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

First, I did some Internet searches, and some are for, while others are critical of this organization.  Personally, I am not in favor of everything that this organization’s leadership or members may believe in.  But, I don’t have the time to analyze or become embroiled in discourse about topics like immigration, who is, or should be the president, political parties, the left, right, or middle.

None of these things mentioned above are on my agenda, relative to the ChangeInTerms.com site.  Do I care about these issues?  Yes.  Do I have time to write posts and conduct research on all of these subjects (and their nuances) mentioned above?  No.

Relative to my employment, I also don’t feel inclined to speak out on all of these issues.  On the other hand, I have the right, the responsibility, and the passion for entrepreneurs to address matters that are affecting small businesses.  When credit is tight or unavailable, this impacts small businesses; when consumers are unemployed and spending is constrained, this impacts small businesses.

Not only do I feel passionate about entrepreneurs, I have been one, more than once.  This is why, along with a graduate education which I pursued in order to become academically qualified to teach, I am now an entrepreneurship professor.

Most small businesses, no matter how you slice it, are indeed very small: 0-1 employees.  They are often entrepreneurial bootstrappers.  Bootstrappers start businesses on kitchen tables and in basements and garages; about half of them by my estimates through formal academic research use personal credit cards as a source of capital.  This amounts to over 10 million businesses.

Oh, and that “0-1″ employees group, that number is around 21.7 million.  There are around 29.6 million businesses in the U.S.  So, you could say that over two thirds of all U.S. businesses are actually very small (perhaps a better choice of words would be “tiny”).  Yet, these are the everyday “Jills” and “Joes” who are vital to our economic recovery.

I want to help other people: students, current entrepreneurs, and would-be entrepreneurs.  It also happens that one of my official duties is to be “engaged” with the entrepreneurial community.  This includes conducting research (publishing), and trying to champion small businesses in every way that I can.

It’s my job.  I love it, but from a practical point of view in terms of expectations of my employer, I am supposed to teach, conduct research, serve, and be “engaged.”  If my discipline was political science, maybe I would be blogging on our system of government as a focus; but, my focus here is ending the abuses of credit card companies against small businesses and consumers.  Consumer spending does impact small businesses, employment, and the economy as a whole, as we have seen.

Relative to the Showdown or its organizers, this is the bottom line: I am against the undue influence that the banking and financial services industry tends to exercise over our Congress through its very powerful lobbyists.  Under the present system, we are where we are, today.  Small businesses are in jeopardy, the economy is a mess, people are hurting: “my people” (entrepreneurs) are hurting.

Banks are pushing people into defaults.  The ABA, American Banker’s Association, which obviously represents the interests of banks, is against the industry changing its ways, and I am for the industry changing its ways.  Banks are not working with consumers and small businesses to the extent that they could or should.

I am hurting, personally, because I am separated from my family by virtue of a “crashed” real estate market.  This occurred, essentially, because of a lending industry run amok and bankers’ irresponsibility and greed, with regulators asleep at the switch.  The “bail out” was misdirected, in my opinion.  We should have created loan programs (which would have broken even, instead of adding trillions to our national debt), targeting a recovery in the housing market and the restoration of consumer confidence, before things ever got so bad.

In my early years, I used to write lyrical poetry.  Lately, I’ve been playing a little tune in my head that goes something like this:

“I want to take my boy fishin’

But I find I’m just wishin’

He and I would bait the hooks

And cast our lines in babbling brooks

We’d really reel ‘em in”

We’d catch rainbow trout

Maybe bream, or

Perhaps a leafy branch or two

It wouldn’t matter, son

As long as I’m with you

Here in Western North Carolina, I find myself surrounded by some of the most beautiful terrain on the planet, including places where I could “take my boy fishing.”  But I can’t.  I’m lucky to do my job and get back home each week to take care of chores, pay bills, visit my family briefly, and return.

When I play that song in my head, it makes me want to cry.  If credit card issuers and the banks with which they are associated want to know why I’m going to keep coming, and coming, and coming, all they have to do is recognize that I am deeply motivated by that little tune.

I will continue to fight the greedy, unethical, and misguided policies that have been implemented by these institutions, because “I find I’m just wishing” that I could be with my family, and that we could live in peace.  (Chase just sent another change in terms on one of my wife’s accounts; that was a very bad idea, Chase: I told you to leave me, my wife, and my family the hell alone. READ MY TERMS.)

And, as I have outlined, I continue to fight because it’s also my job.

If you think things are just “hunky-dory” for small businesses and consumers, and the economy at large, well, I am happy for you.  You may be isolated from the pain that others are experiencing.

You can choose to support, or not, the “Showdown in Chicago” protest.  I support that protest, even if I do not agree with everything that others may have in mind in terms of a larger agenda (politics, health care, immigration, et cetera).

If you do support the protest, but are not in the Chicago area, the Americans for Fairness in Lending site has also provided a link for contacting elected officials in the post which states “AFFIL has endorsed the upcoming events in Chicago, and now we’re asking for you to support it too.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, economy, interest, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

“George Goehl has been a community organizer, strategist, and trainer for 15 years, crafting national campaigns on affordable housing, predatory lending, and immigrant justice issues. George was the founding president of the Coalition of Low-Income and Homeless Citizens and the lead organizer of a campaign to win the first Housing Trust Fund in Indiana. He was the architect of a national campaign at NTIC to pressure the Department of Housing and Urban Development to stem the tide of rising FHA foreclosures and abandoned buildings and helped launch NTIC’s early work on predatory lending. In 2004, George worked as a field organizer for the Center for Community Change, focusing on immigration reform. In 2007 he went back to his roots and became the third Executive Director at NTIC in 35 years.”

Obviously, Mr. Goehl has been fighting for economic justice for a long time.  Presently, the ChangeInTerms.com site has endorsed an organizing effort against what I consider to be the “root of all evil” relative to what we’ve been experiencing in the economy: an industry that wants everything you’ve got, and control over your childrens’ dreams and lives, too.

This industry doesn’t want to be watched over or regulated.  It doesn’t want the CFPA (Consumer Financial Protection Agency), because it’s been happy with the arrangement thus far (doing as it pleases, completely unfettered by a moral compass or even common sense, as evidenced by the fact that its gambling and smugness brought nearly everyone but its executives to the very brink of economic destruction).

It’s not interested in fairness, unless that is defined as “we get it all, and you get nothing.”  It does not want YOU to enjoy ANY rights, or have any PROTECTION.  It wants this CFPA idea watered down, or better yet, dead.  No state or local options means no safe havens for at least some consumers, but the same safe havens from which this industry has been free to operate for years, imposing usurious terms that are in effect legalized loan-sharking.

Yes, I’m talking about the ABA, the American Banker’s Association.

If you are a consumer, then you are as they say in prison, “the banks’ bitch” (I guess this is a PG-13 remark — I hear it on network TV), as far as the ABA is concerned: read this, about the efforts to block the CFPA on the “Save the American Dream” site (which is a campaign of National People’s Action, among others).

With the above as an introduction, I would also like to help the aforementioned “organizing effort” by suggesting that you express support for Mr. Goehl’s “Showdown in Chicago” campaign.  Quoting from an email his organization sent to me:

“Americans are more frustrated than ever at big banks and Wall Street. As a result, people are signing up to act in a united front against bank lobbyists at the American Banker’s Association (ABA) convention on Oct 25-27.  We are ready for them. When bank executives land in the Windy City, they’ll be met by thousands of Americans from Wichita to Syracuse demanding big banks break their excessive appetite for greed and end their efforts to fight reforms that would protect us from their future abuses.”

Showdown in Chicago image used by permission.

We are well on our way to becoming a nation of subservient slaves to banks, which control Congressional decision making through powerful lobbies, campaign donations, and by providing “perks” that ordinary people like most of us can only see from the ground (or below, in the mines where we may be toiling away for our masters): forget what citizen-consumers want.

Banks further control us through the FED, which claims it is better suited to regulate than a CFPA (yet the FED is not “Federal” and is “owned” by the very banks that it claims to be best qualified to regulate — “how convenient“!). 

Please click on the image above, and get involved, in any way that you can.

These bankers, through their association, need to know that — along the lines of picking a fight in a bar with one member of the Hells Angels — to attack one consumer, is to attack every consumer.  Banks have held the strategic advantage because they can “pick off” single individuals.  Only in the collective, banded together, can borrowers have a chance of leveling the playing field against these monolithic institutions and the representatives in government who allow them to exact such abuses against ordinary citizens as we have been witnessing.

It truly is time, for a “Showdown.”  Wear your colors proudly (red, white, and blue), and tell the American Banker’s Association that they’ve picked a fight on the wrong turf: “This is our country ABA, and you’re through owning me.”

NOTE: I found that writing the image caption, “Americans versus the American Banker’s Association” was both ironic, and sad.  The irony is that I am not against the industry.  We need a strong banking system.  I am merely against the abuses of those who have perverted the system without any code of honor whatsoever, except to themselves.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: banks, consumers, credit, economy, interest

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In one sense, this story is already well known, at least by virtue of its observable impact.  We have seen it in neighborhoods across America: foreclosures, short-sales, and a devaluation of property values.  Speculators and house flippers were understandably giddy over profits that seemed at the time, easy and never-ending.  But this period of exuberance did end, badly.  Those of us who are concerned with credit card company abuses, are paying the price.  Taxpayers are paying the price.  Investors from around the world are paying the price.

In essence, the mortgage industry sold “instant gratification” to buyers.  Yes, buyers “signed the dotted line,” and certainly, many knew (or should have known, if they lied about matters such as their income and obligations on “stated income” loan applications — that’s why the slang, “liar’s loans,’ came into being), that they too, were taking a risk.

Everyone was gambling.  But in common, the core belief that drove this scenario was the notion that housing prices would continue to rise.  Refinancing, to take “cash out” of real estate investment gains (or otherwise leverage the cash from appreciation in property values), enabled people to buy even more.  They used that money for anything under the sun: vacations, home improvements, adult toys (and “toy haulers”).

We now know this was a fallacy.  Anyone who may be watching squirrels gathering nuts on the ground for the coming winter can use this as an analogy for what many people did not do.  There are many adages which capture this failing, but perhaps the one (which in history seems to repeat itself) that best captures the miscalculation is this one: “What goes up, must come down.”

The “House of Cards” production does a great job of explaining, how we who are fighting credit card company abuses got where we are today.  Banks bought bad investments.  They want to recoup their losses by dipping into other sources of cash.  First, it was the bail out money: your money, and that of your children and grandchildren.  Second, it is every dollar and quarter, dime, nickel and penny, from fees, interest rate increases, and payment increases that banks can impose on the backs of people who still take pride in trying to pay their bills and fulfilling their obligations.  (But for how long?  Most people who walk away and “leave their keys on the counter” have simply given up, knowing that they can never pay.)

Obviously, the lax regulation that allowed Wall Street to profit and party on what we now know are toxic assets (I’m not an accountant, but it seems to me that a so-called “toxic asset” is a bad debt!) enabled a complex scheme with many participants to arise.

Unfortunately, as banks squeeze those of us who are still standing, more and more “able bodied borrowers,” including small businesses which account for much of our economy, suffocate.  Layoffs and fear have led to the destruction of consumer confidence — so spending slows to a crawl.  Here we are.

I personally found that one of the most interesting interview questions that was posed to various participants in the CNBC piece had to do with “feeling guilty,” for having been a part of this debacle.  The body language told a different story than the words that were uttered, slowly and carefully, in several instances, consistently along the lines of “just part of the food chain.”  Well, I already know where I am in the food chain: near the bottom.  However, when these banks try to “eat” what’s left of the rest of us, I want to make sure that we at least leave a very bad taste in their mouth.

Just a Few More Notes

This present post is very difficult to write.  I am separated from my family by virtue of real estate.  I have a house that has not sold, even though it is well cared for and in a decent middle-class neighborhood.  I have debts that are primarily associated with a decision to go to graduate school, trying to help others by becoming academically qualified to teach.  Those who walk away from their own homes (or who are forced to leave by eviction); those who enabled this to happen (see the documentary for the entire “food chain”); and I, along with my wife and children, are entangled.

Credit card companies (i.e., the banks that run them), are dealing with issues such as losses and liquidity pressures.  Nevertheless, because the banks are equivalent to “Goliath,” and we could be likened to “David,” naturally, ChangeInTerms.com and its supporters are in a position such that if we don’t throw “sticks and stones” to defend ourselves in any way that we can, we will be destroyed.

Sadly, I could be sympathetic to the banks’ problems, if they weren’t so mean and uncaring about what happens to others.  The most typical response to consumers (some of whom are the entrepreneurs we desperately need to nourish for a recovery) when they call to “negotiate,” just as appears to be the case with distressed homeowners, is that banks don’t want to work things out.  Rather, they just want to take everything that they can get, forcibly, mercilessly, and immediately, no matter what the consequences may be for individuals — and when taken in the aggregate — for the economy and this nation’s citizenry as a whole.

This behavior on the part of banks is sure to lead us all down a path to further destruction, I predict, unless we “work things out.”  How do we do that (those of us who are on the receiving end of banks’ callous, greedy, untenable dispositions)?  That’s really quite simple.  Anyone who has survived a schoolyard bully knows that the only way to prevail, is to make him or her very afraid of you.  If you are a small person, then you may need to assemble an army and gang-up on that bully.

I actually have a post in draft mode on the subject of “somebody should do it.”  Here’s what it boils down to: all of us “little people” must band together (this is a tiny example, but I sometimes get frustrated: why have I written several times, trying to get someone to print-out a free protest T-shirt, and send me a picture for the site?  Scared; too busy; afraid to raise a “stink” in public — I can understand all of these, because they describe me, but I still fight).

The formula for returning to a period of economic stability is also fairly simple.  Banks are in the business of taking in deposits, and lending at a profit.  Profits are a function of “time and terms.”  If they wanted to do it, they could institute all kinds of creative workarounds, because that’s what ends up happening in settlements.  Why they don’t want to work with people until the situation becomes such that a settlement is for “pennies on the dollar” (with the losses being shifted to those who are still standing, financially), is hard to fathom.  I suppose it’s because enough people have not has yet boycotted media for running credit card companies’ ads; written to affinity partners; threatened the reelection prospects of representatives; or gone “viral,” like the Debtor’s Revolt video.

If you aren’t willing to combine forces and join the fight, then you can count on being fleeced, beaten, and terrorized by such a bully.  We have already seen that this bully’s greed is insatiable.  I guess you’ll get involved once you’ve “lost your backpack and lunch money,” one too many times.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, economy, fees, interest, interest rate, regulation, 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

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

As you may recall (in connection with questions about exactly what Chase and other banks were doing with YOUR bail out money), following its September 2008 acquisition of Washington Mutual’s banking operations, including the former WaMu brand, Chase now operates more than 5,000 branches nationwide (as is also indicated in the cited press release).  Here’s a link to a handy branch location finder (you might find this useful as you read further).

Meanwhile, the purpose of this post is to convey that some Chase branch managers may not be familiar with protections that we have as ordinary citizens, such as “freedom of speech.”

I realize that it would be nice, from the bank’s point of view, if we were all serfs with no rights whatsoever (economically enslaved), but we still have the right to protest.

For months, Alessandro Machi has been doing a fabulous job of protesting through his live appearances with Daily-Protest.com signs.  And recently, I have been contacted by another fellow “Comrade in the Chase Resistance Movement,” who has also been garnering the approval of motorists who have honked in favor of his message as they have observed his “DON’T TRUST” (side 1) — “CHASE” (side 2) sign.

Of course, Chase branch managers don’t really seem to care for free speech, coming from customers, and that’s too bad.

I do find it ironic that the “that’s too bad we can do anything we please attitude” regularly exhibited by Chase employees (not afraid of the impotent OCC) toward customers has now backfired: Customers have the right to speak out in protest against Chase, for having done as it darned well pleased (in a manner that many customers consider to be outrageous and hurtful).

I have been asked not to promote the name of our new-found friend and fellow protester, but he has supplied plenty of other material and permission to share it.  Taken from his emails, here is a description of the activities with which he has been involved:

**************************************************

“The first 2 days, the bank manager tried to intimidate me any way he could:

1)       He attempted to “video” me with his cell phone.  I blocked my face like an accused criminal!

2)       He asked me if I had a permit.  No, I didn’t.  But I told him that I had already personally visited the Buena Park Police Department the day before and they told me I didn’t need one if I stayed on the sidewalk.

3)       He told me I could not distribute anything.  At that point, I told him to call the police.  He said they were already called!

4)       Police arrived.  The police officer did not even get out of his car!  The officer told me that the bank manager claimed I was blocking their private driveway.  This was a complete fabrication!  I politely suggested that the officer review the bank manager’s cell phone video and the officer will NOT see that on the video!  The police officer then drove away without taking any further statement from the bank personnel!  I went back to holding my sign!

5)       By the second day, I was allowing the bank manager to “video” my face with his cell phone.  As soon as I did that, he wasn’t interested in videoing me any more!

Intimidation didn’t work, so now the branch is in the ignore mode.

For the record, the branch number is #1281, at the corner of the very busy intersection of Beach Blvd. and La Palma Ave., Buena Park, CA (caddy corner to Knott’s Berry Farm – Famous landmark in Buena Park, CA – The nation’s first “themed” amusement park! – Origin of the “Boysenberry” and built before Disneyland, also in Orange County, CA!).

It seems odd to me that the branch numbers do not appear on their website!

Here’s what else I have done.  I have gone to about 7 branches now, and have personally handed the “BEWARE” flyer [see below] to the bank manager (if possible) or an assistant manager, and informed him or her that this flyer will be given to all of their customers.  I then walk out of the branch.  They usually look dumbfounded!  But, from what I gather, I think they have a procedure in place for this kind of activity.  I believe, at the very least, that they are instructed to fax the “flyer” to their District Manager.  My 7 branches are in 2 counties, Orange and Los Angeles!  I hope Chase is buzzing behind the scenes with one or more District Managers receiving the same flyer from all of these different branches.

This is something people can do!  Take the flyer to their local Chase branch.  As many branches as possible!  Ask to speak to the manager.  Tell him or her that this flyer will be handed out to all their customers.  And then leave!”

**************************************************

One word of caution to folks: If you decide to mount your own protest, make sure you are familiar with your rights and responsibilities under your own local laws (and keep in mind that ChangeInTerms.com is not engaged in rendering professional or legal advice).

For example, you will note that the police department in Buena Park was consulted, first.  Further, in the above instance, the flyer could not be given to any customers on bank property (doing so would have been considered trespassing).  But, as a customer, people do have a right to “communicate” (for example, with the branch manager and/or his or her designated representative). 

I also learned that one of the benefits of the location associated with the photos below was as follows:

“By the way, another advantage of this branch at this busy intersection is because I believe the bus stop at this corner is a bus schedule, timepoint. That means that if a bus arrives there ahead of schedule, the driver must wait there until the scheduled departure time. So, I use that opportunity to hand the flyer to the bus driver and tell him or her to spread the word to all of their friends and work associates! Not one driver has refused it! Hey, they need some light reading to fill these pauses in their day!”

Here are the photos (we love them!):

Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. looking north-west. “DON’T TRUST”

Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. looking north-west. “CHASE”

Here is a link to the handout (about which our friend stated, “I would like to see this flyer go nationwide!” — so would we!).

Finally, here is a copy of a press release that was sent to The Orange County Register (no answer — but there are plenty of other members of the media who may appreciate having a copy):

For Immediate Release

To: Michael Mello, The Orange County Register

08/04/2009

Buena Park, CA

Hundreds, if not thousands of motorists were greeted today driving north on Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. by the words, “DON’T TRUST CHASE”. Those words were emblazoned upon a sign held by a yet to be identified male protester in front of the Chase Bank Branch located on that corner. Many motorists felt inclined to honk in support of those words.

Apparently, this individual has grievances with the “Change in Terms” on credit cards issued by Chase Bank. Upon learning of the presence of the protester, the bank manager emerged from the branch in 90+ degree heat, and proceeded to video the individual with his cell phone. When that did not encourage the protester to leave, the Buena Park Police were called to complain that the protester was allegedly, illegally blocking their private driveway on Beach Blvd. Upon arrival, the police determined that no violations had occurred and they drove off without taking any further statement from bank personnel.

According to the protester, these daily protests will continue until an acceptable resolution is reached with Chase Bank.

###

I can’t help but wonder if Chase sent any of its infamous change in terms notices to police officers (maybe the one who was called by Chase’s Branch Manager!)?

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 29 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, credit, credit cards, interest, notices

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In life, she helped people instead of harming them, and as compared to where I think the executives running Chase will end up (I picture an ending where the devil is a banker…and Chase executives are his customers), I’m confident that Toni is in a far better place.  I will miss her, as will thousands of others whom she has touched in her life and career as a teacher.  Although she and I have for the most part taught at different levels, she has been an inspiration.  

Looming on the horizon, I have been busy taking “two steps backward,” all because my house in TN has not sold.  It’s a long story to be made short:

Contract on home last summer fell through (end of July, 2008);

Thought/hoped a new one might arise by October;

Nevertheless, new job started in NC (5 days after contract fell through);

Leased a condo in NC (big enough to accommodate my family, given the “what if” scenario that it might be needed);

Brought half our stuff to NC, especially “conveniences” such as the kids’ beds and our washer and dryer; August: realtors leave lights on, doors unlocked, so we determine that wife and kids stay must close to home in TN, essentially “camping out” with kids on air mattresses, and not much other furniture;

From our perspective, a very dissatisfactory real estate agent relationship with the next agent “up to bat” (November, 2008 – January, 2009) begins and ends;

Wife had major surgery in February (6 to 8 week recovery – meanwhile, I am in NC and she is in TN – left primarily in the care of children, all still “camping out”; she could not drive or leave during the recovery, either);

Placed for sale sign direct from owner (after now having had 3 realtors) in yard as of Easter at a “rock bottom price” with no add-ons such as agent fees or buyer’s closing costs (please, no time for answering troubleshooting comments – not wanting to come across as a know-it-all, but we do understand staging, comparables, appraisals, condition, pricing – an extremely similar home two doors down built by same builder with the same materials and features, except we have numerous upgrades, is over $40k more and we are thousands of dollars under market with a home in immaculate condition);

Buyer’s agents now sell against us as they want their commission and have done a great job creating the myth that their services are free* to buyers;

Now anticipating another year like the past one, moving stuff back to TN (I am looking into other possibilities for my own accommodations, such as faculty housing – dorm-like);

We will put the house back together, as we can’t win a fixed race - signing with another realtor as soon as the house is put back together;

If I do not take steps to avoid “paying double” for housing next year as we have been doing, there will be trouble on the horizon;

Ever vigilant against the likes of credit card companies, I am a responsible borrower, and I will pay my bills regardless of the hardships (Obviously, if I am incapacitated or dead they would have to settle with my estate – but then, what would happen to their empire of economic slavery?   Best to keep us all alive with slow, non-lethal torture techniques.)

I thought that the above review deserved special mention of the fact that I purposely do not allow the spell-checker to capitalize the word “realtor” (especially when under our present scenario, most buyer’s agents we’ve encountered are so unethical they want to keep a discussion about their 3% commission hush-hush, and make sure that they corner my wife or me to ask if we’ll pay, out of ear-shot from their “client”; hint to “clients”: these unethical individuals are working for their 3% commission, not to protect your interests).

Secondly, since the above basically chronicles the past year of our family’s life, separated from one another by virtue of real estate hell, knowing my wife needed surgery – soon - even back in December, you might now have a better picture as to why I felt so cornered by Chase’s actions that I became aggressive with the ChangeInTerms.com site at that time.  Chase did steal Christmas.  But, in its almighty, high-flying, political palm-greasing, “wisdom,” it picked the wrong guy in the wrong place in life at the wrong time.  And, as it has turned out, my suffering and that of my family is nothing special – most American families, sans the intellectual, political, and economic elite, have been hurting as well.  But a “kick ‘em while they’re down” philosophy can sometimes backfire, Chase.

* Supposedly “free,” when in fact, sellers set prices high enough so as to be able to cover the total 6% commission (half for the seller’s agent and half for the buyer’s agent) - so actually, buyers do pay – duh!  Want “free” closing costs?  Where do you think sellers come up with this “free” money?  Duh!, again -  it’s built into the selling price of the house.  You’d think that people who have seen a “buy one get one free” grocery ad (in which the first item is usually twice the going rate) would understand that nothing is really “free.”  I predict that with little appreciation on the horizon (or continued falling prices) realtors and financing charges will be the biggest costs in many real estate transactions for a long time to come.  Oh, and by the way, don’t expect your local newspaper to run any exposé articles on the shenanigans of the real estate industry any time soon (realtors tend to spend a lot of money on newspaper advertising).  In good times and bad, realtors skim the cream off the top of any transaction - buyers and sellers may win or lose, but realtors own the game.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: credit, fees, interest

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh