightmare – unfortunately, a nightmare from which we can’t wake up.
Chase has no shame and has lost all credibility.
on May 1st, 2009 at 7:24 am
Cathy (RE: #17),
“Outdated” is a very interesting interpretation in light of the fact that Chase’s behavior relative to the change in terms is certainly consistent with its overall pattern of twisted logic (and lack of a moral compass). In effect, Chase is also saying that the assurances it made when it promoted “life of the balance loans” are also “outdated.”
Here’s what I wonder: Aren’t the promises account holders made, to pay, therefore “outdated,” too? After all, I promised to pay in 2006, whereas the “we treat customers fairly by providing an opt out” testimony was given by Carter Franke (and the former CEO of Chase Card services) in 2007.
Therefore, by virtue of the “lifespan of promises” (about a year and a half, for Chase), I think my promise must be even more outdated!
on May 1st, 2009 at 7:41 am
Yes, my promises are outdated. Actually, I think that all 400,000 promises are soooo outdated. We can’t continue being soooo outdated. I think we should stop paying.
on May 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
People, please stop saying that CEO Srednicki and CMO Franke were lying.
They were telling the truth.
What Chase is saying NOW is a lie.
When I entered into this agreement with Chase, both parties (Chase and I) agreed on the terms. Part of the agreement was that either party could “opt out” of any change proposed by the other party, and then the account would be closed, and the borrower would continue to pay off the balance, under the already agreed terms, over time.
Chase now claims that “opting out” means that the borrower pays the full balance immediately. That is a lie. That was not my definition of “opting out,” when I entered into an agreement with Chase. And (this is important) that was not Chase’s definition of “opting out,” when it entered into an agreement with me. At the time, both parties AGREED about the meaning of “opting out.” The testimony of Franke and Srednicki is proof that Chase understood “opting out” in exactly the same way as I understood it. Therefore the new definition of “opting out” is a CHANGE.
The new definition did NOT exist, according to EITHER party, when we entered into the agreement. The testimony of Franke and Srednicki proves this, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
on May 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
[...] a comment under my post entitled, “Peggy got in a nicely aimed and delivered “direct hit” [...]
on May 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am
CorporateDeathPenalty,
Understood…I will cease and desist.
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Hi Peggy, thanks for noticing I made the transcript of your phone call. Nice job by the way getting your thoughts out so clearly!
Once it’s in transcript form it is easier to find and quote.
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Cathy from post #11. As you probably already know, it is NOT for your own good to pay down a lower interest rate credit card at a faster rate than a higher interest rate credit card. Does Chase really believe the absolute lies and misdirection they are putting out on an almost daily basis?
This is just crazy!
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on May 20th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Peggy from #4 comment, the RIGHT TO OPT OUT is almost as important as the abolition of slavery and the right for women to vote in terms of importance. How Opting out is not already a right speaks very badly of our very way of life.
We all know that Opting out is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than increasing fee increases from 30 days to 45 days. Also, what matters more is being able to opt out AFTER we see the change in terms on either of our first TWO BILLS after the change has been made!
http://www.Daily-Protest.com
on Jun 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
[...] face in terms of its actions. (Thanks to Alessandro, who transcribed Peggy’s remarks, here; the above link will lead to a video [...]