Here’s a little background information.  If you are familiar with this blog, then you already know that I am employed as an entrepreneurship professor at Western Carolina University.  I’ve been researching the use of credit cards by small businesses, entrepreneurial bootstrapping (starting a business from scratch with little or no capital), and similar topics in connection with scholarly writing for a number of years.  I am not a life-long academic, however (and “bootstrapping” is something I have done myself in the past, in the course of starting my own former businesses).

Remember the C.A.R.D. ACT?  You know, the one with loopholes that are “big enough to drive an armored truck through“?  The one that the credit card companies spent millions to lobby against (using as one source of funds, taxpayer’s own bailout money)?  The one that applies to fixed rate consumer cards, but exempted “business credit cards“  and variable rate cards (see the “loopholes” link cited above — credit card companies conveniently used the incredibly long waiting period before the C.A.R.D. Act kicked in to convert accounts to variable rates)?

Who does Congress think it’s fooling?  The banking industry “influenced” Congress to write the C.A.R.D. Act in such a way as to create the image of a victory for consumers (thanks to its largess and “concern for the commoners”).  Unfortunately, what our representatives really did was to draft and pass legislation with all the room the industry needed to wiggle out of giving consumers (and small businesses) the one thing they really needed: protection from a bunch of abusive bullies who to this day, have not changed their ways.  It’s still all about the bonuses!

Now, focusing on the topic of small business and professional credit cards, the aforementioned Wall Street Journal reporter whom I was speaking today (Jessica Silver-Greenberg) asked me to try to help her find some living examples of individuals who have been “switched” (either knowingly or without really being informed as to what the switcheroo was all about) from a consumer card to a business or professional card.  She subsequently emailed the following to me:

It was great to speak with you.  If you could post the following on your website, that would be fantastic.

So, I am looking for any one who has received a solicitation for a small business or professional card in the past year. I am interested particularly in cardholders who have been approached by credit card companies, either  by mail or by phone to switch into a professional/small business card from a personal credit card.

If you could post that on your blog, and tell anyone interested to email me at Jessica.silver-greenberg@wsj.com that would be wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Jessica

(Of course I will post it, Jessica — as long as credit card companies play “bait and switch,” I am delighted to do so.)  Although Jessica has offered her email address directly, I would be happy to forward anything to her on behalf of ChangeInTerms.com readers (and, I’d actually like to hear from you myself, if you respond to the request; comments are welcome below this post as well).

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2010. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: credit, credit cards, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

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 | 12 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

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

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

Further, speaking as someone whose work as an entrepreneurship educator and researcher on the subject of credit card usage by small businesses has led me to be extremely concerned about how banks at large are undermining the economic recovery, I will say my personal reaction in light of Chase’s behavior is “that dog won’t hunt.”

Do you want to support small businesses Chase?

I’ve been telling you how for months and months.  Bottom line, issue the other press release that I have demanded, and take back the 5% minimum payment that you unilaterally imposed on a million customers (as a coercive technique to switch customers from a low rate “life of the balance” promotion to a higher rate, limited duration account).

Chase: you can’t smooth over what you did with a glitzy ad campaign.  I admit, the stories of entrepreneurial aspirations, smiling faces glowing in the sunlight of supposed achievement, and other imagery that you’ll be using will be extremely compelling.  These portrayals make us feel good.  They are the American story, and what makes us who we are.  But those are the dreams of the entrepreneur, whereas apparently, your executives are up all night scheming and in their cauldron, they have definitely stirred a potion that causes nightmares.

Just like TV tobacco ads (when they used to be legal), you’ll show attractive, happy people who “glow” with energy and exude sex appeal and success.  But credit card companies are just like a pushers, and all they want to do is get customers hooked.  Then, they’ll change the terms and sink their teeth in until victims express the agony and frustration, like that which is evidenced in hundreds of thousands of stories — told and untold.  These are the real, true stories as told on the Internet, at kitchen tables, and in the workplaces of struggling small businesses, not the advertising pitch; they serve to reveal the dark side of being a Chase customer.

I’ve already seen spots running on TV.  However, I think every time one of those spots runs, this clip from CNN (or one of many others just like it) should also be aired, as a warning about the aforementioned “dark side”:

Forget the ads, forget the glamor, forget the entrepreneurial dreams, welcome to the real Chase.  I also don’t appreciate the defamatory excuse (the portrayal that these are slow-paying account holders who deserved it, quoting from the statement that was reportedly issued to CNN):

“TENS OF MILLIONS OF CHASE…LOANS HAVE BEEN PAID BACK IN LESS THAN 24 MONTHS…THERE HAVE BEEN A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE NOT MADE AS MUCH PROGRESS.  OUR DESIRE IS TO HAVE THESE BALANCES PAID BACK IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.”

I know you’d like me to lose my cool and start spewing expletives.  Believe me, I am tempted.  Very tempted.  But instead, I have a response that “reasonable people” can understand:

The impacted account holders were paying on time and in payment amounts that you established, Chase.  In numerous cases that I have documented they were paying, “more than the minimum.”  Nevertheless, as I have discussed many times, this game of shifting blame and obfuscation is irresponsible, harmful, and just plain mean-spirited.  Shame on you, Chase, for trying to chastise and lay blame on the very people who you previously called your “Most Valued Cardmembers,” as though they had become irresponsible laggards by slow-paying you.  If there’s anyone whose expectations are unreasonable, Chase, it is you.

In the future, you need customers who are mind-readers.  Your “Valued Cardmembers” have been honoring their obligations and acting in good faith.  You have impaled any semblance of honor and exposed your true nature as an organization that acted in bad faith, and now wants to get away with it.  But you won’t.

You remind me of some alien changeling creep shows, the kind with creatures presenting themselves with a beautiful face on the outside (when you issue statements to the media, which is certainly beholden to revenues from the splashy and extensive marketing campaign that you’ve just unveiled), but behind that facade is an organism whose sole purpose is to consume its victims, in some horrible way.

By playing hardball with entrepreneurs — slashing credit lines, imposing new and higher fees, jacking up rates and payments, closing accounts, and using other tactics — while hiding behind claims like “managing risk,” the banking industry has demonstrated that it is the arch nemesis of small business, lately, and certainly NOT a “supporter.”

Here’s a new slogan for the way the credit card industry at large has treated consumers and small businesses:

“When times get tough, we take all your cash, run you over, and leave you in a ditch, to die.”

The new card is called the “Ink” card.  But at ChangeInTerms.com (which is more concerned with making sure that no one ever forgets the one million or so cardholders who have been abused and disrespected by Chase), we would point out that it would be foolish to forget what Chase did to its existing customers: as “Truly, this is the single most abusive credit card change in terms that I have ever seen” (CNN clip, Joe Ridout of Consumer Action).  Me too, Joe.  Any notion of “fairness” has certainly been tossed out the window by virtue of this loathsome behavior.

NEVER FORGET.

Don’t fall for all the new ads that the credit card industry will be producing to gloss over the despicable lows to which it has been willing to sink in abusing consumers and small businesses.

Who appointed me a defender of small businesses against the abuses of credit card companies?  You did, Chase.  The banking industry did.

I didn’t use the artwork from the Business Wire press room page to further support your news release, Chase.  I did not want to help spread your announcement, because I don’t believe your products, or your people, are sincerely interested in “supporting small businesses” (I’m still waiting for you to correct me, by issuing the other press release that I’ve been demanding as mentioned above and numerous other times in my correspondence and on this site).

My Western Carolina University graduate students (Master of Entrepreneurship Program) have just created a new Website (WCUEntrepreneurs.com), culminating from hundreds of hours of interviews with “real” entrepreneurs (not actors, or the “pretty, pretty people” who are typically used in ad campaigns).  If anyone is interested, you can read about the stories of guts, glory, defeat, and victory, on their site (which I am proud to mention, here).

Chase, you shouldn’t have messed around with your “Valued Cardmembers,” consumers or small businesses:  It’s my job to protect present and aspiring entrepreneurs.  I consider your behavior toward both to be inexcusable, and a danger to the entire economy.  I would therefore highly recommend to your prospects that they should NOT adopt your new card.

Haven’t you heard that old saying, Chase, “You can’t polish a turd”?

Good luck with your marketing campaign, Chase: If the customer experience is anything like what we’ve been witnessing in astonishment and disgust lately, the “Ink” card will stink.

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

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

“AB,” stands for Anonymous Banker, and AB’s site goes by that same name with the subhead, “An Insiders View Into the Banking Industry and Economic Crisis.”

In reading some of AB’s posts, written from the point of view of someone who has spent the bulk of his/her career working with small businesses, I find that he/she is just as disgusted and alarmed as I am about what is to come for our nation and our economy, if we don’t restore confidence.

And frankly, given that I am still stuck in a perfectly maintained home in a decent middle class neighborhood (that would have ordinarily sold in about 60 days, before the depression), I have a hard time mustering up much confidence these days that a life of misery for my family will not go on for many months to come; it’s already been two years.

As I have said several times before, in my opinion, this is because we bailed out big banks and their executives (with their perks, jets, and bonuses), instead of creating loan programs (that would have been break even) for distressed homeowners.  If we had simply addressed the problem that started this mess in the beginning — and it wasn’t even a big mystery to unravel like a health problem or an intermittent rattle coming from a car — real estate, I wouldn’t be here today, using the D-word.

This all started with bad news about real estate foreclosures.  Consumers were scared about what was happening in their neighborhoods, rightfully so.  Consumers lost confidence.  Then, we witnessed one of the biggest giveaways to corporate executives in history.  Outrage over AIG parties, trips and bonuses resulted in no substantive penalties or reforms.  Business “as usual” ruled the day.

The financial services industry greased the palms of Congress, and everybody (except the citizens at large who have to foot the bill), still had a really nice time.  Meanwhile, the cost of fuel for a day to run one of their jets or yachts is probably about the amount of money any of us serfs would need to “make our month,” or give us the wiggle room we need to negotiate the sale or purchase of a home.

After everyone lost confidence, consumers tightened their purse stings and stopped spending.  This led to trouble in the auto industry and another round of bailout disbursements.  The fact that one of our economy’s biggest industries (it’s not just the automakers, but all of the interdependent businesses: steel, glass, plastics, et cetera) was in trouble and would also need a bail out, further shook confidence in government’s ability to address fundamental issues and root causes.

Threats to the survival of  small businesses, accompanied by (i.e., resulting in even more) unemployment have followed.  AB states that he/she “[has] been a small business advocate for thirty years,” and further observed:

“Each day I encounter consumers and business owners that had been able to keep current on their revolving debt. But with each rate increase in the midst of declining revenues, brought about by this economic crisis CREATED BY THE BANKING INDUSTRY, more and more consumers and business owners are falling behind. The rate increases are a self-fulfilling prophesy. The banks say they need an increase in rates to help offset the increase in credit card losses. I say, the increase in rates is CAUSING a good portion of the credit card losses.”

A few months ago (July 22, 2009), someone attempted to post a comment, which I suppressed:

“Perhaps instead of buying a domain name, you should budget properly and pay your bills off in time.”

Not wanting to fire off in a knee-jerk reaction, here’s my answer:

I do pay my bills on time.  I always have.  This site is not about me, it’s about justice, fairness, efficiency of the banks for the benefit of a citizenry at large, small businesses and consumers in particular, and “the economy, stupid.”  If you want to “dis” me, while demonstrating a lack of understanding or caring about people or the issues that impact us all (and our children, their children, and so on): “budget properly” and get your own site.  Since ChangeInTerms.com is a pg-rated site, I can’t respond in more basic terms such as “‘expletive’ you, too!” (that you would more likely have the intellectual capacity to grasp).  But in “southern-speak,” I can say: “Bless Your Heart.”

A glimmer isn’t a recovery and there will be no recovery, without confidence.  There is not going to be any confidence as long as we are trapped, squeezed, and coming soon to a household and small business budget near you: taxed to death (and beyond the grave).  Small businesses and the economy — all of us — must have a properly functioning banking system, and we don’t.

Banks are making very bad decisions, causing defaults (this is especially tragic when account holders were making their payments, on time) when if they would instead work with people, they could get their money back (not to mention maintaining a loyal customer base instead of destroying their own brands).  They could prevent a frightening downward spiral and “self-fulfilling prophesy” from coming true.

The purpose of the banking system is to provide an exchange system for our currency and our economy.  It is failing in its fulfillment of that purpose.  AB knows it, I know it, and anyone with enough brains to buy a domain name and try to fight back before it’s too late knows it.  Bless Your Heart, too, if you don’t join the fight!

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, consumers, credit, debt, economy, penalties, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Let’s see, if a “similar lot” was $70k “not more than 9 months ago,” but now worth $24,900 (assuming enough similarity to be considered a comparable in a real estate appraisal), then the loss was $45,100 ($5011 per month).

Thank goodness, in these days of economic turmoil (with credit card companies doing all that they can to bully consumers and strangle small businesses), there are “RECESSION PROOF!” safe havens where those who have the financial wherewithal can invest!

Oh well, not to worry, with the “real estate professionals” working the market here in Murfreesboro, TN, it will probably be a while before our present home sells and we can move on to NC, anyway.  Yep, yesterday, one of those “professionals” called from our driveway to show a (local) “looker,” who wanted to see our home.  Forget the one hour notice request on the MLS, “we’re here to see your house!”

It’s days like those that make me want to give up.  But I don’t.  I make the drive.  305 miles, each way, every week, to work (plus the “in-town” mileage, when I am in NC).

I have a deadline to meet this weekend.  I’m working on a conference paper (on credit cards and small businesses).  You see, if I did “give up” on selling our home (by walking out like so many others have done), then I would not have much of an argument any more, when I try to speak out on behalf of struggling entrepreneurs (who are being squeezed — mercilessly — by credit card companies).

I have paid my bills and met my obligations, no matter what.  (As I drive during the treacherous trips through the mountains on I-40 eastbound in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, I at least know that if something happens to me, I’ll go with a clean conscience; I’m guessing that an apt description of “hell” is being a credit card account holder for eternity, so I definitely want to avoid going there.)

The FED (which is — unbeknown by most citizens — “owned” by the national banks and not “Federal”) and all of the bailouts have done nothing but enrich executives, who have enjoyed the parties, trips, perks, bonuses, and salaries of corporate big-wigs while they have had the same time, engaged in a reckless campaign against ordinary citizens (worldwide).  Meanwhile, homeowners, small businesses, and middle class consumers at large are slowly having the life sucked out of their wallets.

Just imagine: What if we invested $750 billion in bail out funds on the 21.7* million very small businesses in the United States?

The numbers are so staggering, they’ll make you dizzy (especially if you wear eyeglasses):

$1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) x 750 = $750,000,000,000

$750,000,000,000 / 21,700,000 (very small businesses) = $34,562.21 (each)

I’d certainly bet that if the first round of bail out funds had been invested in small rather than big businesses, we would have stimulated the economy.  But no, we bailed out big banks and car companies, where a handful of executives (each typically earning in excess of a million dollars in salary, so you do the math) became even richer in bad times, on the backs of all of us.  I know that these executives are about the only ones who can afford scooping up deals on lakefront property right now.  Further, as I have previously written, we could have averted the worst of the mortgage and foreclosure crisis as well.

By the way, regarding one of biggest problems, unemployment (which as you recall, came next in our downward spiral — while we bailed out “big” businesses and executives), and much of the pain that has come from that, could have been avoided if we had invested in small businesses.  Also according to the SBA Office of Advocacy, small businesses: “Employ just over half of all private sector employees”; “pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll”; and, “have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.”

Want to know why we’re suffocating, despite ever-so-slight signs of recovery?  A relatively small number of big businesses and their executives have prospered, and the rest of us, along with our children, and grandchildren, will pay, and pay, and pay.

* Those so small that they have no employees; number taken from SBA Office of Advocacy 2009 FAQs — out of 29.6 million total U.S. businesses.  Yes, the vast majority of all businesses are small businesses.  The vast majority of start-ups “bootstrap,” and many of these use personal and business credit cards as a source of capital.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, banks, business credit, consumers, credit, credit cards, economy, small business

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