This is a guest post from Adam Jusko, founder of IndexCreditCards.com, an information and comparison site for credit cards that maintains a list of over 1200 cards. You can follow Adam on Twitter for quick credit tips and opinions. I’ve mentioned Index Credit Cards many times before, most notably in my post from 2006 called “The Only Credit Card Guide You’ll Ever Need”.
Last May President Obama signed into law a sweeping set of rules and regulations concerning the business practices of credit card issuers. Known as the Credit Card Act, the new laws promised a level playing field
where consumers would be treated more fairly and credit card terms would be easier to understand.
But, much like your favorite credit card agreement, the law had something nasty buried in the fine print — no part of the law would take effect immediately. Instead, certain pieces of the law didn’t take effect until August, and many others have an effective date of February 2010. Credit card issuers used the window between the law’s signing and its actual enforcement to raise rates, slash credit limits, or even completely take your card away.
Card issuers claim the new rules restrict their ability to price cards based on risk, and will lead to higher prices for everyone. Politicians might call the card issuers’ reactions to the new law “unintended consequences,” and tell you that leveling the playing field unfortunately means that some people get leveled on the way toward a fairer marketplace. (Actually, no politician would ever say that.)
What’s the truth? What exactly do these new laws do? And, what can you expect in the coming years when you use your credit cards or attempt to get new ones?
Let’s start with what the law actually says. It’s long, so I’ll bullet point it as much as possible. (Go here if you want to read it in all its glory.)
Now playing
Here’s what went into effect in August of 2009:
- Credit card issuers must give you 45 days notice if they intend to raise your rates. Further, they must allow you to “opt out” of the rate increase and pay your existing balance under the old rate terms.
- Credit card issuers must send bills at least 21 days before the due date.
What it means: Credit card issuers can no longer jack up your rates with little warning, and you now have the option to decline the rate increase. However, declining an increase means you can no longer use the card and it gives the issuer the freedom to increase your minimum payment to either twice its previous level or to a level that guarantees the card will be paid off within five years. So, if you decline, be sure you have a better card option going forward.
Coming soon
Next up are the regulations due to kick in next month. I’ll take them in chunks, based on rules that naturally go together:
- Credit card rates can’t be increased on outstanding balances — except for the increase that happens when a 0% or other low interest introductory rate expires on newly-issued cards or when a customer is 60 days late on a payment.
- If a customer is 60 days late on a payment and an interest rate is increased, the issuer must dial the rate back to the original level if the customer pays the past-due payments and makes 6 straight months of on-time minimum payments.
- Card rates can not be increased in the first year of a card agreement (unless there is a limited-time low-interest introductory rate as part of the original card offer).
- Low-interest introductory rate offers must last at least 6 months.
- Customer payments must be applied to higher-interest balances first.
- If a card is marketed as “fixed rate,” the card issuer must reveal exactly how long the rate is guaranteed to remain the same.
- Credit card issuers can not use “double-cycle billing,” a practice that allowed issuers to charge interest based on the average balance from the past two months, even if last month’s balance was paid.
What it means: Out of all the new rules, the ones above are probably the greatest victory for consumers, and probably the most harmful to card issuers’ profits. In general, they say that any purchase you make must be charged interest only at the card’s interest rate when the purchase was made. Even if the issuer hikes your rate, the higher rate only would apply to new purchases going forward. Credit card issuers are really screaming about this — they believe it stops them from penalizing bad customers who turn into bigger credit risks, and they threaten that it will stop them from accepting many consumers altogether.
From my perspective, it’s simple fairness — even if a person becomes a bigger credit risk, I see no reason issuers should be able to “bait and switch” by increasing the rates on previous purchases made under different terms. This practice has forced many credit card customers to get into desperate financial straits. What card issuers may be missing in their anger is the possibility that fewer cardholders will default on their cards under these regulations, because they won’t suddenly be saddled with payments that are double those required previously.
Here’s the next set of rules:
- Payment due dates must be the same each month. If a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date must change to the following business day.
- Issuers can’t charge fees for payments by certain methods. For example, issuers can not charge customers more if they pay by phone than if they pay online.
- Issuers can’t allow customers to go over their credit limits and then charge “over the limit fees” unless the customer has first “opted in” — specifically asking for the service.
- Issuers must include a place on the bill that shows customers how long it would take to pay off their balances if only the minimum required payment was paid each month. (Other similar disclosure rules are still being developed.)
What it means: Most of these fall under the “sneaky tricks” portion of the rules, in order to stop issuers from charging you fees for things that seem quite reasonable. For example, you shouldn’t be charged a late fee if your payment can’t be delivered on a due date that happens to be a Sunday, and card issuers shouldn’t be giving you a credit limit and then allowing you to go over that limit as a “service” that charges you an extra fee.
The last two rules are targeted at specific cardholder groups:
- Issuers may not charge upfront fees that are greater than 25% of a card’s credit limit.
- Issuers may not issue cards to people under 21, unless the customer has proof of income or has a co-signer who accepts responsibility for the card.
What it means: The first point is targeted at “subprime” cards for those with poor credit. A common industry practice when targeting bad credit customers has been to offer a low credit limit and then charge upfront fees that eat up most of the limit. For example, you sign up for a card with a $500 limit, but there are $450 in fees in order to get the card, so you start off with a $450 balance and only $50 in actual spending power. Desperate customers have been willing to take this deal, but no more.
The second point may kill the college student credit card market. Card issuers have long targeted college students, trying to “get them early” in hopes of creating brand loyalty. Lawmakers felt too many students were getting cards they couldn’t pay for, leaving college with thousands of dollars in debt.
What the future holds
While the Credit Card Act has thankfully rid us of many unfair practices going forward, the card issuers’ frenzied attempt to either hike rates or kick out unprofitable customers has left many between a rock and a hard place. In the past, a customer who was treated poorly by one credit card company could simply turn to another, with the likelihood being they’d be welcomed with open arms. Today, and at least for the next year or so, I believe consumers will have difficulty obtaining new credit cards, especially consumers with average credit or worse. This is bad news for those stuck in a high-rate situation.
What comes later is likely to be a good-news/bad-news situation. Credit will become more accessible again, but in the future it will more likely come with an annual fee, or with fewer if any rewards on purchases, or with new fees that have yet to be devised. The credit card industry has proven to very adaptable, and while it’s a sure thing that they’ll play nice legally, that doesn’t mean future credit card agreements will be written with your best interests at heart.
J.D.’s note: Don’t forget that you can opt out of this madness by simply refusing to use credit cards in the first place. I have one personal card, but there are times I’m tempted to go back to my “no credit needed” ways.
This article is about Credit Cards, News Wednesday, 13th January 2010 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter











January 13th, 2010 at 5:19 am
I continue to be disgusted by the credit card companies’ threats of “no or lower rewards” on cards. An article that J.D. tweeted about last week explained how those rewards are actually paid for, and it has nothing to do with the consumer. The money for rewards comes from fees that VISA and Mastercard charge to merchants who accept the cards and to banks who issue them (taking it from both sides). I think that maybe credit card companies will take away rewards and other goodies for a little while, but then they will realize that without consumers actually using their cards, no one is making money and the rewards will come back.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:21 am
I personally see all of these changes as being fantastic. I especially like that the CC companies won’t be able to charge ‘over limit fees’ as a service. I always wondered how that could possibly be considered a service. I was, however, shocked that they actually made the 21+ rule. Though, I agree with it.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:28 am
I use my credit card just for gas because I get 4% back. If they start charging an annual fee, I’m out. I can do cash only. I just like having a credit card for things I don’t want pending on my checking account.
This is the card we have: http://bit.ly/6hh8Z1
I really do think it is a good credit card now, considering everything. I’ve gotten a few rebate checks over $100 each from it.
January 13th, 2010 at 5:55 am
I think these changes are terrible.
People are irresponsible with their money and choices. Choices have consequences. Why remove the consequences for irresponsible behavior?
Last time I checked we lived in a capitalistic society. In such a society, there’s little need for the federal government to step in and interfere in the marketplace. It causes problems. And this, too, while looking good for the consumer, will only cause problems long term. We will end up paying for this with our collective money. Now all of us will pay, instead of those who are irresponsible with their money, like before. Now we will pay for government agencies to regulate, and poorly, probably. We will pay by loss of rewards programs and such. Funny how the ones who are responsible pay, but the ones who are irresponsible and in trouble will probably continue to behave in such a manner.
If people choose to spend irresponsibly and ignore card terms, there should be consequences. So much of why our country is where it’s at steeped in the middle of a recession is because of poor choices and government bailouts. And the game continues.
Also, does it strike anyone as strange that in many states a female under the age of 21 can have an abortion without parental consent, but can no longer have a credit card without them cosigning?
January 13th, 2010 at 6:12 am
I’m just happy to read an article that distinguishes between “credit card issuers” (i.e. banks) and the actual credit card companies. It drives me crazy how many people don’t understand how the system of credit that they use works. Even Dave Ramsey and those supposedly well-versed in finance just always blame the credit card companies directly and don’t implicate the banks in the shady practices.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:16 am
I really dislike the 21 y/o rule. I had a credit card in my name in college and it really helped me to build and to learn how to manage credit. I also held a card with my mom’s name to use for specific college expenses (art major - I used it for needed supplies/books); she felt better that I wasn’t putting large expenses on my own card that I might not be able to pay back in one billing period.
I was responsible with both cards. But what if your college-aged child isn’t. Now your credit is tied in w/his financial missteps. NO GOOD!
January 13th, 2010 at 6:50 am
I dislike the 21yr old rule too. Credit cards at 18 are a great way to build credit early on, which is what I did, and currently have a credit score around 730 at age 22. This is especially the case when the credit agencies weight length of time your accounts have been open on average very highly. Not to mention college kids frequently rely on credit cards for expenses to…keep them in college! Books etc.
Disclosure rules = good, they allow people to see how long it would take to pay something off by minimum payment. I know I’d be scared if it said “13 years, 3months and 5 days to pay off your current balance with only minimum payments”
Scrap everything else. No one is forcing you to open a credit card. Caveat emptor.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:05 am
I think this bill was a complete waste of time. The problem isn’t credit card companies, it’s people who don’t know how to use credit properly. Nothing in this bill addresses that issue. I predict there will be more defaults as people think they can get away with more now.
Also, what credit card company has been making money the last year? I thought all divisions were losing.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:06 am
I personally LIKE the 21 year old rule. Although I had a credit card in the middle of my college years … it was actually a bit tough to get in the ’80’s, when some issuers still required proof of income. I can’t tell you how many of my college acquaintences who got cards charged up a storm and then couldn’t pay, ruining their credit before they even got out on their own.
My daughter is 13 and already has her own check card from our credit union, tied to her own account. Once she has a job in a few years, she’ll be eligible to apply for her own credit card, and I’m sure will only have a $500 or $1000 limit AS IT SHOULD BE. She will be building credit without the risk of not being able to pay it back.
Those issuers have become predators, and no one should an 18 year old college student a credit card with a limit they couldn’t possibly pay back themselves. Requiring proof of an income or a co-signer is just common sense, no matter what the person’s age, really.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:07 am
I am so pleased that all of these regulations are about to go through. Thank you for posting all of them in a clear manner on your blog.
Unlike other readers, I am glad that the age for credit cards is being changed to 21. While I was reponsible with my credit in college, I had many friends who went into debt or were allured by the sneaky deals offered. Even though people are considered adults at age 18, it’s important that people have more life experience and work experience before given such a huge responsibility.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:28 am
I’m all for capitalism and the free market. Heck, I have an MBA.
On the other hand, I’m also for full information (ie forcing companies to explain what the fine print means). And I’m also mystified as to why credit card companies have been able to break the law for so long with no consequences. If they say that they are offering a “fixed rate” card then the rate should be fixed.
There’s a difference between “unkind” practices and deceptive practices. The companies can be unkind and make someone pay 2%, 5%, or even 10% as a minimum payment for all I care. They should also be able to yank credit lines anytime they want, based on the creditworthiness of the borrower. But they should have to honor the terms that were spelled out when they made the initial agreement. And the double-cycle billing is just wrong. Why should anyone pay interest if they owe nothing.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:32 am
I got rid of all my credit cards Dave Ramsey style. Now, if I have a true emergency, instead of using a credit card, I can use savings.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Thanks for this clear explanation of the upcoming changes Adam. I like most of the changes, especially the ones that will increase the transparency of credit card agreements, terms, conditions and fees. As to the squawking from credit card companies, I doubt that most credit card companies are hurting. When I worked for a large financial institution, the credit card division was always the most profitable - even during economic downturns. There are a lot of tools available to the companies to reduce their risk, even when this regulation becomes effective. They will use them - or build new ones.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:56 am
I love my credit card. I’ve been very happy with the level of customer service when we’ve had issues (husband’s credit card was stolen last year) and they actually offered to lower my rate the last time I called, even though I didn’t ask about it. I don’t care what our rate is because we pay it off every month.
If they took away rewards, I might consider going to cash-only, but until then, I come out ahead by using my card.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:14 am
Adam, thanks for breaking down the new regs. JD, thanks for posting this! I’m always interested in how our credit cards work, and the up and coming developments.
I’m one of those people who charges everything, to be honest, because all of my cards give cash rewards and I pay my balances in full every month. Also, I like the 30-day interest free loan. Plus, having a regular cc payment due date and having advance notice of what that payment amount will be allows me to keep a low checking account balance and keep everything else in high(er)-interest yielding OSAs. All those benefits make credit cards worth it to me. If I lost the rewards and gained annual fees, I’d lose the cards. We’ll see how it works out.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:43 am
Useful, interesting and easy to understand post!
January 13th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I think it’s a mixed bag. And I noticed a lot of the things I liked are already done by my credit cards. So in some ways this is a case of the government telling businesses to do business the way they are already. A lot of times we read these laws and think, “Yeah, that’s the way it should be! Screw the XXXX companies!” and we don’t realize that what was outlawed was already being done 98% of the time. It’s like making it illegal to ride a horse through the city unless you’re part of an official display. I don’t think most cities have a problem with random people riding horses through town. And if the laws that exist were repealed they wouldn’t suddenly have a horse problem.
But I agree that some of these provisions are going to cost the credit card (and therefore the rest of their users). Why shouldn’t credit card companies charge the prevailing rate on your total balance (especially if you can opt out of rate hikes)? That is REALLY geared toward irresponsible people who carry balances. No matter how they do business, credit cards aren’t intended to be long term installment loans.
Ultimately I don’t think the problem is banks, but lawyers who have made the fine print and confusing jargon necessary. If agreements could be upfront and more clear I don’t think we would have the same confusions and problems. It would also be harder to be sneaky and people would be wary of companies with agreements that are too long. But that’s not our reality. Instead we get 12 pages of gibberish and then are surprised when the terms bite us in the butt.
In the end I will shake my head and assimilate the new reality and make my decisions accordingly. But I do get really tired of the nanny state stepping in to protect me from myself.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:47 am
I am on the fence about the 21 year old rule. As a parent of a child who just graduated college, my daughter needed a credit card. She studied abroad for six months in Spain and we liked the security that a credit card offered verses a debit/credit bank card. She applied fora card and got one in her name only. I believe that they should have a specific limit…maybe 1,000.
My husband and I would not have co-signed for a credit card for her. We do not want our credit - mixed with hers. I feel if at 18 you are considered an adult by law and able to die for your country, purchase a house, etc….you should be able to have a credit card of some sort. I also do believe that many folks young and old are not properly educated financially and there lies the problem!
January 13th, 2010 at 8:48 am
The “No cards for people under 21″ will probably have the unintended consequence of hurting the t-shirt, frisbee, an miscellaneous swag industry.
I doubt if card companies will start doing only annual fees and totally eliminate rewards. This would totally chase off the customers who pay their balances every month and only use cards for the convenience and because the rewards give them a de facto discount on everything they buy. If you have enough cash so that you don’t even need credit, the only reason to have a card in the first place besides convenience (pretty much essential for online purchases) is the build a credit history.
I know if this were to happen to me I’d stick to only one card with the lowest fee, and a debit card, and only use the credit card where cash wasn’t practical or debit was unsafe. Say goodbye to the merchant fees, Visa.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:50 am
“The law had something nasty buried in the fine print — no part of the law would take effect immediately. Instead, certain pieces of the law didn’t take effect until August, and many others have an effective date of February 2010.”
My understanding is that this is pretty standard for legislative changes, not something “nasty buried in the fine print.”
January 13th, 2010 at 8:58 am
At what age are you an adult in this country? You can vote, be drafted into the military and die for your country, gamble, be convicted as an adult, have babies, and all sorts of things at age 18. Why would you have to wait until the random age of 21 to own a credit card? Make up your minds. I think we need to set an age and stick to it.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:00 am
These laws wont affect my life at all, because I don’t use credit cards.
I think the pro-capitalism/anti-regulation commenters are funny. Should we repeal the law banning lead in children’s toys, too? The marketplace will sort it all out, right? What about environmental regulations for corporations, or safety standards for automobiles? The federal no-call list for telemarketers? It’s all the same general idea.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:08 am
There is actually a bill rolling around in legislature that senator Christopher Dodd (who will soon be leaving the senate) was going to try to push through that would limit interest rates on credit cards nationally.
Right now there is no national cap and banks can move their offices to states who have the highest interest rates or no caps at all and then pass that percentage to customers nation wide.
There needs to be more discussion about a limit to what banks can charge in interest or usury laws as they were once (more appropriately) called.
If you’re interested in the history of credit cards here is a link to an article from my site.
http://my5k5k.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-history-of-credit-cards
January 13th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Crediting payments to the highest interest debt is crucial. It’s ridiculous that in the past credit card companies refused to pay off the more expensive debt first, even if you asked them to.
Glad that Congress put a stop to these shenanigans.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:17 am
I disagree with the under 21 rule - do these “college” students not have the brains to realize that what they charge needs to be paid back? If they get themselves in trouble and establish bad credit, that’s their fault. It would’ve been quite inconvenient to not have credit cards when I was 18 and living on my own. However, I do like the laws that limit CC companies’ deceptive behavior.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Cap One actually called me and tried to make me believe that the CARD act was going to hurt me! They painted this dire scenario where if i wasn’t allowed to go over limit, I was in danger for my life! Something about running out of gas on the side of the road in a dark neighborhood with no access to credit because I had maxed out my card. If I were as stupid as the person in that story, I’d deserve it!
Needless to say, I firmly refused their offer to allow me to keep the ability to go overlimit, despite them kindly lowering the fee from $39 to $29.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:47 am
@Tyler
Just because someone is pro-capitalist/anti-regulation doesn’t mean they believe in no regulation. But you can over-regulate a system and there are usually unintended consequences.
I don’t even remember the specifics, but there was a ’safety’ law recently (last year?) for toys that had the unintended consequence of making many toys on shelves completely unsellable. It rendered four wheelers and other vehicles used by children illegal. I think that law was wrong. Not just because of the damage it caused, but because the danger they were mitigating was minor when compared to the damage.
Regarding the examples you gave, those things fall under the purview of what I said previously: many of those laws are for things that businesses would do regardless, because it makes sense or due to public opinion/customer pressure. That isn’t to say there wouldn’t be businesses violating those principals anyway, but they aren’t as important as many people think they are for our health and safety. Many things that ARE law would be done anyway, so using the force of law on the outliers doesn’t really have a huge effect on the market place.
Look at how many companies use recycled materials. It isn’t because it’s cheaper or because it’s the law, but because they think it’s a good idea, or they know their customers think it’s a good idea.
I’m not saying the laws are good or bad, but not always well thought out and don’t always have the effect we think they do.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Adam,
Any word whether credit card companies will be required to report your credit limit to credit reporting bureaus? Chase doesn’t report my limit so my card is always shown at 100% credit utilization when I check my score online. Not a big deal, but it affects my score.
Thanks.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:50 am
I was a bit… put off… by the under 21 rule at first, too. I got my first Visa card when I was 18. In retrospect, however, I believe that my parents co-signed on that card. I was going to Europe with my German class, and they wanted to make sure I had a credit card in case of emergency. I also had a debit Master Card attached to my own checking account (I’d been working part time for 2 years at that point), which I used for almost all my expenses overseas, as there were fewer fees & exchange rate issues doing that than using traveler’s checks.
I could have provided proof of income at that point, as well, so either way, this new law wouldn’t have prevented me from doing exactly what I did.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I agree with Trisha. This government action is like a parent buying a toy for a child who doesn’t work while requiring another kid to work for a toy. People are charged higher rates due to their irresponsibility, and it is those hard lessons which teach people to be responsible.
In the long run, this will encourage more feckless behavior (just like American’s savings’ rate declined after social security). People either accept their own responsibility in life or fail because of their own irresponsibility.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:56 am
#23 Chett, mentions that the new CARD law says nothing about putting a cap on interest rates. I recently read an article on MSN.com that First Premier Bank, a card known to target people with poor credit, will begin offering credit cards at a 79.99% interest rate to make up for the money they’re losing in their upfront fees.
Many of the new laws will benefit the consumers. However because the credit card companies are so used to making outrageous profits off consumers, they will surely find new ways to gouge their clientele. The best solution to these loan sharks, I mean banks, is to pay off the credit cards in full each month.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am
For the age discussion, I think it seems fair to categorize credit cards and drinking in the same way. If we don’t think people under 21 can drink one glass of wine responsibly, what makes us think they can use a credit card responsibly? (Or on the other side of the equation, if you think they should be able to use credit cards because many CAN be responsible, then we should also acknowledge that many CAN drink responsibly as well).
January 13th, 2010 at 10:00 am
@Tyler
In theory, if there is transparency, the market will regulate itself. For example, if the law banning lead in children’s toys was repealled but companies were required to include something that told people what materials went into the manufacturing process, with what people know about harmful materials, they would not purchase an item that contained something potentially harmful. If public wasn’t buying the product, the company would not discontinue the manufacturing of that product. Hopefully, then the company would decide to make a similar product without harmful materials.
The problem is that we’ve regulated so many things that the public just relies on the government to protect them from the ‘evil corporations’. Additionally, the corporations develop the attitude of ‘push the limit as far as possible without technically going beyond, in order to achieve the maximum possible profit at the expense of anyone and everyone else’. So now both sides sue each other for violation of their ‘rights’ and nobody really wins anything.
I think the genius behind the free market, capitalist system is that it can self-regulate. (You can argue that in the time it takes to do that you could have a lot of unnecessary ‘casualties’. At the same time, by the time the government gets in the game, you could argue, there have already been so many casualties that it doesn’t really make a difference one way or the other.) However, now that we have imposed regulations, we are doomed to continue regulating until eventually there is no action that does not have a regulated consequence.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:24 am
The market will self-regulate? Are you kidding? Look at the housing crisis and the banking crisis. No regulation = escalation of unethical practices. Companies will push it far over the line because executives have to answer to stockholders that expect to earn a profit. Period. That’s why in unregulated countries there is child labor.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:26 am
@CB (#33)
For once, I actually agree with Tyler. The problem with “free-market” thinking is that there will never be complete transparency for the market to regulate itself and for transparency to exist, there must be regulations in place to require it. Therefore, regulations of some sort are necessary even in a “free market”. Even if complete transparency was required, the greediest companies would still find a way to buy a loop-hole for themselves as they are doing now with the toy lead-ban law.
Total disclosure will never be in the best interest of profits, so without regulation, consumers will never truly have freedom to choose the best option available. We have to rely on the government to tell us what is safe and what is not. Unfortunately, our leaders are not experts in the fields they regulate and take bribes from companies and so laws are hastily put together and not thought out thoroughly enough to actually protect people.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:30 am
I have mixed feelings on the over-21 restriction for card issuers. On the one hand, as others have pointed out, nationally the drinking age is 21 so why shouldn’t it be 21 for having a credit card. BUT that is so inconsistent with other rights that young adults do accrue at age 18 (joining the military; leasing or buying property) or 16 (marrying, in some states; driving a car; getting a job; leaving school).
I do think it would be helpful if *nationally* we decided what constitutes an adult, and then set about revising our educational system so that when people reach that age, they have the skill set they need to function as an adult.
I am all in favor of heavy regulation of financial industries. I don’t buy the “pro-capitalism” arguments on this, maybe because I’m a historian, but maybe because financial industries don’t actually produce goods and services in the traditional sense. But this isn’t a political blog so I think we should focus on the PF implications of the new CARD act, as I suspect J.D. would prefer!
I have two credit cards, a Capital One which has not been futzed with and a Bank of America, which has. B of A offered (so kindly!) to double my APR last spring. I called them a few names in the privacy of my home office and promptly sent in a letter declining the “offer.” As a consequence, I am paying off the balance at my old rate, but have lost the use of the card. When it is paid off, I’ll close it.
But before that, it’ll be in my best interest to open a second card with a different issuer. You never know what might happen with Capital One, which I understand HAS been all over the map in how it treats its customers.
A side note: I had a new-year shopping budget that included permission to use three store cards that I have. I couldn’t find anything I wanted to use them for. So I plan to close those as well, after getting a new nationally-branded card.
My credit score? I couldn’t care less right now. We’re five years (minimum) away from purchasing property. Whatever manipulations I do this year will be ancient news, and irrelevant to scoring, by then.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:32 am
What amazes me is the comments complaining about the “21+ rule”. All people 18 and older (except those in the extremely small category who suffer mental and/or physical handicaps that make gainful employment impossible) should be able to provide proof of income, because they should be working! College demands are not a sufficient excuse for preventing young adults from contributing to society. And for anyone of any age who isn’t drawing an income, there is no reason for using a credit card.
That said, I agree with folks who want to limit the regulation. Make the credit cards disclose in common language the cardholder agreements, but then leave it to the consumer and the market as a whole to self-regulate. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:04 am
No…banks and credit card companies do not self-regulate very well. For that matter, neither do cable companies, cell phone companies, telephone companies, etc. Many of these companies engage in business practices designed to take advantage of the average consumer. They write contracts loaded with unintelligible “fine print” for the consumer and escape clauses for themselves.
The bottom line of most credit card agreements is “We can do anything we want, anytime we want. If you don’t like it, too bad.”
We wouldn’t need the new credit card laws, if banks “played fair” and if there was real competition in the marketplace.
Still, I don’t believe that these business practices are the result of any “evil intentions”…I do believe that they are the result of profit motive. Basically, left to their own devices, companies will do whatever they can get away with to make more money.
Since companies have very little pressure from the market to “play fair”, rules (regulations) are necessary.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I agree with #21 Jen,
“At what age are you an adult in this country? You can vote, be drafted into the military and die for your country, gamble, be convicted as an adult, have babies, and all sorts of things at age 18. Why would you have to wait until the random age of 21 to own a credit card? Make up your minds. I think we need to set an age and stick to it.”
I’m surprised at #37 mike’s comment - “All people 18 and older… should be working!” Really? That’s a pretty strong stance. I’m in college now, and though I work, most of the people I know do not. Even though I only work part time, my parents encouraged me not to work at all, because I have my whole life for working. If kids can be in school, either with scholarships or (if possible) their parents paying without being financially burdened, why should they hold down a job? From age 22-70, I’m going to have to go into an office every single day. You really want kids to get started on that right now?
And a question - although I’m sure the 21 year old rule doesn’t apply retroactively, does anyone have an opinion on whether credit cards will cancel cards for those under 21? I’m 20 now, and have had my Discover card for almost a year. I pay it off every month, which means that for them I’m useless/non-profitable. Do you think there’s a chance they’ll cancel my card?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:16 am
I think this is all great news. So what if it is more difficult to get a credit card? It should be difficult….if only to save us from ourselves.
I am all for the “21+ rule” as well. I think anyone who has a son or daughter that has recently turned 18 years old can attest to the predatory practices used by the credit and banking institutions with regard to this age group. They may be ready for college, but until courses in “Finances 101″ become mandatory for all high school seniors with a refresher course in college, they are not ready for this type of financial responsibility. Especially when they are targeted through the media and exposed to peer pressure on a daily basis. With the exception of a few, it takes a long time to strike a balance between wants and needs. This may not happen by age 21, but my own experience has shown me that my children have matured significantly by their third year in college. Atleast they stand a better chance by 21.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:25 am
#37, Mike:
How do you know that the credit card companies aren’t going to expect you (if you’re under 21) to provide proof of a significant source of income, rather than just a 12-hr. weekend job (a job suitable for full-time students)?
What if working is not the person’s main agenda, i.e. the person is studying abroad or is a missions volunteer or is an intern w/little or no income?
I guess when my teen uses/needs a c.c., she will have to call me before every single transaction and get my approval since my name will be on the card as well. Oh, well.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:27 am
The point that Mike is making at #37 and many people seem to be missing is that people under 21 are not barred from owning credit cards. They just need to (1) verify income; or (2) have a co-signer.
All this provision does is stop young people without income from getting credit cards. This would have no effect on the person above who was “living on my own at 18″ assuming that person was earning verifiable income.”
Holly #41 I just saw your post. If your concern is, “How will my child who does not have income get a credit card now?” then presumably the answer is that you will co-sign. I would be completely shocked if that required verification on every transaction.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
What if a credit card has double cycle billing, but calls it something different (Amex gave me the run around on this recently)?
January 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Full-time university coursework is both demanding and expensive. A part-time job steals time from studying, so my parents (who were investing in me) discouraged me from working during the school year. Most of my fellow alumni find work a breeze after school work weeks that far exceeded 40 hours in college.
During college I worked summers to earn the cash for textbooks and small expenses during the year. I got a credit card as soon as I was 18 and have paid it off every month since, using savings rather than regular income while I was in college. Under the new rules I don’t think I could have gotten a credit card during school (my parents wouldn’t have co-signed; I’ve been responsible for my own money since I opened a checking account). Could I have applied during the summer, while working, perhaps? It’s a shame to limit responsible students in this way.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I was so happy to read that the payment due dates will now need to be the same each month. I had one credit card (now canceled) that had some weird floating due date every month; I would send in payments 30-31 days apart, but they’d occasionally label the payment late because the due date would move back and so the payment would be credited for the previous month. It was totally infuriating.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:36 am
#42 Storch Money: Thank you for that clarification.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I really appreciate having these laws broken down. I’ve been curious about them, but hadn’t yet convinced myself to stop being lazy and go read up on them. ;P
One thing I’m concerned about: If you opt not to use credit cards, as JD suggests, how do you build credit? My coworker (according to him) has a high credit scores, pays his bills responsibly, and has money set aside from an inheritance, but he was unable to procure a home loan because he didn’t have 4 (maybe it was even 5) credit cards to his name. He said he’d always preferred to use cash when he could, but now he has to use credit cards to build up his credit enough to qualify for a home loan.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:53 am
I disagree with the “under-21″. Under 18 makes sense, since those under 18 can’t be held accountable due to minor status (I’m okay with that).
Personally, every age group should have the requirement of income to get a credit card. I know people unresponsible at 31 as the debt-laden college student being personified. Are younger adults more likely to get into credit card debt? Definitely.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:59 am
I agree that there should be a cap on the interest rate… I would love to get 30% for having them use the money in my savings account to fund the loans of others, but instead I only get 1-5% depending on how the economy is doing. I think they should only be allowed 5% over prime.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
For me I think the best item of all these rules is enforcing the due date being on a business day.
I absolutely hate when a payment is due on a Sunday and I have to part with my money three days earlier in order to ensure that I don’t get a late payment.
I have been burned once or twice because there are some institutions in their posting frames state that anything paid for on Friday will not get credited until the following Monday. So now I have to pay 4 days early.
I’ve alway found that to be a very unethical way to get late fees out of people.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Just to clairify: I’m not saying that the market is doing a good job now at self-regulating. But the fact is that they don’t have to. We’ve designated the government to do that for us. I was trying to point out that by giving someone else this responsiblilty, we’ve given the market permission to push the limits as far as possible in order to maintain profit as high as possible. Yes, stockholders pushing for profits is part of that problem too. But I maintain that if the volume of regulations that we have now was not in place, and never had been, companies would respect their customer more rather than just fear regulation. When a company looks out for it’s customers above it’s bottomline, I think everyone benefits.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Credit cards… a two edged sword for sure! I have a love/hate relationship with them like I’m sure most of all of us do. Let me tell my tale with credit. I was raised by fiscaly conservative parents in a small Iowa town. I.e. pay cash, don’t spend what you don’t have, keep credit buys to a minimum, save for a rainy day, deal localy and use store credit if you have to use credit etc. Okay, i’m 18 and graduated H.S.(1988) and have started school at a local community collage, have a part time job or two, and live in a house with some buddies that we split the rent on. At no time did my folks ever encorage me to get a credit card, and for that matter I don’t realy remember getting Card apps. Remember this was the 80’s and I could use cash or a checking account for all my needs. Forward to age 23 or so. Still living in my home town, working full time with a steady job, banking at the same bank that I literly grew up 3 blocks from. Its Christmas time and my girlfriend and I are shopping at a Sears. She tells me to apply for a Sears card as they practicaly give them to anybody. So in a busy store I walk up and apply. Of course I was turned down right on the spot, humiliated in front of a lot of people. The saleswoman smirked that I had pretty much no credit and a card “Wasn’t happening”. Two more years go by and Sears finaly “accepts” me as a credit risk. Forward to 1999. I’m twenty nine and have payed back a small student loan and two car loans EARLY. I check into financing some of a used motorcyle through H.D. credit. You guessed it! I have NO credit. Small town bank never reports to credit score agencys; why should they? You are always just going to use them (STB) arrent you? So… after jumping through hoops of fire I get a loan through First Credit and pay the damn loan off 2 years early. Now I have credit card companys up the wazoo wanting to sell me money. 2005 rolls around and I buy a brand new truck. I finance about half the purchase and pay it off in 2.5 years. Credit is now 800 or so and everybody wants to sell me money. Which brings us to the present. Creditors (banks/cc companys) are something I try to stay away from as much as possible. They are not intrinsicly Evil but are preditory to say the least. Handel them like a poisonous snake that you are trying to milk for the venom to make a anti-venom from. Remember they are trying to sell you all the money they can at the highest possible price, they are not a “friend when you need it” like the B.S. comercals say. Sorry this is kind of rambling and of the wall but my blood boils when credit company issues come up!!!!!! P.S. Thank you again J.D. for all you have done with this site. I recomend it to everybody. P.P.S Good luck with the garden this year, I’m looking through seed catalogs right now.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
These rules are just fine as far as I’m concerned.
I have no problem with the 21+ rule either, note that it doesn’t keep 18-21 year olds form having credit but just requires them to have sufficient income. Frankly I don’t see why they should be giving anyone credit cards without sufficient income.
If these rules keep credit card companies from issuing credit to some people then thats best for everyone. They really shouldn’t be giving free flowing credit to people with really poor financial situation or credit history anyway.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
How with the 21 yo rule affect someone who wants to buy a house after college? Will one year of credit history be as good as four years when they apply for that home loan?
January 13th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Great post. It is helpful to see this information. I’m really frustrated by this law, particularly as it affects those of us who handle our credit cards appropriately. For myself, I have great credit and always pay my balance each month. I put everything on my rewards credit card so I can get the cash rewards. From what you said near the end, it looks like I might be stuck with annual fees and no more rewards due to some peoples’ inability to handle credit cards.
Where is the personal responsibility?
January 13th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Old enough to handle automatic weapons, kill, and be killed in a foreign country; not old enough to use a credit card? Which one of these situations is more absurd?
January 13th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
TheMightyQuinn:
This doesn’t answer your question…but what’s the rush? My 23 year old daughter shares an apartment and doesn’t own a car either. She takes public transportation (I know this is not an option everywhere). It isn’t that she couldn’t afford to, she makes pretty decent money, she just does not want the financial burden of a house, a car, property and auto insurance, property taxes, repairs, maintenance and the cost of gas. That’s a HUGE chunk of your income! Instead, she saves a good chunk of her money for the future (maybe a car and a house someday?) and does some “living” (travel,etc.) while she is young and has little responsibility.
Just a thought…..
January 13th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
To Samantha #39 who was worried that Discover will think she is unprofitable because she pays off her balance every month: Discover charges a high % to the vendors you buy from (why a lot of places take Visa/MC but not Discover), so as long as you use the card, they are profiting from you! And they will probablt grandfather you in since you already have a card in good standing, but you can always call that number on the back and ask.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Overall I think the changes are good. (I’m actually a bit shocked to find out that raising the interest rate on existing balances is not already illegal.) I agree that there can be over-regulation in some cases, but I think that most of the new rules here simply force companies to compete on their actual merits rather than by fleecing consumers by way of technicalities, fees, gotchas, and loopholes or by taking advantage of consumers’ naïveté.
I was initially going to say that I thought the over-21 restriction was a misstep, but after having read the relevant text of the bill, I’m left wondering: Why wouldn’t “indicating an independent means of repaying any obligation arising from the proposed extension of credit in connection with the account” be required for *all* applicants, regardless of age?
January 13th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@21Jen: I haven’t read all the rest of the comments, but what about the drinking age in the U.S.?
21 as the age someone can be handed a credit card without a consignor or proof of income doesn’t seem that random to me.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
To MarkF:
I sympathize with your frustration, but just like any system that is abused (or is abusive)…EVERYONE pays. Whether you realize it or not, you are paying to use your card. As someone else mentioned here, the vendors you buy things from are charged a percentage for you to use that card. But the vendors don’t really pay that percentage…you do…it is figured into the purchase price along with all their other costs.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Okay, I see a lot of madness going on about the under-21 issue, but the key words here are “proof of income.” PROOF OF INCOME. IF YOU HAVE A JOB, YOU CAN HAVE CREDIT AT 18. And suggesting that loan sharking is a capitalist virtue is ridiculous; maybe 100 years ago when you could beat the stuffing out of someone charging 50% interest, but not these days — how can you beat Visa without some kind of intervention?
When I was 18, I put down my parent’s income on a credit card application (my personal income was about $300/month). Visa sent me a card with a $6,000 limit. I didn’t go out and spend it all at once, but it actually encouraged me to be IRRESPONSIBLE rather than otherwise; I stayed in a college I couldn’t afford, rather than tranferring to a community college, and I racked up almost $10K in credit card bills in 4 years, making an average salary of $1000/month. Allowing companies to do this sort of thing isn’t profitable for anyone; I finally settled with my card company for about 12% of what I owed when I was 22 years old.
I think these rules are fantastic, and I am so glad to see something like this pass! We have not been a straight capitalistic society for 150 years, so people who dream of de-regulating the market are simply trying to turn back time. And, as someone who has watched a credit card company switch my interest rate from 7% to 39% in a month, I welcome these rules with open arms.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
That’s right, the credit card companies did a lot of rate changing and limiting in the last 45 days.
John DeFlumeri Jr
January 13th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
#62 Missy, I cannot understand the point you’re trying to make. YOU put your parent’s income level, instead of your own, on a credit card application, Visa sent you a card with a limit in line with that income, and because of that you were in $10k debt? Apologies if you’re just trying to tell a personal story, and not blame Visa, but with your capital letter “IRRESPONSIBLE” I gather that you’re saying Visa shouldn’t have given you a $6,000 limit, which they only did because YOU put an untrue income level.
#58 Kat, thank you for your help! I was hoping to get an answer here rather than call, because I didn’t want to alert them to my situation if they weren’t already aware. Thanks!
January 13th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
#47 pixiepanda I think there is way too much concern about not having a credit history without a credit card. I have a friend who although was gainfully employed, avoided credit card use. She knew she wanted to get into a house. So she got a store credit card and used and paid it off every month for 8 months. No problem getting a competitive home mortgage.
Personally, I am all for these changes. From what I can tell, yes if you become a greater risk they can change your rates, just that they have to inform you ahead of time and opt out. Same thing letting you go over your credit limit and hitting your with charges; you can agree to have them do that but you have the choice to opt in. Unless you are over 21 can’t get a credit card unless have steady employment? Again a good idea. Can always still get a debit card and learn to use it responsbily until then.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I’m really interested at J.D.’s closing comment. I took out a credit card a few years ago to build some credit history. I’d never had a card before, and simply didn’t show up on credit reports. As far as credit agencies were concerned, I didn’t exist.
Now, while my history is still considered ‘young’, my score is very good. Since I’m not considering any more major (car, house, etc.) purchases in the near future, I wonder if I still need a card.
I do use it for things like reserving hotel rooms, and some online shopping, but that’s it.
At what point can you safely say you don’t need any credit cards?
January 13th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
That last bit about not having credit cards in the first place is the best advice. While it is a good thing to have protection against credit card companies, the best protection is not to do business with them.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
JD,
Thanks for putting this legislation into layman’s terms. At least, for the time being, it will curtail some of the preditory lending practices. And, it provides some protection for the most vulnerable, our young people.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
i can not believe that “fiancial expert” are advising people to toss out their credit cards.
if you know how to use your credit cards properly, you will be BETTER OFF.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I’m all for the 21+ rule, for that matter ANYONE getting a credit card should have to provide proof of income (or spouses income if married and they stay home). It’s amazing to me that credit card companies offer credit to those without sufficient income. It’s stupid to get credit without income but from some of the comments here it sounds like you think that’s okay for your kids to do. Are you crazy! My parents would have killed me if I’d gotten a credit card in college when I wasn’t working.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Its all great info, but the best part is the last.
This is where JD says just don’t use them!
Better yet, only use them to your advantage.
Pay your entire balance in full every month, and just rack up some free cash by getting one with the best cash back option.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
#69, @rubin pham:
“can not believe that “fiancial expert” are advising people to toss out their credit cards.
if you know how to use your credit cards properly, you will be BETTER OFF.”
Nice straw man. Neither the author nor JD are making this argument. JD mentioned the option of choosing not to use credit cards. That’s a perfectly legitimate piece of advice - anyone is welcome to take it or leave it based on what works for them.
If you try poking around this site a bit you’ll see that there are many articles on *responsible* and smart credit card use.
And I realize this is a cheap shot but you might want to learn how to use proper grammar, spelling and punctuation before making snide and uninformed remarks.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Banks are targeting you and the politicians are right there helping them along. This piece of the article is all you need to read:
“… no part of the law would take effect immediately. Instead, certain pieces of the law didn’t take effect until August, and many others have an effective date of February 2010. Credit card issuers used the window between the law’s signing and its actual enforcement to raise rates, slash credit limits, or even completely take your card away.”
Your elected officials gave the banks a huge head start in their race against the people.
And using your cards “wisely” doesn’t work anymore either with banks moving due dates, charging interest over a two bill cycle … It’s a whole new world now.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Re the over-21 rule: maybe there could be a New Buyer credit card, like a New Driver designation, or some sort of learner’s permit for credit. Low, low limit, have to pay/majority of amount, etc.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I think the new rule that money must be applied to the highest interest balances to be common sense, and if they can apply this to the credit card industry, than how about student loans? I hate that I can go online and look at each of my individual student loans, which have two different rates of interest due to the fixed interest charged when I took out loans one semester as a grad student. Since I am still a student, I can’t consolidate, but I am starting to pay them off early. However, I CANNOT choose which loans to apply my money to, the money I pay gets applied equally across all the loans. So they are basically forcing me (and everyone else), to pay more money in interest than I should have to. You can’t even specifically request to have money applied to a particular loan. Ridiculous. Sorry, but I’ve been needing to make that rant for a long time.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
These are all good things for us. If these new laws stop people from living above their means (even if it means they need to live in a cardboard box) we win.
Our society has become too hung up on obtaining material possessions RIGHT NOW.
It’s time to help each other live in a way that we can afford to live. Even if that means living with our parents til we are 30.
January 13th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
This was an excellent synopsis of the most important points that concern consumers. A real service! Thanks!
Anne @alivenkickin
January 13th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
BTW, to Jeff #76:
I totally agree. I get infuriated with money magazines and commercials that tell us that the WORST possible thing that could happen is for our kids to live with us as adults (after college, for example) or for parents to live with their adult children in their later years.
For most of history the multi-generational household was the NORM! And it has many advantages with(for instance) grandparents being able to help with, and be involved with their grandchildren.
I would love to see our society go back to one that is truly family-oriented where a multi-generational household is seen as a positive force, not the worst thing that could possibly happen.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Anne: I totally think kids should live with their parents (if possible) for a while after college/technical school/etc to get established and save some money. However I can tell you as someone in that position that my parents are driving me crazy and I can’t wait to move out as soon as I find an apartment that’s suitable (I have the added problem of a disability that prevents me from driving in a rural state with little public transportation). It’s not that great a situation for long term.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:38 am
There is something I would like to set straight: not everyone who has a credit card balance or has difficulty handling their finances is necessarily “irresponsible”. “Just use your credit cards responsibly and you have nothing to worry about!” It is not that simple. “Drink responsibly and you have nothing to worry about.” “Eat responsibly and you won’t have to worry about your weight.” Etc. Some people just cannot do it, or have a much more difficult time of it.
EVERYONE has a vice. Everyone. Some are more noticable than others….like an alcoholic, a overeater or a spendthrift. Maybe you are really good at handling your finances, but fall short somewhere else. No one is perfect. The credit card and banking institutions, marketing companies, etc. recognize this and use this to their advantage. Enticing a person who is not credit worthy with a credit card is like enticing an alcholic with a drink. “Come on, just one, you can handle it, it won’t hurt you.”
My point is, let’s have a little more compassion. If you are working the credit card companies to your advantage, congratulations…we admire your strength and willpower in this area of your life. Just remember, money isn’t everything….
January 14th, 2010 at 8:03 am
@ Suzanne, #34.
The only way I know how to correct your completely false statement is to go to Mises.org web site.
Read the articles, encourage others to as well. You’ll find out exactly why an unhampered free market is the only way to save us from our current impending doom.
Don’t believe me? Go there and see for yourself.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Trisha,
I agree that it is strange that a woman under 21 cannot get a credit card but she can get an abortion. The law was targeted to protect students. To me it seems to make more sense to say that people who don’t have an income (ie. students & others) shouldn’t get a credit card. If someone is 20 years old and is working, why should they be denied a card? So I agree with you in part. But while we do live in a capitalist society, our capitalist society had many of the protections that you decry up until about 1985. I don’t know how old you are but when I got married at age 19 back in 1973, there were usury laws which made it illegal to charge more than 18%, payment dates were always the same, and there were 30 days notice of a bill. I worked in collections so I remember those things well. This law doesn’t turn us into socialists, it simply restores regulations that were in effect for decades and protected our capitalist society from excesses of greed.
January 14th, 2010 at 9:46 am
A strong rundown on a difficult and wide-ranging topic. It provides very clear explanations for the regular consumer as well as the consumer who is in debt. I particularly like the clarity of the timetable approach. Very useful.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:04 am
#65 partgypsy: Did your friend get her home loan before the recession began, perhaps? My coworker only started trying during the last year. He said he has one credit card that he uses and pays off each month, but that he was turned down by every place he tried to get a home loan because he didn’t have more credit cards to his name.
I’m not at a point to buy a house yet, but I’m concerned that maybe the same thing will happen to me since I do my best not to use credit cards and to pay them off immediately when I do.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
@#42 Storch Money - thank you for better articulating my previous point about college students and jobs. The “under 21″ rule has no impact on people 18-20 with incomes. If a college student chooses not to work (or is encouraged not to by his/her parents, like some posters mentioned), then they should also be encouraged not to get credit cards unless their parents will cosign. If a student works in the summer to save up money for the school year, then what’s the point of a card in the first place? He/she should only spend what they have budgeted from their savings.
@#54 TheMightyQuinn, who asked “How with the 21 yo rule affect someone who wants to buy a house after college? Will one year of credit history be as good as four years when they apply for that home loan?”
The additional 3 years of credit history is insignificant to the loan officer when compared to the loan applicant’s proof of cash on hand for a sizeable down payment and proof of financial capabilities to afford the loan payments. If you’re just out of school, but have 20% down and proof of income to show you can afford the monthly payment for the mortgage payment (and no other major debts lingering around), you can get a loan. If you’re just out of school, with an unstable work history and no money down, and you have a few credit cards that carry a balance, you probably will be seen as a risky candidate for a home loan, regardless of your length of credit history.
Creditors would rather see a work history than a credit history, which is why I argue that it’s better for a college student to get a job before getting a credit card.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@84 pixipanda: I have one credit card. I’ve paid it off biweekly (on pay day) in full for the past 5-6 years, without fail. In late Nov 2009, I was able to get a mortgage loan no problem. Some notes: My mortgage loan was for an amount about 150% of my salary (very reasonable loan) and I paid 20% down in cash. I also have no other debts or outstanding loans.
If your coworker is having trouble, perhaps he is asking for more loan than his income justifies, or he isn’t offering to put enough forward as a down payment, or he’s got other debts that he didn’t mention to you. But I can absolutely guarantee that having 4-5 credit cards is not a prerequisite for getting a mortgage loan, especially in today’s economic downturn.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The under-21 rule is sad, really. If you’re under 21 you need some kind of income or a cosigner to get credit.
And if you’re over 21 you don’t? That’s the confusing part. Why should anyone have credit if they have no way to pay it back?
I had credit cards in college. I also had an income. My husband had credit cards in college too, and no income. Guess which one of us graduated with $10k of credit card debt.
January 14th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Jane said: “I’m just happy to read an article that distinguishes between “credit card issuers” (i.e. banks) and the actual credit card companies. It drives me crazy how many people don’t understand how the system of credit that they use works.”
I am one of these people. I do not understand this at all. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?
January 15th, 2010 at 5:22 am
Thank goodness for our savior, the government. When I left home, I felt so alone without my parents sheltering me, protecting me, and fighting my fights for me.
This is proof there is nothing the government can’t do. I really love my nanny
OR
People can stop using predatory issuers and let them die out. Maybe stop using credit cards altogether if it gets too ridiculous. I will concede the government should intervene if fraud is occurring and a citizen sues an issuer. Other than that, I’m not interested in another nanny law. The road to hell is paved with good intentions…
January 15th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
What credit card companies are doing RIGHT NOW is ratcheting up rates in advance of these changes. It’s nuts.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:34 am
@86 Mike: Thanks, that really takes a load off of my mind! It was the first time I’d heard anything like that, but it reminded me of when I was younger and trying to rent a house for the first time, back when I was completely against using a credit card at all.
@65 partgypsy: Thanks again for answering and for being patient with my questions.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I have to say the age 21 requirement is a very good idea. I witness first hand how irresponsible some folks can be with obtaining credit.
I worked near a community college. Every semester there was a table set up at the local Polo Loco for students. Bank of America would have students sign up for credit cards. If you completed the application you got a free lunch at the restaurant. To be fair other banks did this as well.
No explanation of what the students were signing or the repercussions. I know that some students were responsible people.
I also know that some students became in debt after buying textbooks, impulse lunched and tickets to the show.
It was a predatory practice that had to be stopped.
In other news, I just got my phone call imploring me to accept the fee to protect my right to go over my credit limit.
No, I will instead protect my right to be financially responsible and pay on time. I declined, twice. I’m thinking about dumping the card too.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:55 am
“Also, does it strike anyone as strange that in many states a female under the age of 21 can have an abortion without parental consent, but can no longer have a credit card without them cosigning?” Trisha, #4 … This statement killed me. Individual human beings are capable of autonomy starting in early adolescence, and they have a right to their own bodies. You don’t have to house your child past 16 or 18 in most places, so why should parents retain sovereignty over their bodies?
I’m actually pretty surprised to see that this comment wasn’t moderated out for being a blatant hot-button pusher. It’s like mentioning something is “It’s like when Hitler…” just to get a rise. Cheap.
February 5th, 2010 at 10:42 am
AMERICAN EXPRESS,MY CARD CUT OFF ON 1/22/10, I RECEIVE MY STATEMENT ONLINE,MY DUE DATE IS USUALLY ON THE 16th FOR YEARS,NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN MY DUE DATE HAS CHANGED TO THE 7th, THAT’S ONLY 16 DAYS TO PAY FROM CLOSEING DATE. IS THIS LEGAL?
February 5th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@Connie: Don’t be too surprise if the date changes when you log on to pay. I frequently get statement emails from Amex that say the bill is due on the 1st and when I log in on the 1st, the due date has changed to the 12th. Happens a lot with them.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:53 am
I just got notified that one of my credit cards is now going to be charging a $60 annual fee. This is a no-frills cards with no rewards. Unfortunately this was the last debt on my repayment schedule because it’s fixed at 1.9% (a crazy balance transfer for the life of the balance and the transfer fee was capped at $50). Now we’re deciding if we should opt-out and risk them upping our minimum payment a lot or taking the annual fee hit.
February 15th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
@96: Jennifer: If I were you, I would accept the annual fee. If you opt out, they will likely cancel your account. You could try to transfer the balance, but you would probably pay a transfer fee higher than $60. Plus, you would be hard pressed to find a similar interest rate deal.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:16 am
i am seriously sick of this crap with these companies trying to asses past due amounts when the bill isnt 60 days or more past due and fees that you didnt authurize or had any clue about
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:21 am
The new law will help but, there should have been a clause so the credit card companies couldn’t raise your rate before the new law. My interest rate went up 7% before the new law went into effect. Now that’s being sneaky!!!!!!!
March 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
My main complaint with the new regulation is that all payments are applied to the highest interest. I have a card that has two promotions on it. One is a deferred interest (no interest if paid in full by due date, no monthly minimum payment) which is due in October 2010. The second expires in 2012 and has a minimum monthly payment. Interest is higher on the 2012 promotion. Therefore, all my payments, even the amount above the minimum payment, are applied to the 2012 expiration date. I used to be able to call every month and have them reapply part of my payment (which was a real pain), but now they tell me that they cannot reapply, even at my request! How am I to get the 2010 paid off without interest?