This is a guest post from Adam Jusko, founder of IndexCreditCards.com, an information and comparison site for credit card offers that maintains a list of over 1200 cards. 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”. This is an update to Adam’s guest post in January that explored what the Credit Card Act means to average Americans.
The final set of regulations from the sweeping Credit Card Act (signed into law last year) will take effect on August 22nd. Last Tuesday, the Federal Reserve nailed down the exact details of this latest round of regulations. They include:
- Credit card companies will no longer be able to charge any fee of more than $25 for late payments or other customer transgressions unless the card issuer can show that the customer has repeatedly broken the rules of the card agreement, such as multiple late payments over a short period of time.
- Credit card companies can no longer charge fees greater than the amount of the payment due. For example, if you are late to pay but the minimum payment due is only $15, the bank could not hit you with a late fee of $25, but could only go as high as the $15 owed.
- Credit card issuers can not charge “inactivity fees” if cards are not used for a certain period of time.
- Multiple fees can not be charged for a single mistake. For example, you could not be charged a late fee that pushes you over your card’s credit limit and then be charged an over-the-limit fee. (Previous Card Act regulations eliminated over-the-limit fees for most consumers, but some still choose to have the option of exceeding their limits.)
- Credit card issuers must review all interest rate hikes levied since 01 January 2009 “to evaluate whether the reasons for the increase have changed and, if appropriate, to reduce the rate.”
On the surface, there’s no doubt that these regulations, as well as those enacted previously as part of the Card Act, are good for consumers. The most egregious practices have been eliminated, fees have been brought down to more reasonable levels, and now the Fed is even forcing card companies to go back and consider lowering rates on the millions of customers who’ve had their rates jacked up in the last year and a half.
However, consumers should understand that with the benefits come some consequences. The government has been hitting at some of card issuers’ biggest profit centers. They’ve limited the types of fees that issuers can charge, and have now capped the amounts they can charge as well. Believing that card issuers will meekly accept these changes and adjust to this new lower-profit model would be naïve. Instead, prepare for the following:
- Annual Fees. Previously, I was unsure of how aggressive card issuers would be in reintroducing annual fees. After all, one of the drivers of growth in the industry was the move away from annual fees. But, with the new cap on late fees and the eradication of inactivity fees, the industry is even more likely to revert to a “pay to play” model. This will no doubt be true for those with shakier credit, but even good-credit customers may be surprised to see annual fees slapped onto their cards, especially if they don’t use the cards very often. The new regulations make it increasingly expensive to take on the risks associated with shaky credit customers, or to service accounts of good customers who don’t contribute to the issuers’ bottom lines. The only way to make it worthwhile to keep certain customers is to charge them an annual fee.
- Higher Credit Card Interest Rates. Yes, the Fed is telling issuers they must review their rate hikes going back to the start of 2009. But they aren’t actually forcing issuers to reduce anyone’s interest rate. And the Fed isn’t planning on getting into the minutiae of why an interest rate was increased or should be decreased on every individual customer. This would be horribly time-consuming to enforce, and, really, is there an objective standard when it comes to interest rates? All an issuer needs to say to justify an interest rate is “Our risk formula suggests this is the correct rate.” How exactly can the Fed argue against this? Therefore, at best, your current credit card may retain its current interest rate, but if you ever need to apply for a new card, don’t be surprised to see that rates have skyrocketed.
For many people, this last set of regulations from the Card Act may be the final nail in the coffin when it comes to their credit careers. Many card companies simply won’t want to deal with them anymore. And maybe that’s not a bad thing.
Perhaps creating a level playing field should result in certain people being shut out — after all, credit is a service, and there’s no real reason to expect that it should be free, or that those who misuse should be allowed to continue doing so.
However, I won’t be surprised if the people who howled loudest over card issuers’ unfair practices are the same ones howling over the loss of their credit cards in the new, regulation-heavy environment.
This article is about Credit Cards, News Monday, 21st June 2010 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter








I think the “Late Charge greater than what is owed” is one of the best features… I fought for a $4 bill that i forgot about… I was charged a $39 late fee lol… They reversed the charge for me thanks to a very friendly rep. But i think its ridiculous to charge more than what you owe for a late fee…
I am quite sure that the banks will find another income stream to replace these. Between the reintroduction of annual fees, higher interest rates and the eradication of free checking accounts, they will make up for these losses.
I keep watching my cards for annual fees…as soon as they start charging those, I’ll be done using them. I use my cards solely for the cash back rewards, and annual fees can eat those rewards up awfully quickly.
So far only one card has added a fee (and I canceled that account).
Interesting read and nice summary of the changes that will be coming up later this year. I did a short blog on the fact that another consequence will be taking away free checking accounts to make up for lost revenues.
I think annual fees will slowly come back, but not quickly. It will be on new cards. Its just too hard to convince someone that has a card that they now need to pay annually for it. I know if it happened to me I would be switching.
I also don’t think free checking accounts will disappear, they will just require either a minimum balance, direct deposit, or online only statements. Maybe a combination of all 3. Thankfully we’ve grown friendly with free. I think most of the changes are good and common sense. I would like to see a model that is more in line with a banks actual cost and risk.
I’ve had two credit cards (both of which are serviced by CitiBank) start charging me a $60 annual fee, which is paid back to me after I spend $2500 in a year. I have a credit score close to 800, but I don’t use my credit cards. They are there for emergencies or large purchases I don’t feel comfortable making with my debit card. I don’t like being penalized for having credit available and not utilizing it, but the thought of canceling them which will damage my credit score temporarily and leave me with no credit cards for emergencies or those large purchases is not appealing. I never had a problem with my credit cards or fees prior to the Card Act.
It seems odd that something designed to help those who were not responsible with their credit previously, ends up hurting those who have been responsible.
It’s not hurting people who are responsible. Now you have to pay for a service. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree that many irresponsible users of credit may be pushed out. One of my friends, who is not responsible financially, has seen her credit limit lowered almost every time she makes a payment, to the current balance. They are preventing her from racking up a higher balance now that the fee structure is to their disadvantage. When she called, they quickly agreed to close the account and allow her to pay off the rest with a slightly lower interest rate.
She will probably have difficulty finding a new credit source.
I just did some recordkeeping cleanup, and I have to say I think it is a GOOD thing to make access to credit more difficult. I’ve wasted a lot of money due to easy credit.
I’d also rather pay an annual fee than have no access to credit at all. Since I’m not a homeowner - and won’t be for many years - it’s not like I can walk into my bank and ask for a personal loan or HELOC. An emergency fund is a great thing, but I don’t want to tap mine for a routine car repair: that’s what credit cards are for, IMO. Secured purchase, warranty, and disputability - and then pay it off in full.
It would be nice to think that people will start saving more when they no longer have that easy credit, but as we all know, the change of mind has to come first. We only pick up a tool once we have a good idea of how it’s used.
I think that upfront pricing is preferable to a minefield of punitive gotchas.
Your credit score will not be impacted by closing your credit cards as long as the balance of the card and that of all active accounts is at zero at the time of closing. Even after credit lines are removed from your report their information is still used; 10 years for accounts that were in good standing, 7 for negative.
Now, is that situation likely? I’m not sure about that…
I think annual fees and rates will creep up, but even before that rewards programs will become less generous.
I think no frills cards will remain free of annual fees, if only for people with good credit through their local bank/cu. But I expect % cash back cards to go away and travel/point cards to institute/increase fees at least up to a specific spending limit.
As I understand it, Credit Card Co’s make money on both consumer and retail ends. Retailers pay fees and percentages of their customers’ charges to the banks. So retailers may see these rates go up, trickling down to consumers thru higher prices on merchandise.
I doubt you will see annual fees re-introduced as that will decrease the pool of CC users (both responsible and otherwise) and thus decrease revenue from the retail end.
Once again, I turned to my credit union. When we were consolidating our debt, the CU transferred our balances with NO fees and lower interest rates. Made paying off the debt even quicker/eaiser…
@12
You are correct. A very large part of the CC industry’s income comes from charging a fee (around 2% of the purchase) to retailers, for the convenience of using their brand of card in the stores. This is why Wal-Mart tried to create their own bank about five years ago. Imagine what 2% of nearly $400 billion comes to if Wal-Mart could process their own credit cards instead of paying it to CC companies. I’m sure they would just turn around and give all their employees a fat raise.
My card had an annual fee of $90 - !!!! - and when I called, they waived for this year and “will review the account to see if the annual fee can permanently removed.”
I’m happy with that! I’ll keep it until next year and see what happens then!!
I had a great credit card with a great “fixed” interest rate until the bank doubled it and made it variable. I took action and got rid of that card. Credit unions are the best option around now.
Banks, even credit unions, should be much more restrictive on who they extend credit to in order for the percentage rates to go back down overall.
Also, ever wonder why AMEX and discover are not taken at all places? Because they charge retailers the most to use their cards (I think it’s 6-7%). Those cash rewards and trip points also cost retailers a higher percent. Not good for small businesses or the general consumer when those costs are carried over. I actually had a small businessman inspect my card before he swiped it. To me, I’d rather not accept a cash reward or airline miles if it meant i was literally taking from the profits of a small business.
It makes sense that if fees are reduced on the backend they will be increased on the front end. Additionally, the fees that used to be charged to the bad customers which supported the good customers will be reduced so even good customers will likely see some type of fee. I’m sure there are a few of us who can remember when it was a privilege to get a credit card and that privilege came with a price, the annual fee.
I fired one of my Credit Card Companies (Bank of America) earlier this year for imposing an annual fee of $50. I have two other perfectly good cards that don’t charge one. Granted I paid on time, didn’t incur late fees or interest so why would they care if I go.
These fees will only impact those who cannot get a card without them or those who are too lazy to change to a non-fee card. Interest rates should not matter as you should pay your card off in total every month. If you can’t, cut it up!
I totally disagree with the idea that these regulations will be “good for consumers”. They might be good if you are a “good” (in the eyes of the CC companies) consumer, meaning you over-spend and have been subject to fees and penalties. However, for the rest of us who are *actually* good consumers, meaning the ones who live within our means and just use credit cards to pay for things we would otherwise pay cash for, these new rules hurt us. They mean that more of the costs of using a credit card will get passed on to us.
I’m guessing that most of the GRS readers are *actually* good consumers, not good-in-the-eyes-of-CC-companies consumers. So, I pose a question to JD. You claim as part of the philosophy of this site to “spend less than you earn”. It’s a tenet I wholeheartedly endorse and follow. Are these new rules really going to be good for the types of consumers who spend less than they earn, or are they just more toothless government regulations that protect some while hurting many others? Furthermore, by protecting a select few from themselves, while at the same time forcing a sacrifice from the rest of us, how is that an encouragement for people who, like you were at one time, trying to get on the right track?
@ #7 Meghan:
“It’s not hurting people who are responsible. Now you have to pay for a service. Nothing wrong with that.”
If I am now required to pay for a service that previously was free, by definition doesn’t that hurt me?
“Credit card issuers must review all interest rate hikes levied since 01 January 2009 “to evaluate whether the reasons for the increase have changed and, if appropriate, to reduce the rate.””
My problem with this statement is that in the CC companies’ eyes, it’s *never* appropriate to reduce the interest rate.
I’m not sure than an end to the credit card business as we know it would be bad for consumers. After all, the business basically comes down to bilking consumers for all they’re worth by allowing them to spend beyond their means. A return to cash and debit cards being the norm might help in the long run.
@ Gabe #20, since most of the changes regard fees, don’t you think that will be good for those of us who generally spend within our means? The fees get charged to the people who aren’t being responsible. And if by some chance you forget to pay a bill or some other small thing, you won’t get whacked with a huge fee.
Yes, there may be more annual fees for people who are willing to pay them, but as far as I can see the majority of cards are still free to use, so I think until it is actually difficult to find a card without a fee, it’s not very reasonable to complain about the effects of this legislation.
@ S #13
Agree that the credit union is a great option, but they may be hurt the most if Congress decides to cap the % fee that CCs can charge merchants - my credit union has been asking members to oppose this change, since those fees provide a huge percentage of the credit union’s revenue. If they lose that revenue stream they may have to charge higher interest, fees, across all accounts, not just CCs.
I work for a top 20 bank that hasn’t been able to compete with the big guys for year in terms of credit cards and the rewards they gave as incentive. Now with the new regulations, the bank says that this has leveled the playing field for mid-sized companies causeing them to re-introduced credit card this month. This card has no overage fee’s, no annual fee’s, but less promo low rates overall. Still seems like a good card for customers, especially compared to the horror stories customers have told me…
I wouldn’t mind being shut out of the system for my poor credit history (like J.D. and probably a bunch of you, my credit cards got a little out of control in college), I don’t really want to be using any credit. I just got a freaking late fee last week because I posted my payment after 5pm. But what is the alternative?
The only way to build my credit back is by having a long enough non-delinquent history. I have my student loans that I pay on time, but the balance tanks my debt to credit ratio without cards. And now my credit gets checked for every new apartment I need to qualify for and even some employers, not to mention all my utilities (which require very hefty up-front down payments to begin service).
If part of the credit legislation restricted companies from doing credit checks on you unless they were actually going to be *lending you money* none of this would bother me. But seriously, if I don’t pay my rent they can kick me out. If I don’t pay my phone bill they can shut it off. What does my credit history have to do with giving me these services? I have to live somewhere!
And to Gabe, how do you think people are supposed to get on the right track with the kind of abuses the credit card companies have been engaging in? My largest debt (which was eventually charged off) was for $1,780 to Capital One. The limit on that card was $300 and my total purchases amounted to around $230. That’s how a debt spiral works and I’ve been paying for it (metaphorically speaking) for the last 7 years in dirty looks from people like you who sit behind bank desks and in real estate offices.
Regulations are never a good thing. They limit peoples’ right to make mutually voluntary agreements.
I thought you didn’t do political posts on this blog?
I’m a little skeptical of the idea that eliminating or curbing fees in one area directly translates to increased fees in another area. If banks were moving away from annual fees in the past, they were doing it because eliminating those fees INCREASED their profits by attracting customers. That dynamic does not seem likely to change, and thus annual fees would not be likely to come back very strongly.
Similarly, banks have always set interest rates to maximize profits. They will continue to do so. Higher interest rates mean more profit per customer but fewer customers. Lower interest rates mean less profit per customer but more customers. The reduction or elimination of fees shouldn’t change that dynamic much.
In the end, the major effect of the legislation seems likely to simply be lower profits for banks.
@28 Bananen
Regulations are never a good thing? How about food sanitation regulations, as one of a million examples?
I’ve already gotten several notices from my credit cards, informing me that they will be making my life more difficult. BOA has decided that if you want to contest a charge, you now need to do it in writing, or they reserve the right to ignore your complaint if you only make it by phone. That’s a pain in the butt!
@ #24 quinsy:
“…so I think until it is actually difficult to find a card without a fee, it’s not very reasonable to complain about the effects of this legislation”
Keep that in mind, because it won’t be too long.
@ #27 frances:
As you so eloquently described, you made a mistake. Are you arguing that you shouldn’t face the consequences for it? Those dirty looks should be motivation to clean up your credit, which it sounds like you’ve been doing an admirable job of so far, and I congratulate you for it. I’ve never incurred that kind of debt (thankfully), so why should I be made to feel like I did something wrong?
“Regulations are never a good thing. They limit peoples’ right to make mutually voluntary agreements.”
The point is: “mutually voluntary agreements” How many people have had their interest rates raised without notice, or other charges or fees you were unaware of but buried in fine print or in the phrase “we have the right to change terms at any time.”
I think this legislation curbs some of the worst excesses. If they can’t make their business survive without income from underhanded and borderline unethical behavior, then they need to reexamine their business model.
We have 5 credit cards but only use 3 of them regularly. Our rewards were scaled back on one card but nothing else seems to have changed. If a few of my cards start charging annual fees, we will close those accounts. I’m fine with tighter controls, but I wish it wasn’t necessary to police people’s use of credit…
“The only way to make it worthwhile to keep certain customers is to charge them an annual fee.”
What about the 3% they take on every transaction? These companies have been printing money for years and they still area. I think it is insanity to think they HAVE to charge anything to make it worthwhile to keep an entry in their database active.
We will pay for the services that we are using one way or another. So if it is annual fees, so be it. Personally, it was better before since I never incurred many fees.
However, don’t forget that the fees are just a small part of their revenue scheme. With every purchase they get a percent, which the retailers just pass on to us with higher prices. Also, are they not loaning out money which actually only exist partially (10%)? For every hundred dollars banks have, can’t they loan out one thousand? That means if you take out a loan for $1000 at 10% interest. In a year the bank has collected $100 in interest and you is still responsible to pay the $1000 that still doesn’t actually exist.
Someone please correct me if I have been misinformed!
I thought we had to bail out the banks because they were losing money, not making too much. Shouldn’t we be forcing them to charge more and increase revenue?
Reminds me of all the “unfairly high” interest rates of subprime mortgages. Seems like they actually didn’t charge high enough interest to offset the risk…