The numerous grammatical mistakes (and end of the message) made me wonder if it was from a low level customer service representative.  I have little doubt in my mind that many of these individuals are at the mercy of higher-ups at Chase, and as such must do the “dirty work” of enforcing edicts by senior executives (which is what really “jerks my chain” when I note that Gordon Smith was off lecturing on “leadership” while his employees were implementing one of the most abusive acts against customers in the history of the credit card industry).

I have researched the name of the submitter as was indicated, and I found several links that were suggestive of the individual’s role with Chase (discussed below).  I do not have the ability to determine the authenticity of the submission, but I do have the right to document what has occurred.  Thus, here is what was submitted:

[-------BEGIN SUBMISSION-------]

I am just writing to let your users know why we are treating you this way.

First understand that times are hard and people are having trouble payi,ng us back what they borrowed. This is a real problem.

As a bank we are expected to make a profet for our customers that invest.

Secondly, we really have already loaned more money to Americans than we feel comfortable about.

The economy in America is just not expected to rise any time soon. The employment rate is bottoming out and this affects our buisness. If people don’t have jobs they cannot pay us back.

So the bottom line is we want people to take their buisness elsewhere. Especially those of you that are not using your cards any more.

Please just transfer your accounts to another bank and leave me alone.

Kelly Hanick

[-------END SUBMISSION-------]

First, there does appear to be a “Kelly Hanick” with Chase.  On the ComplaintsBoard.com site under a post entitled “Credit Card Gouging” I found several comments referencing this individual, including some with an email address and telephone number, along with personal (i.e., home) and corporate postal mail addresses.

As an aside, the aforementioned home address was presented with the suggestion that complaints should be sent there, and while I understand the anger, I encourage site visitors to maintain the moral high ground by corresponding to Chase’s offices.  (This is also why I moderate the site.  This is a PG-13 site, for instance, because I will not let Chase have the upper hand by characterizing customers as a bunch of financially illiterate fools who do not have the vocabulary to do anything other than spew expletives; this would aid Chase in justifying the twisted logic that, they — customers — deserve the treatment that has been bestowed upon them.  I maintain this is especially appropriate given that smooth talking executives such as Jamie Dimon seem able to seduce Congressional representatives in Washington, with their “words of wisdom.”)

Kelly also has a profile at LinkedIn.com, a snippet of which is shown in the screenshot below:

Assuming for a moment the veracity of the comment itself, and that it indeed represents the views of the “Kelly Hanick” referenced above, I will provide a response (although I have saved the notification to moderate on the site, including the IP address):

1) Yes, times are challenging.  Unemployment is rising, entrepreneurs are struggling (one of the major reasons unemployment is rising), and Chase is SQUEEZING consumers and small businesses HARD at a time when they are at a tremendous disadvantage.  When payments are jacked-up so high that families and small businesses cannot pay, they default.  Individuals in this predicament were not planning to default; rather, they were PUSHED INTO DEFAULT, by Chase (and other banks).  Banks as a whole have acted in bad faith.  Yes, Kelly, “this is a real problem.”

2) I have never advocated that Chase or any businesses should not make a profit.  The problem is, Chase has attempted to do so by employing unethical tactics.  Where’s my “proof,” you might ask?  Telling me or customers at large that adding a so-called “service charge” that “is a finance charge” would not impact a promotional APR is a lie (I’m not dancing around with other possible word-choices such as “disingenuous,” “incorrect,” or “misleading” — anyone who knows the first thing about interest and amortization knows that adding a finance charge to an existing APR increases the overall rate).

3) Relative to item 2, above, Chase did rescind the finance charge (in a settlement with the New York Attorney General’s Office).  However, it appears to have done so under pressure while admitting no wrongdoing.  (And for me, personally, the damage and repercussions were already done — I’ve addressed that further below).

4) With regard to the “economy” and “unemployment rate bottoming out”: I have been advocating for small businesses as the major contributors to the economy that they are, for years.  On October 12, 2009, I just presented yet another paper based on scholarly research, and I am well aware that approximately half of very small businesses use credit cards as a source of capital (over ten million very small firms).  And, as can be seen in the SBA Office of Advocacy’s most recently published FAQs

Small firms:
• Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic
product (GDP).
• Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

Hence, while Chase is worried about being paid, its policies are DECIMATING (in yet another way, besides squeezing consumers to the point of defaulting), the very entrepreneurs who are our only hope for an economic recovery, not just “anytime soon,” but ever.

5) Chase has already made it abundantly clear that its wish is to have people take their business elsewhere.  We got that message.  Unfortunately, that’s not so easy to do, for some individuals.  This is especially true after having their credit scores ruined, lines of credit slashed, and in light of a credit card industry cartel which provides few options (in good times or bad).

6) If Chase is so worried about investors and profits, then it might want to keep in mind that engendering a sentiment of fear, disgust, and loathing among customers is not an effective long-term strategy.  Rather, it is a short-sighted, imbecilic tactic, which will become a “textbook case study” in how NOT to treat customers (by the time I’m finished, here).

7) The submission concludes with the remark, “and leave me alone.”  (Kelly) I’m afraid I’ve already made it clear what the conditions are for that to occur.  Banks want customers to read their contracts; meanwhile, READ MY TERMS, CHASE:

• If Chase Wants Peace, it Can Issue a Press Release.
• Apologize for defaming us (after the first round of change in terms notices), and continuing to disrespect account holders with a PR spin campaign which portrays us negatively before members of the media.
• Now, for me to personally “leave Chase alone,” I’ll simply suffice it to say that Chase has damaged me in several ways, including, but not limited to the following:
  • I was forced to suffer penalties and fees by prematurely withdrawing from a retirement account in anticipation of making higher payments;
  • I am among those that Chase defamed (making payments on time, and in many cases paying more than the minimum);
  • Chase did “steal Christmas” last year;
  • because I knew of no other option but to cooperate with members of the media in order to defend my family, my personal finances have now been the subject of coverage in Business Week, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets (and I do not appreciate being put in such a position by virtue of Chase’s actions and its wherewithal to take advantage of customers, who can do little else to mount a resistance);
  • Chase’s actions exacerbated an already horrible set of circumstances, causing undue stress and emotional hardship for a family that has already been suffering;
  • As we speak, I have just learned that a rock slide on I-40 near the TN/NC border will block off that interstate for months.  I already drive 305 miles each way to and from work every week, because our house has not sold after over two years on the market (the point being, we’ve got enough problems, and we’re not alone: Chase should work with consumers and small businesses, instead of “kicking us while we’re down”);
  • Chase still sends change in terms notices to my wife and household (that is a very, very, very, bad idea) — I already told you to “leave us alone,” in no uncertain terms.

Accordingly, I personally have no plans to leave Chase alone until the damages to small businesses, customers at large, me, and my wife and family have been undone and rectified (to the extent that this is even possible after all of the pain Chase has caused to its previously identified “most valued cardmembers“).

I’ll admit, it is interesting that a SVP of Customer Service* at Chase would possibly submit such a request — to be left alone.  However, I regret to inform you, Kelly, or any other site visitor that “Chase drew first blood.”  There is no way in hell that I’m going to simply go away “elsewhere.”

Chase shouldn’t pick fights at all, but since it chose to start one (by trying to coerce customers via unethical actions), you can all count on this, until MY TERMS and conditions are met:

I’M (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

AND I’M NOT GOING TO LEAVE CHASE ALONE

* Noting your previous HR background, might I respectfully recommend a career change, Kelly.  “Customer Service” does not really seem to be a supported organizational role at Chase.  I think most interviewers would understand your “reason for leaving.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 10 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: advocacy, banks, change in terms, complaints, consumers, credit, customer service, economy, fees, interest, notices, penalties, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As a reminder of what the entire industry has been doing, ChangeInTerms.com is introducing its new Stink^SM card.  “The concern for warning small businesses is due to our insights about the true intentions of credit card companies and their ‘desires.’  For example, one promoted ‘life of the balance loans,’ only to later coerce and bully cardholders into accepting higher rates (such as double), with a fixed duration,” said Dr. Robert Lahm, founder of ChangeInTerms.com, who is also the developer of the new product.

The new ChangeInTerms.com "Stink" card: "The smell of credit card company abuse is everywhere."

The Story Behind “Stink”

Behind every act of abuse perpetrated by the credit card industry is a story: destroyed credit ratings, ruined household finances, stressed out borrowers deciding between food or card payments, defaults that banks actually pushed people into, businesses that layoff people or close altogether while card issuers like Chase raise minimum payments from 2% of the balance to 5% of the balance.  “We’re sick and tired of it, and we’re creating a ‘Stink’ card,” said Lahm.

“We don’t like the trickery and traps that have long been used by the credit card industry, and we’d like to let them know that small businesses are vital to the economy, struggling, and not to be abused.  There are no rewards, and there is neither flexibility nor control, when card issuers scheme and have a deceitful plan: imposing onerous new terms after you’ve signed up.  That’s called bad faith.”

“The name for the card was easy to come up with from a creative point of view, a result of thinking about the low-life characteristics and evil-doing on the part of credit card companies: they’ve proven to be inflexible with customers, coercive, rude, unethical, and mean-spirited. We’ve been listening to the agonizing screams of consumers and small businesses, and determined that the C.A.R.D. Act was nothing more than a carefully negotiated settlement riddled with loopholes.  Further, credit card companies are able to change terms for the worse and make rates go up in the blink of an eye, but stopping at least some of the abuses: they lobbied Congress in order to gain over a year’s time for that to occur.  Entrepreneurs especially, have gotten a raw deal — and that’s why we’re reminding everyone, this really ’stinks,’ for them, for the American economy, and for ordinary citizens who have to pay for the greed and mistakes made by the banking industry.”

The new “Stink” card doesn’t have a powerful interactive marketing agency behind it or plans to run ads on  CNN, FOX, or other business related news and information outlets.  Implementing a major media buy would be interesting in the Wall Street Journal, Fast Company, Business Week, Inc., Entrepreneur, radio and transit, “but we’re just a ragtag group like our forefathers, revolting against an aristocracy — only the Goliath-sized banks have the money, after fleecing consumers, for that kind of campaign.”  Fortunately, thanks to the viral nature of the Internet and the fact that people are already outraged about credit card companies, which have now managed to become one of the number one consumer complaints, “I still think the ‘Stink’ will spread rapidly,” said Lahm.

Editor’s Note: For downloadable reports, artwork, and other materials, they’re all over the ChangeInTerms.com site.  It’s what we’re here for, to fight back.  Members of the media can also contact us through the press room.

ABOUT CHANGEINTERMS.COM

ChangeInTerms.com is a consumer protest site, founded by Dr. Robert Lahm (who is also a Western Carolina University entrepreneurship professor), in response to credit card companies and their mistreatment of millions of account holders (including himself). The site provides vibrant discussion and analysis, links to government, regulatory, and advocacy organizations, and sometimes more than a little sarcasm — along with serious critique — about the activities of credit card companies both individually, and as an industry. When credit card issuers change terms for the worse, the site leads the way in fighting back with viral anti-card marketing tools which hit back hard, from a consumer perspective.  ChangeInTerms.com declares to credit card companies: NOW WE’RE COMING AFTER YOU.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I set out this morning trying to research “Mafia loan-sharking rates,” but my inquiry was frustrated a bit when I entered that term in search engines.  Many of the hits that were returned pertained to credit card companies and their rates, which clearly, people associate with Mafia rates.  But I wanted to know specifically about the Mafia rates.  Since I am not a criminal, I really wasn’t certain.

Among my findings, I came across a Google books preview of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Mafia.  In a section entitled, “Bringing in the Loan Sharks,” I found the following information:

“Mafia guys love loan sharking….Loan sharks make tremendous amounts of money….Most loan sharks charge customers anywhere from two to five points a week in interest on the unpaid balance of the loan.  For example, if a customer borrowed $1,000 on a Friday at five points a week, the following Friday a would pay a $50 ‘vig’ to keep the cash another week or pay it off with a $1050 payment….Small loans, say $100, are usually six payment affairs in which a customer makes weekly payments of $20 to satisfy a $100 loan.  Some loan sharks take $4 at the front end….His average rates are about 150 percent a year.”  (p. 138).

With regard to the “$4 at the front end” in passage above, that’s an interesting coincidence as it relates to balance transfer fees.  Most of the promotional balance transfer offers I see are typically three percent, no maximum; however, Bank of America’s are now four percent of the amount borrowed.  You will note that $4 on a $100 loan is four percent, so it appears that Bank of America’s up-front fee is possibly modeled after that of some loan sharks.

I also found another site, which provided a transcript of testimony from Michael DiLeonardo in the case, United States of America v. John A. Gotti, Jr., defendant (scroll down to the section, “Earning Money With the Mob”):

“Q. Why were you stronger with the Gambino family behind you?

A. I had a whole enterprise behind me, a whole army. It’s like having a license.

Q. What kind of money did you start to earn on the street?

A. I got $10,000 from Paulie Zac to go out and start shylocking, which I did.

Q. What do you mean by shylocking?

A. Well, I was able to go out and lend money out at an interest rate, a weekly interest rate.

Q. What kind of interest rate?

A. I charged up to 5 percent, from 3 to 5 percent at that time.

Q. And that’s 5 percent a week?

A. 5 percent weekly, yes.

Q. If someone pays that weekly percentage, does it do anything to affect the principal?

A. No, never.”

The aforementioned site also has a fabulous bibliography (developed over a long period of time by Thomas P. Hunt, who is evidently an excellent researcher and subject matter expert on Mafia activities).

As I discussed when I was in Washington, a question exists, at what point do we consider interest rates to be too high?

Even though I have to acknowledge that banks are not actually charging as much as the Mafia (with the exception of some up-front balance transfer fees, like those of B of A), thirty percent or more is certainly prohibitive to the average consumer: students, middle class Americans, people in your neighborhood (would you like your home’s value to drop even more, because a neighbor is in financial distress for any reason, not just a mortgage?).

Thirty percent is also high enough to destroy all hope of repayment on the part of most borrowers, so they default and pass on their debt to those of us who are still paying (I know, some holier than thou individuals exist, and will be simpletons in their “solution”: just “pay cash”).  If we want an economic recovery, these rates must come down so that entrepreneurs can get back to work, too (and part of their work is creating jobs).

Meanwhile, thirty percent is certainly a slap in the face of taxpayers, who have bailed out the banks (especially given a FED funds rate of one quarter of a percent; “The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight”).

Now, with Chase, it “offered” some customers an “alternative“: If customers couldn’t stomach the increase in payments, then they could alleviate the pain of higher payments simply by switching to a rate that was (typically) double the previously promised promotional rate.  For example, a customer (aren’t they considered victims by the Mafia?) could agree to go from 3.99 percent to 7.99 percent (and the 7.99 percent was for a limited duration).

Of course, exactly what rate constitutes “loan-sharking” is a subject that deserves more discussion.  However, it’s not strictly about the interest rate.  Rather, we’re back to the notion of good faith versus bad faith, and intent.  Is it a loan, or is it a purposely set trap, designed to ensure a victim’s exploitation until death?  To my last point, I think that the Mafia and credit card companies use tactics that are exactly alike: “We’re gonna hurt you or your loved ones, and we’re gonna enjoy it.”

In keeping with the above, I’ve come up with a new slogan when you communicate with banks’ Congressional representatives:

CAP INTEREST RATES, NOT OUR KNEES

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: banks, credit, debt, fees, interest, interest rate, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

You might recognize Louis and Margaret as the delightful creative duo who also brought us the “Chaise Diet” and “Revolution.“  Folks, it’s really important that you help these films “go viral.”  My own (re)view is that the Chaise Diet film certainly “captured the flavor” of how Chase’s onerous 5% minimum payment demand might be relative to its impact on one’s household finances.

Revolution did a fabulous job of suggesting what we need to do (i.e., revolt) as we face one of the coldest, most calculating and callous decisions that has been made by any bank in modern times (implementing the decision also included outright deception, such as by trying to fool customers by claiming that adding a so-called “service charge” that was indeed “a finance charge” would not impact APRs).

Meanwhile, Mission, is the best film yet relative to outlining the facts that are most relevant as underlying issues for Chase credit card customers (and those of other banks).  Since day one, in my own response letter to Gordon Smith (CEO of Chase Card Services), I was among the first (if not the first), to point out to Chase that its lack of an opt out is inconsistent with the testimony its executives delivered before Congress about the means by which Chase treated customers “fairly.”

Other issues, such as defamation and Chase’s influence over Congress and the mass media, and Jamie Dimon’s position on the Federal Reserve Board (not mentioned by name, JP Morgan Chase’s CEO, Dimon, is called the “highly placed agent”), are also brought to the attention of viewers.

I’m guessing that not everyone will “get it,” relative to some of these nuances which are present for those who have educated themselves about just how many and how long the tentacles are, that Chase has wrapped around its victims.  Nevertheless, any Chase (or other) credit card account holder can easily relate to what it feels like to be surrounded, squeezed, trapped, and destroyed by an organization that treats its very best customers (who have paid on time and as agreed), like “the enemy.”

How do you make this film “go viral”?  Play it, share it, send it to journalists, post it on other blogs (if you have one of your own), post links in comments you may make on other sites, and talk it up!

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: banks, credit, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Apparently, her video, “DEBTORS REVOLT BEGINS NOW!,” is drawing a lot of attention on the Internet.  According to Mr. Delaney, the video (released on September 8, 2009) had received “96,000 views as of Monday morning [September 14]“; in checking just now, the site reports 175,023 views (it was 151,204 yesterday, when I started composing this post!):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Not surprisingly, with that kind of trajectory in viewership, comments have also been robust.  Many are supportive, and many are not.  Since I have this blog as a platform, obviously, this post is my primary place for adding my own “comment.”

First of all, I personally have not taken the same approach in refusing to pay (actually, her refusal appears to be “unless she was offered a lower rate,” which was raised to 30 percent as of July).  I do think 30% is obscene (in the questioning period after my testimony before Congress I remarked along the lines of “how high did interest rates need to go before everyone agreed that it was legalized loan-sharking…40%, higher?”).

I do understand that such a refusal as has been pursued by Ms. Minch may appear to be the “biggest stick” that an individual borrower may have if he or she feels that it is impossible to negotiate any other way in the face of interest rate or minimum payment hikes.  I am not a lawyer, so I can’t really advise someone one way or another in taking such an approach.  However, I can say that generally, “it depends” (on the value of one’s assets, his or her credit rating or concern for that rating, and other circumstances).

Notwithstanding the above, relative to her premise — starting a revolution — I agree that fighting back is necessary.  (Respectfully, she claims that hers is “the proverbial first shot fired in an American debtors’ revolution,” but she is not the first — consumer advocates and others have been fighting this battle for years.)  Nevertheless, how or even if one chooses to fight back is matter of heated debate (judging by comments under her videos).

The ChangeInTerms.com site has predominantly featured Chase since I began actively blogging here, but as you will note, “the cause” is ending the abusive treatment of customers by the credit card industry at large, and I have long been against that abusiveness.  I think that fighting back is best approached using well researched information, along with technologies to disseminate anti-marketing messages (obviously, a viral video is one such technology, regardless of how one feels about the negotiation tactic that Ms. Minch has decided to employ).

In reading some of the negative comments, I found myself saddened.  Numerous remarks were personal attacks against this individual, accusing her of buying cosmetics, or whatever (the point was, according to the comments, that she borrowed money frivolously and she shouldn’t have done that — time to pay the price).

What made me sad was that it’s hard for me to stomach some of the negative comments underneath a video like this.  Many people seem to assume that anyone in debt has gotten in that position because they were frivolous, or stupid (“read your contract”).  These individuals who make such assumptions about “read your contract” completely ignore, however, other tenets under the law, especially “bad faith” versus “good faith.”

The contracts written by credit card companies are bad faith agreements, which seems to be alright with anyone who is able to “pay cash.”  What is interesting to me, is that many of these holier than though individuals passing judgment would “holler to high heaven,” if they were on the receiving end of a bad faith contract themselves.  What are other “bad faith” contract examples?

How about the nightmare stories concerning home improvements (when jobs go bad, or are not completed)?  Let those “paid cash for my home” buyers get into one of those bad faith deals, and they’d scream, too.  The mechanic “said” your transmission was rebuilt, but a minor repair was made, instead (because that was all that was really needed: again, “bad faith”).

I could go on and on…but if “screwing the other person over is fine, as long as you don’t do do it to me” is the mentality out there, what a merciless, horrible future, we face.  Our unsuspecting children will have it even worse, and eventually they will learn to lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise be “out to get the other person, before he or she gets me.”  What a vicious downward spiral.

I would venture to guess that 99% of the “read your contract” folks slept through the part about the necessity for good faith that underpins all contractual agreements in whatever business law class they may have taken (if they took one at all).  For that matter, the “rule of law” itself means nothing, to individuals or a citizenry at large in the situation under which laws apply, when the intent of parties is to willfully act in bad faith.

What really frustrates me, is questioning my own life in the face of such mean-spirited, presumptuous, holier than thou “don’t spend what you don’t have” remarks.  It’s not my video, but I (too) spent money “I did not have.”  I get the feeling that these critical individuals who are passing judgment, would not care that I did so going to graduate school, so that I could be academically qualified to teach.  I wanted to try to help people, and I have.  Thus, I question myself: “But at what cost?”

The comments from those who “do have” (apparently some have a whole lot — they even think that beyond credit cards, people should have no debt, not even a mortgage — must be fabulous, buying houses for cash) really hurt.  Some were laden with expletives and made me feel like anyone who is in debt, for any reason, is scorned.  They really are merciless, barbaric, Roman Emperor “thumbs down” callous; many are not even civil to one another.  If comments like that come to this blog, I do not want them.  We can all disagree, but I’m not interested in a brawl.

Did I make a mistake, going to graduate school?  Well, it was certainly a financial mistake.  Did I make a mistake, thinking I could make a difference by teaching?  I don’t think so.  Not every student is going to like every professor, or learn, but most seem to learn from what I provide in the classroom (or on my faculty site, et cetera).  Am I sorry I borrowed money to go to graduate school?  Absolutely, yes.

Could I have gone to graduate school without borrowing money?  I would have been too old to teach, if I waited and saved enough to “pay cash.”

Would I live my life differently, if I had it to do over again?  I would not change some things:

I’m far from perfect, and I’ve certainly made mistakes, but I’ve always done the best I could;

I pay my bills on time and meet my obligations;

I’m a good citizen: I pay my taxes, although I’m very concerned that government is spending “our money” on the wrong things at the wrong time, and at levels that are beyond all of our means (for example, see my previous article, “A low cost ‘2-3-4′ assumable step-loan program would have prevented much of what has ailed us and what will be ailing us for decades“);

I earn an honest living: I don’t wake up each morning trying to think of ways to screw people over (like many credit card companies do); instead, I try to help them;

I am a hard worker;

I take pride in maintaining my home and I take care of what I do have;

I was a very good student, in graduate school;

I have been completely faithful to my wife (I do tell “wife jokes” on occasion…but wives, including mine, tell “husband jokes,” too); I love my wife and my children;

I am a person of faith (but I do not believe that is my right to judge others in their faith, or any lack thereof);

I accept other people (and their individual and cultural perspectives — indeed, I love learning about these);

When I am gone I will leave what I hope will be pleasant “memories” for some whose paths in life have crossed my own;

My writings, art, and photographs (as forms of expression) may be seen as a contribution, by somebody.

Meanwhile, the other thing that really hurts is the selfishness and ignorance suggested by some comments under the aforementioned video.  When I say “ignorance,” I mean the inability to think (apparently) about the interconnectedness of it all, beyond individuals, consumers and what they buy using credit cards.

This is not strictly a consumer or consumption issue.  It’s a lot of interrelated concerns that are at stake here: “fairness,” whatever that is ultimately defined to be (in consideration of usury), being the biggest one.   Political processes and corruption (credit card industry lobbyists having more influence that “we the people” — millions upon millions of credit card holders) is also a major issue.  This is especially exacerbated with the media too afraid to engage in real journalism because of the threat of lost ad revenues, so they make these things a “last page” mention (or ignore them).  (I have not seen one hard hard-hitting story about the Congressional testimony delivered by Chase executives who used opt outs to describe the means by which customers were treated fairly, yet Chase turned right around and refused to provide an opt out with its infamous 5% — payment-jacking — change in terms.)

I am also referring to issues related to the economy, which is especially in need of nurturing small businesses (the vast majority of which are started by entrepreneurial “bootstrapping,” and may very likely entail using HELOCs, credit cards, and/or other non-traditional sources of capital).

Importantly, bootstrapping, including using credit cards to start businesses has been done successfully.  I would offer Google as a bootstrapping start-up example, a company that has gone on to generate wealth and employment for thousands.

Now, I am not saying that start-ups should use credit cards; rather, I am merely pointing out that they do use credit cards.  And they do so in very large numbers.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, but entrepreneurs are typically passionate people who are driven to try (there are so many obstacles, they need to be).  Furthermore, without the successful efforts of some who do make it, civilization as we know it would not exist (if you’re reading this on a computer, thank many entrepreneurs who each played a part in bringing that computer to market).

And yes, I acknowledge that it would be nice to “save up” and “pay cash” to start a business (buy a house or a car, or go to graduate school).  Unfortunately, in many instances, it would be too late; i.e., with entrepreneurship, it can be the case that an opportunity or market that isn’t seized promptly, is lost permanently.

Despite this present post, or all of the ChangeInTerms.com site’s content, there apparently will always be comments by dismissive, naive, selfish individuals who either cannot or will not grasp the issues.  Have I make a mistake, fighting the abusive treatment of customers by credit card companies (again, I have asked myself)?  I’ve outlined who I am and what I believe in, and I don’t think so.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, interest, interest rate, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Osama bin Laden: May you be a Chase account holder, at the mercy of its customer service representatives, forever. 

I thank “M” for a comment which included a link to a September 9, 2009 press release entitled, “Consumer Groups Call on Chase Bank to End Minimum Payment Hikes on Fixed Rate Credit Cards.”  Along with additional observations, the release included a copy of a letter that was sent to Chase Card Services CEO Gordon Smith, from the consumer groups (Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, USPIRG). 

For those of you who do not know, Consumers Union is the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports; the National Consumer Law Center is a leading advocacy organization “protecting vulnerable consumers and promoting marketplace justice”; and  USPIRG is a “federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs).” 

Rather than quoting the aforementioned letter in its entirety, I’d like to use this present post to make some observations related to selected passages.  First, considering the source (all of these are premier consumer advocacy organizations), I would submit that the conclusion was certainly a rebuke to Mr. Smith’s leadership decisions while at the helm of Chase Card Services:

“By changing the terms of these promotional financial products Chase is significantly harming the economic stability of the families who make up its consumer base. We ask that Chase reconsider this devastating change in terms.”

The letter included two examples.  One was about a customer who used a promotional balance transfer to pay for his daughter’s college tuition.  And the other example was in connection with a small business owner, who “is having a hard time thinking about how he will pay more than twice as much to Chase each month and still turn over a profit to keep his business going” in light of a new monthly payment of $1200, which had previously been $475 per month.

In case it is not obvious, I have long been aggravated about Chase’s willingness to harm families, students, and small businesses with no apparent sense of restraint or remorse: no “opt out” (despite Chase’s portrayals before Congress in testimony that used opt outs to describe the means by which Chase treated customers fairly*).  The fact that it has pursued this course of action while at the same time defaming responsible account holders in the media is really sick and loathsome as well. 

Since most of my personal indebtedness is associated with my decision to return to graduate school at a significant cost, with what I thought was a worthy motive of becoming academically qualified to teach, trying to help people, I am able to easily empathize with students. 

Now, in my present role as an entrepreneurship professor, I feel duty-bound to speak out regarding the “devastating” consequences that have been imposed on Chase customers who used what was promised to be “fixed APR for the life of the balance” loans in connection with small businesses (many of whom are bootstrapping – sorry they’re not glamorous enough for the Chase corporate culture to appreciate, but these entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of our economy and must be nurtured).  (Do not even get me started, Chase, arguing that customers are voluntarily giving up those fixed rates — the choice is nothing more than another underhanded scheme devised to further enrich Chase executives: Door Number 1, 2, or 3.)

Meanwhile, in light of the above (what Chase has done under the authority of Mr. Smith and his executive team) I’d have to point out (again) that this is not an example of leadership.  The reason for my repetition is that this is a brand new semester, with a brand new Master of Entrepreneurship Degree Program cohort, and a course in New Venture Leadership at the undergraduate level to be taught.  (Thus, I have been thinking about the most important objectives that I have in delivering these courses, in keeping with the notion that I want to contribute to the development of individual students, but also to the cause at large of fostering and enabling entrepreneurship.) 

It’s interesting, first impressions are being formed with these students, and in an opening class session I asked them what leadership “is” (broadly, but also in the context of entrepreneurship).  Obviously, whatever leadership is defined to be in the latest bestselling book — usually a rehash of old concepts using new buzzwords — has long been used as a source from which many would derive their answers.  If you are reading this and waiting for a sound bite or my definition, sorry to disappoint, but I think we’re into a very broad subject (which some have studied their entire lives — and I ask my students to do this). 

I don’t mind framing the subject, however, so let’s start by establishing some dimensionality.  Whatever “floats your boat” with respect to terms that may be used, but I believe that there is “good” leadership as well as “bad” leadership.  To some extent, leaders are associated with their ability to amass followers.  With his charismatic public persona and brilliant use of oratory, Adolf Hitler amassed and subsequently perverted a substantial group of followers who committed unspeakable atrocities and acts of evil.  He almost led the entire world down a path to “unity,” by destroying anyone he did not deem fit to exist such that those who remained would be unified.  Hitler was a “bad” leader.  

(I insert today: Osama bin Laden was/is a “bad” leader.)  I think that the leadership at Chase, is “bad,” too; even if the methods of “bad” leaders differ, the lust for domination and callousness in wreaking “devastation” upon others is apparently the same. 

I think “good” leadership requires individuals who hold high ethical standards.  Frankly, there is a whole scholarly area interested in ethics, but I’d like to keep it simple and give some examples demonstrating ethical breeches on the part of Chase.  For one, back when Chase issued its first infamous change in terms notice, that notice stated: “Important: Your APRs will not be impacted by these changes.” 

I’m sorry, Chase, but adding a so-called service charge that “is a finance charge” (ibid, panel 2) does indeed impact APRs, and stating that it doesn’t is not ethical; frankly, since you are in the banking business and know full-well that such actions raise the APR, I am amazed that Chase would expose itself as being so plainly deceptive in its business practices.  I am even more amazed that Chase correspondence, sent to me from its own Executive Offices would be so absurdly and disingenuously written, in light of basic “financial facts of life” regarding the mathmatical result of adding finance charges on top of finance charges, acting as though this had no impact!

Bullying and coercion are not ethical (it is coercive to raise a payment so radically, “devastating” the household budgets of individuals — including students — and families as well as the operating budgets of small business owners).  Portraying one scenario before Congress (referring to opt outs) only to deny customers an opt out is not ethical (and other than the fact that Chase and the banking industry virtually “owns” Congress and the OCC, I think it’s tantamount to perjury).  Portraying responsible account holders who have met all of their obligations as laggards who were not paying enough, soon enough, before the media is not ethical either. 

Leadership also requires the ability to anticipate the long-term implications of actions that may be taken.  Clearly, attacking a group of “good” customers, alienating them forever, is short-sighted.  With an inkling of positive news in the economy lately, I have recently seen new American Express advertising geared to a small business audience; yet, the imagery of Kevin Johnson and the followers he has on his site, NewCreditRules.com, is what comes to mind first in connection with the AmEx brand.  (Now Kevin is running for office: GO KEVIN!) 

My kid brother contacted me the other day and informed me that Bank of America radically raised his rate to 27% (Bank of America has now taken over my prior mortgage company, and every time I talk with them they want me to speak with a loan officer about originating a new home loan, once I finally sell my present home).  How many times do I have to say it, incompetent bankers?  You’ve messed around with me, my wife (hence, my immediate family), my brother, friends, neighbors, and my colleagues, students, small business owners (therefore the economic well being of all of us), and the result is that

NOW I’M COMING AFTER YOU!  

In short, I think “good” and effective leadership requires at a minimum, an ability to refrain from “harming the economic stability” of not just customers, but of people in general.  Every soul is important.  Harming any person — especially in these difficult times — simply exacerbates an already troubled situation, and that’s what Chase has managed to do (I’ve lost count of the number of people impacted after another wave of change in terms notices — millions) with Gordon Smith at the helm of its Card Services Division.  

I have previously written about the irony of Gordon Smith lecturing at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.  While as he was speaking, minions back at Chase must have been very busy conjuring up and then distributing the first wave of change in terms notices.  The irony was associated with his topic: leadership. 

I certainly hope that in the future, the administration and faculty at Thunderbird would “consider the source” and recognize that their former guest speaker has overseen “devastating” attacks against consumers on the part of Chase Cards Services while he has served as its CEO (duly noted by some premier consumer advocacy organizations), and therefore he does not seem to be an appropriate choice for delivering a lecture on leadership (or marketing, or anything else that I can think of). 

I’m teaching an MBA class in strategy and marketing this semester as well.  I would not be rude to a guest speaker under any circumstances, but then again, I would not invite Mr. Smith to speak in my class (unless he wanted to apologize on behalf of Chase for “harming the economic stability” of every one of us — not just account holders).

The ultimate irony is that causing such harm to others, also harms Chase.  I’m afraid that’s not leadership either, Mr. Smith.  And, I don’t think I’m going to close this post by asking you to “reconsider” (using such a gentle approach, as did the authors of the letter written by consumer groups).  Rather, Chase’s “leadership” can either retract (further details of this demand can be found here – don’t you just love fine print!) its actions, or suffer all of the consequences that will come as a result of destroying its own brand by cultivating an outright rebellion.  Since what I just said is apparently beyond the intellectual or moral capacity of Chase to grasp, I’ll put it in terms that its executive team should be able to understand (as the tyrant and bully that it has been):

If Chase wants peace, it can issue a press release.

I’ll conclude with what I hope is perceived as a respectful remark in connection with the authors of the press release and letter that has been the subject of my discussion here: Chase is not just harming customers ”who make up its consumer base.”  As I have said many times before, when small businesses are harmed, when students are harmed, when individuals and families are harmed, when neighbors, co-workers, brothers and sisters are harmed, then we’re all harmed. 

It does really make me wonder, in light of such a damning letter from these advocacy organizations, would Thunderbird School of Global Management’s faculty sensibilities really support the actions of Chase Card Services? 

* I have previously acknowledged that “fairness” is evidently an outdated concept at Chase, concluding based on its actions that: “Everyone knows the life of our [Chase's] testimony is about the same as our ‘life of the balance loans’ — until we change our minds and change the terms.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: advocacy, change in terms, consumers, credit, credit cards, customer service, debt, economy, interest, notices, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Chase wants to give BIG rewards to holders of this card unlike their egregious loan-shark-like actions implemented against the peons who were upholding their side of the agreement by diligently paying off their credit cards. Playing reverse Robin Hood, no doubt….squeezing the the little guy to make credit card life better for the affluent.

Excerpt: Quote from Joan Bassett, marketing director for Chase Sapphire “We’re giving cardmembers more value and positioning Chase well for the long term,” said Ms. Bassett. “What we’re seeing in our data is consumers are looking to get more out of their reward programs, looking to redeem them and expected to be rewarded more for their loyalty.”

Change-in-terms for the Wealthy

Chase – Targets high-income consumers in multimedia effort

“NEW YORK JPMorgan Chase is kicking off a national ad campaign in support of its new credit card, Chase Sapphire, a service for upscale consumers that rewards users for spending.

In a bid to reach shoppers with deep pockets, Chase Card Services is investing an estimated $30 million in measured media to introduce Chase Sapphire, ….. Sapphire is being marketed to consumers in the upper 15 percent of all U.S. households, with incomes of $120,000 or more.”

This effort is a little different than the change in terms we all experienced with Chase. Since Chase continues to empty our pockets, it stands to reason as our pockets get emptier, Chase would go hunting for deeper pockets. Recently I’ve been reading complaints posted by people whose Chase Reward cards have also had a sudden change in terms – regular folks who will no longer receive the rewards they signed up for and have been enjoying for years. When asked for an explanation, Chase continues to recite the “it’s the economy, it’s market forces, it’s because we can” mantra they used with us…ad infinitum, ad nauseum…

Apparently the “economy, market, and because we can” are motivation for this new breathtakingly expensive marketing gambit. Amazing, isn’t it? The exact same market conditions which cause one group of long-term, reliable customers to be cruelly punished is the reason a huge carrot is to be offered to another group of customers that does not yet exist.

Chase Long Term Positioning Plan : A bird in the hand is worth nothing, while hypothetical birds in the bush are worth, well….a speculativeTHIRTY MILLION DOLLAR AD CAMPAIGN!!!

Watch for the $30,000,000 Sapphire ad campaign – coming to a television channel near you! There must be a untold thousands of affluent customers who have had their heads buried in the sand this past year and either don’t know and/or don’t care that Chase has been treating millions of their customers like dirt. Rich, deep pocketed consumers, who are just dying to hop on Chase’s Sapphire Band Wagon.

Chase will treat wealthy Sapphire card holders right and will never change the terms on them, right?

If you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you…..

A Chase Promise made is a Promise you can count on (Chase breaking).

© pdurant for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 18 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, complaints, consumers, credit, credit cards, economy, interest, interest rate

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

And, by now, most of us have heard that some of these same customers had more than one Chase account – one of which was subjected to the egregious change-in-terms and one or more of which were not.

Last month my second Chase account (fixed 4.99% rate for the life of the loan, with an outstanding balance of about $6,000) statement afforded me the opportunity to “SKIP A MONTHLY PAYMENT”. I had earned that right due to my being such a good customer. I didn’t take Chase up on that ridiculous offer….

Apparently Chase is extremely miffed – very hurt at my rejection of their overtures.

This month’s statement came today and GUESS WHAT???? A new change-in-terms will automatically go into effect on August 1, 2009. No longer will the monthly payment requirement 2% of the outstanding balance….oh, no, now Chase is going to require 5% of the outstanding balance in payment each month.

So the $118.00 I owe this month will morph into $295.00 a month. Just as I was knocking down my large Chase account to just over $800/month, my obligation will once again balloon to over $1,100/month.

The same company that wanted me to skip a payment on this account last month has discovered they can’t survive without an increase of 250% in the amount of payment due next month on that very same account. Chase must be in worse shape than anyone could have imagined. Poor babies….

Chase reminds me of spoiled brats who are never satisfied.…the 25 Billion in TARP funds didn’t do enough; the savaging of 400,000 of their best customers wasn’t sufficient; treating their already defaulting customers with kid gloves didn’t suffice.

The prowling Chase executive decision makers look around for new prey. Finding none, the “never wrote an agreement they wouldn’t mind defaulting on crowd” return to their first “kill” to see if there are any survivors capable of giving up yet more funds on the alter of Chase greed. Voila – let’s do a second round of change-in-terms! That should do it.

I think we need to coin a new term for this phenomena….“Battered Customer Syndrome”.

But, don’t lose heart, my fellow consumers, Chase has learned something from the last episode of their special version of “The Twilight Zone”. This time there is an “opt-out” option and no $10/month additional finance charge.

Anyone want to guess what I plan to do with this Chase credit card account?

Dialing the phone….

I am greeted by a supervisor (Jim) who began our conversation with this icebreaker, “Thank you for calling Loyalty Services“. I nearly guffawed in his ear. I asked him “Did you say Loyalty Services”? Indeed he did. “How can I assist you today?”

He noted that I had been a customer since 1998 and have had a long and admirable history with Chase. I informed him that while I had treated Chase fine all these years, I had not been treated well by Chase these last 6 months. I briefly described my complaints. It was evident that Jim had heard it all before. No, he could not reverse the increase in payment of 5% of the outstanding balance. “Is there anything else I can do for you today?” “Yes, close the account and let me opt-out of the newest change-in-terms.”

After subtly “threatening” me that Chase would be notifying the credit reporting companies (oh, horror of horrors….) that I was closing my account, Jim agreed that the account would be closed and confirmed I would be allowed to pay off the account under the original terms. Hooray! Relief!

“Loyalty Services”…..twisted Chase Twilight Zone logic. Welcome to the Brave New World of Chase Card Speak. “Up is down. Day is night. Treating customers like dirt generates Loyalty to our company.”

Chase Decision Makers: Let us know how that works out for ya over the long haul.

© pdurant for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 73 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, consumers, credit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

I have not had a chance to check in with Robert Green as of late, but it remains my understanding that some states might be more amenable to class action lawsuits than others (this is because these states may provide venues that are more likely to recognize mandatory arbitration as a rigged game, thereby allowing the means for a class action lawsuit to move forward).  Please visit a list of such states that may show more understanding of consumers’ dilemma (being trapped with no real recourse) on the Green Welling LLC site.

Some of you may recognize Peggy Durant’s name from appearances she has had in national media.  She and her husband, Tim (who own an entrepreneurial business — which makes their issues near and dear to my heart), were shown in a Wall Street Journal article (by Jane Kim, in which I was also quoted). 

Peggy was also the first person that I know of who has managed to score a “direct hit” in the national media against Chase by pointing out that its previous testimony about opt outs is inconsistent with the actions that it turned around and took against 400,000 customers (when it imposed an onerous and coercive change in terms notice with no opt out).  This was significant because the media have been irresponsible (or worse, perhaps purposely suppressing facts) in not investigating and reporting the discrepancy between the testimony and Chase’s about face in terms of its actions.  (Thanks to Alessandro, who transcribed Peggy’s remarks, here; the above link will lead to a video version.)

Having come to know Peggy through this whole debacle, I am honored to be acquainted with someone who has stepped forward to join the fight with such commitment.  I don’t think that I am revealing too much to suggest that she is a hero in my eyes.  Meaning, Peggy (like me and thousands of other affected account holders who have done nothing wrong), would rather not have this issue with Chase. 

Unfortunately, we were given no choice relative to what Chase did, but I know of many people who will not stand up and fight, publicly.  It is easier to watch someone else risk humiliation and defeat, instead of stepping into the arena.  Yet, Peggy has refused to “go quietly into the night,” and she has shown the courage to do battle with a monolithic corporation (which in my opinion I could likened to the “evil empire,” in Star Wars), including its media spin machine.  Peggy has thus far confronted Chase’s negative and hurtful campaign (which has been fully engaged in defaming all of us) head-on, and now she is a lead plaintiff. 

Chase ”chose the dark side” and it does not seem to matter to its executives what damage it may do to individual consumers, small business owners, or an economy that depends on entrepreneurs. 

While Peggy is too humble, I don’t mind whatsoever promoting her heroism, or her small business.  Accordingly, if you are ever in Pennsylvania, please support Peggy’s bed and breakfast (see VictorianLoft.com).  Tell her I sent you, from the ChangeInTerms.com site, and use the promotional code: CIT-NO-OPT-OUT-CHASE.  (OK, I made this last part about the promotional code up, but I would not put it past Peggy to offer you a special rate, or at the very least an exceptionally gracious B & B stay.)

Meanwhile, Peggy, you and your family (Peggy’s brother is also battling cancer), are in my prayers.     

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: change in terms, Class Action, consumers, credit, economy, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Professor Warren’s article came to my attention yesterday afternoon as I was perusing emails, one of which was a newsletter from Americans for Fairness in Lending (AFFIL).  You may want to check out the AFFIL blog, here.  Now having read the newsletter and blog, I have concluded that I am not watching enough late night TV (referring to the fact that President Obama used Professor Warren’s “toaster analogy” during his appearance on Leno; I missed that one). 

While I am humbled by my inability to keep up, to me this suggests a need to openly admit that as one human being, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to do so all by myself.  The various newsletters and “heads up” messages I receive from site visitors are helpful, but I would respectfully ask for more.  Thus, comments that include links to such current events and information on the site can and often do direct visitors to very useful insights and resources, so keep them coming. 

Indeed, at the risk of calling upon all of you here too forcefully or appearing to sidestep my own responsibilities in terms of remaining informed and engaging in advocacy on this site: it is incumbent upon every one of us, working together, to create a robust knowledge management system and a (social networking) platform as a means of resistance against a common enemy: any credit card company that would engage in abusive practices against account holders.  (Oops! — maybe I’m spending too much time on the geeky stuff; translation: we need to collect and share all of the information we can get our hands on, and spread the word so that everyone on the whole planet who has been treated badly by credit card companies has a voice, and that voice is heard, loudly.) 

Meanwhile, in my ”PRODUCT SAFETY RECALL“ post, I was intending to make some “fresh, new and original” observations using my interpretation of the PEW (“SAFE CREDIT CARD“) study; yet, Professor Warren’s idea for a Financial Product Safety Commission definitely came before mine (i.e., summer 2007).  Further, since I was being somewhat sarcastic, directing my attention to Chase in particular relative to my own analysis as to what constituted an unsafe product, I might clarify: her suggestion for such a Commission is one that I think should be taken very seriously. 

I’m certainly not in the least bit surprised that Professor Warren may have many ideas that are excellent, and proactive, as she has been a leading proponent of credit card reform for years.  I have previously exchanged collegial correspondence with her, and I certainly admire her service as a true champion regarding this issue.

Although the aforementioned AFFIL email newsletter’s subject line announced a “Credit Card Victory!,” I think that there’s a lot more work yet to do. 

When an industry is run by people who are constantly looking for ways to bully customers and who spend their time dreaming up more and more ways to trap consumers (as a full-time avocation), we can’t let our guard down.  The credit card industry’s executives aren’t sorry; they’re sorry they got caught.  We won another round (the first significant blow against Chase, in particular, was its retraction of the so-called “service charge” that was in fact, “a finance charge”).  However, this industry as a whole fights with sucker punches and dirty blows below the belt.  What will Chase conjure up next?  We don’t know, but I note that whatever Chase executives may do, I am expecting that “fairness will be outdated” (i.e., no opt out). 

It’s not that I don’t want to celebrate, but I’ve already issued my own demands on behalf of myself and consumers who have been abused by Chase: ”If Chase wants peace, it can issue a press release” (making good on its promises to provide opt outs and addressing a number of other insults to account holders’ dignity, such as its defamatory portrayal of 400,000 account holders in the media, about which I have already written numerous times). 

This is no time for us to quit relative to the industry at large, either.  Opt outs need to be law (Alessandro has pleaded for you to “vote,” and now I am asking, too); mandatory arbitration is a rigged game (and it needs to end); and credit cards will continue to be unsafe, as long as the credit card companies are intent upon finding ways to engage consumers in a battle of wits with regard to a constant barrage of change in terms notices.  Last but not least, regulation without meaningful enforcement (I think it’s now clear that the OCC is a joke, given that Chase evidently finds the threat of its intervention laughable). 

No, we’re not done yet.  And you had better think twice if you think that Chase is anything less than a “terminator,” that is programmed (evidently as a core component of its culture and leadership) to keep coming, and coming, and coming, until the rights of all human account holders are obliterated.  Chase “will be back.”   

So, until all of your “unsafe” products have been recalled, credit card companies: 

NOW WE’RE (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: consumers, credit, credit cards

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh