Archive for February, 2010

New Credit Card Law: A “Trojan Horse” of Consumer Protection?

Monday, February 22nd, 2010

Hello Readers,

Most of you remember the tale of the Trojan Horse, where the Greek Army gave a gift to the embattled city of Troy of a great wooden horse in which were hidden 30 of the best Greek troops. The rest of the Greek Army pretended to sail away, only to return in the evening when the secreted Greek soldiers emerged from the horse to open the gates to the city. The upshot of the tale is that sometimes supposed gifts can contain some very unpleasant, and even destructive, surprises.

And so it is with the new credit card law. The bank lobby fought for time to “prepare for its passage,” and has spent that time figuring out all manner of devilry to avoid it and make consumer credit even more disastrous than it was before the law was passed.

Here’s a current article from The Associated Press which I found has given some good insights on the effects of the new law. Hope this is helpful to you. Thanks for reading.

NEW YORK (AP) — Your next credit card statement is going to contain an ugly truth: how much that card really costs to use.

Now, thanks to a long-awaited law that goes into effect Monday, you’ll know that if you pay the minimum on a $3,000 balance with a 14 percent interest rate, it could take you 10 years to pay off.

“Jaws will drop,” said David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, a newsletter that tracks the industry. “I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that it’s going to give a lot of people a sinking feeling in their stomachs.”

That’s not all that will make them queasy.

During the past nine months, credit card companies jacked up interest rates, created new fees and cut credit lines. They also closed down millions of accounts. So a law hailed as the most sweeping piece of consumer legislation in decades has helped make it more difficult for millions of Americans to get credit, and made that credit more expensive.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The law that President Barack Obama signed last May shields card users from sudden interest rate hikes, excessive fees and other gimmicks that card companies have used to drive up profits. Consumers will save at least $10 billion a year from curbs on interest rate increases alone, according to the Pew Charitable Trust, which tracks credit card issues.

But there was a catch. Card companies had nine months to prepare while certain rules were clarified by the Federal Reserve. They used that time to take actions that ended up hurting the same customers who were supposed to be helped.

Consumer advocates say the law still offers important protections for the users of some 1.4 billion credit cards.

“We expected some rate increases; we expected some annual fees,” said Ed Mierzwinski of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy organization that lobbied for the law.

To be sure, the law takes effect while credit card companies are still reeling from the recession.

In 2007, the top 12 card issuers earned a combined $19 billion from credit cards, according to The Nilson Report. A year later, amid the financial meltdown, profits for those companies fell more than 65 percent to $6.32 billion. The plunge was largely because defaults ballooned as unemployment soared.

Profit figures for 2009 aren’t yet available. But banks wrote off about $35 billion in credit card debt last year, as the unemployment rate topped 10 percent. Analysts predict the default rate will remain at least twice as high as normal through this year, and longer if unemployment stays high.

At the same time, the law is expected to cut into future profits. FICO Inc., the company best known for its credit scores, projects the average card will generate less than $100 a month in revenue within three years, down from $200 a month before the law.

That helps explain why the industry reacted so aggressively to the legislation. Among the moves it made:

– Resurrected annual fees.

Annual fees, common until about 10 years ago, have made a comeback. During the final three months of last year, 43 percent of new offers for credit cards contained annual fees, versus 25 percent in the same period a year earlier, according to Mintel International, which tracks marketing data. Several banks also added these fees to existing accounts. One example: Many Citigroup customers will start paying a $60 annual fee on April 1.

– Created new fees and raised old ones.

These include a $1 processing fee for paper statements for cards issued by stores such as Victoria’s Secret and Ann Taylor. Another example is a $19 inactivity fee Fifth Third Bank now charges customers who haven’t used their card for six months.

Other banks increased existing fees. JPMorgan Chase, for instance raised the cost of balance transfers from one card to another to 5 percent of the transfer from 3 percent.

– Raised interest rates.

The average rate offered for a new card climbed to 13.6 percent last week, from 10.7 percent during the same week a year ago — meaning cardholders had to pay almost 30 percent more in interest, according to Bankrate.com.

For millions of other accounts, variable interest rates that can rise with the market replaced fixed rates. The Fed is expected to start raising its benchmark interest rates later this year, which would likely trigger an increase on those cards.

Besides making credit more expensive, banks also made it harder to get and keep credit cards. One big reason: Since the financial meltdown, many credit card issuers have been trying to reduce risk.

The number of Visa, MasterCard and American Express cards in circulation dropped 15 percent in 2009, for example. Rarely used cards were among the first cut off. Some cards linked to rewards programs for purchases like gasoline were likewise shut down.

Card companies also slashed credit limits for millions of accounts that remain open. About 40 percent of banks cut credit lines on existing accounts, according to the consultant TowerGroup, which estimated that such moves eliminated about $1 trillion in available credit. Much of that was unused.

Credit lines were frequently cut in regions most affected by the housing crisis and high unemployment, such as Florida and California, said Curt Beaudouin, a senior analyst at Moody’s Investors Service. “They’re not doing it willy nilly, they’re doing it systematically,” he said.

Companies are also making fewer solicitations. Mailed offers for new cards increased in the final three months of 2009 for the first time in two years, but there were only about 575 million. That’s about a third of the average number of quarterly offers from 2000 through 2008, according to Mintel.

Because the law makes credit cards less profitable, some subprime borrowers may not be able to get cards at all, at least for the next few years. There’s no fixed definition, but subprime borrowers generally have a FICO score below 660. For a good portion of this group, options may be limited to alternatives like PayPal and other electronic payment services, prepaid cards and payday lenders.

“Not everyone either deserves or should have an open-ended credit card,” said Roger C. Hochschild, chief operating officer of Discover Financial Services.

Joining those who won’t easily get cards: college students and others under age 21. The law strictly limits card marketing on campuses, ending giveaways like T-shirts and pizza Cards can only be granted to applicants who show they have the means to repay, or those who have a co-signer who can pay.

“Some of the more vulnerable parts of the population are a little bit more protected,” said Georgetown University finance professor James Angel. But he predicts card companies will find ways around most of the new restrictions. And once the economy recovers, he expects the lending spigot to open again.

In the meantime, there is one group of consumers that banks will chase after — those who carry a balance from month to month for at least part of the year, and pay their bills on time. They’re the most profitable and least risky group for banks.

Also a target customer: anyone willing to do more business with the bank that issues their card, say opening a checking or savings account or taking out a mortgage.

“What we want is a deeper relationship with our customers,” said Andy Rowe, an executive vice president with Bank of America’s card business. Customers willing to stick with a single bank may even be able to get annual fees waived or get a better interest rate, he said. “That’s where the competition will be.”

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press.

Debt Collection Scams–How to Recognize Them, How to Avoid Them.

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

There are two ‘four-letter words’ that have become all-too common in our recessionary economy: DEBT and SCAM. Many consumers are harassed by licensed and “legitimate” debt collectors; the tragedy is compounded when consumer are harassed by phony, scam debt collectors. Indeed, many debt collectors are phonies masquerading as legitimate debt collectors, and consumers need to be on the watch-out, because in reality these phony debt collectors are, more often than not, identity thieves.

When I talk about debt in this article, I’m referring to your personal credit card debt, not the many other debts which are probably equally painful, such as car loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, student school loans or tuition, etc.

This article is not intended to teach you how to avoid or get out of debt. It is intended to teach you how to avoid the second four-letter word being experienced by a growing number of consumers trying to manage and reduce their debt: scams perpetrated by ‘scam artists’ – unscrupulous debt industry members (collectors, consolidators, counselors) who want you to believe they will help you get rid of your debt, but are, in reality, con-men who are out to profit from your debt misery by convincing you to give them your money (or worse, your identity).

Debt scam artists know you are in debt. They know you need help, and that if they can be convincing enough (usually by phone) they can persuade you to give them what they want: your money or your personal information, before giving you their ‘assistance’ (in advance), in exchange for their ‘guarantees’ or ‘promises’ to help you reduce or eliminate your debt using their debt services!

Your loss is literally their gain.

The scary part is how easy it is to be victimized (ripped off) by these smooth-talking debt scam predators. Why? Because they seem so real! They know so much about you. They know you are vulnerable because your need for their help is great and your defenses are down. You will likely give them money or information to get the debt relief they promise! They are like water to a parched, thirsty person in a hot, dry desert. Your thirst for debt relief makes you desperate –they know it and are eager to profit from your misery.

Questions and Answers

Two common debt scam questions I often hear are:

1) How can I differentiate the legitimate company from the scam operation? I want to avoid the scam and select the legitimate firm to get the help I need, and not be burned again, and

2) What can I do if I have already been victimized by a debt scam? Can I get my money back? My identity?

Answers to these questions will help consumers facing the twin plagues of debt and scams.

1. How can I differentiate legitimate companies from scammers, to avoid the scam while finding a firm that can really help me reduce my debt?

• Scammers often say they are attempting to collect a debt related to an internet payday loan obtained by the consumer, but which the consumer never repaid.

• If, when questioned, the caller refuses to disclose the full name or address of the collection agency they claim to represent. It is a scam.

• If you are threatened with arrest for fraud or some other fictitious crime unless you agree to immediately wire money via Western Union, don’t do it. It’s a scam.

• If a fictitious caller tries to frighten and confuse you into paying a debt by using legal sounding terms like “We’re filing an affidavit against you” or by stating a lawsuit has been or is in the process of being filed against you. It is likely a scam.

• A hallmark of scams is calling consumers repeatedly at their place of employment.

• If the caller refuses to provide any identifying information to allow you to send a written dispute, it’s a scam.

• If the caller continues to call you, numerous times a day, regarding a payday loan you never obtained, it’s a scam.

• If you are not provided with written validation of the debt, you refuse to pay without it (which is your legal right), and you are then threatened with bring arrested, it is a likely a scam. (One person was told, ‘If that’s the case, I will have local law enforcement come to your place of business and drag you out kicking and screaming’.)

• Scam debt collectors persuade you to pay just a little of your total amount due, then use your bank information to improperly withdraw more money from your bank account.

All of these practices are typical indicators of a scam debt collection operation.

Legitimate debt collectors are legally prohibited by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) from making false or misleading representations (such as telling you that you have committed a crime), stating (or implying) that your nonpayment will result in your arrest, or threatening violence if you refuse to pay.

It is important to remember that legitimate debt collectors can, and do, violate the FDCPA. If a debt collector violates the federal FDCPA in trying to collect a debt from you, you indeed have legal rights which can include your damages and having your attorney’s fees paid by the debt collector. Go to www.socaldebtcollectionabuse.com for a more detailed description of your rights under the FDCPA.

Naming Names:

In addition to such typical debt scammer practices and ‘language’, some debt scam operations have been identified by federal and state law authorities by name. Scam artists have most recently identified themselves as: ACS, National Affidavit Processing Department and United Financial Crime Division. Though, like criminals, they may also use additional phony names. If you should have any questions, contact the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov) or your state’s attorney general to find out if the alleged debt collector shows up on any of the lists of phony scam artists posing as debt collectors.

2. I’ve already scammed! What can and should I do now?

As described earlier, there are two valuable things you can lose to a debt scam: your money and your identity. These are the two things that most scammers want from you. It is the reason why they contact you (either obtaining your money directly from you, or obtaining enough of your personal (financial) information (i.e. Social Security number, bank account number, etc) from you to access your money themselves.

a) If you have given a debt scammer money, your primary remedies are: filing a complaint with local, state or national law enforcement authorities (state Attorney General, Federal Trade Commission (FTC)) or business organizations (Better Business Bureau), consumer advocacy organizations), media (consumer reporters), and/or web sites (blogs, etc).

Don’t expect that any of these agencies or organizations will get your money back for you quickly (if at all). On the other hand, you will be helping other consumers who use these sources in their research of debt assistance services. Your complaint can help them avoid the same scam you just suffered.

Public law authorities such as the FTC and state Attorney General will take legal action against debt scammers when they get enough complaints about a scam to show a pattern of legal violations. Their enforcement can lead to recoupment of money from a consumer scammer, but, again, the enforcement and results do not happen overnight. (The FTC receives more consumer complaints about debt collectors than any other industry.)

Victims of debt scams can also file a lawsuit against a debt collector in state or federal court. If you believe that your rights have been violated by a debt scammer and you are in Southern California, please feel free to call me at 1-818-249-5291. You can also visit our website at www.socaldebtcollectionabuse.com.

If you are elsewhere, look for a local credit damage and consumer protection attorney at www.naca.net

However, please be advised: many scam debt collectors are “fly-by-night” operators, and suing them will do little good—they’ll simply fold their tent and go elsewhere. If my firm determines that a given debt collector is a “fly-by-night,” we will not pursue the lawsuit—it will be nothing but an exercise in frustration. Believe me, I know this from experience.

b. If you think your identity has been stolen you should:
i. Contact the three major credit bureaus (Equifax, Transunion, and Experian) as soon as possible after the theft occurs, and place a ‘fraud alert’ on your credit file. This advises your potential creditors who use that report that you are an identity theft victim (or potential victim.) Ask for an extended fraud alert, which lasts for seven years. Fraud alerts expire after 90 days. Identity thieves know this and often try to re-apply for credit with your credit information 90 days after they find out about the fraud alert.
ii. Fill out a police report about the identity theft, and make several copies. Send these copies to all three credit bureaus, and any creditors who have opened fraudulent accounts in your name. Include directions to cancel any fraudulent accounts. Send all copies by certified mail. ‘
iii. Monitor your credit report at least every week while the identity theft situation is occurring. If you see any false or fraudulent charges, immediately send a certified letter to the creditor, with a certified cc to the credit bureaus, informing them that the charges are false. Keep copies of all letters and continue to monitor your credit reports to see that the false charges are corrected.
iv. If you suffer damages as a consequence of your identity theft and wish to consult a lawyer, please contact our offices (if you’re in Southern California) at 1-818-249-5291. You can also contact us online at www.socalcreditdamage.com. If you are elsewhere, look for a local credit damage and identity theft attorney at www.naca.net

v. As with lost money, file a complaint with federal and state consumer law enforcement authorities (the FTC, your state Attorney General’s office). The FTC uses the information to coordinate with the FBI to track down the larger identity theft rings and break them up.

vi. File complaints on-line with consumer advocacy/fraud organizations such as the National Consumer League’s Fraud Center, at www.fraud.org, or the National Consumer Law Center, at www.consumerlaw.org.

vii. Share your information with a local newspaper’s consumer reporter.

viii. Share your experience through social networking sites, blogs, and elsewhere on the internet. The more people learn about your experience, the more you will help them avoid such scams and perhaps help law authorities find and stop the debt scammer.

There are many types and forms of debt and debt scams. Any time you owe money to another party, including a bank, other lender, business, or person, it is a debt. This article focused on debt scams involving consumer credit-related debt. Future articles will focus on avoiding scams associated with other common kinds of debt –home mortgage, equity loan (2nd mortgage), car loan, student loans, and more.

Copyright © 2010 by Robert F. Brennan. All rights reserved. If you should have any further questions about your rights with respect to debt collection or credit reporting, go to www.socalcreditdamage.com or www.socaldebtcollectionabuse.com, where you can send us an email. You can also call us at (818) 249-5291. Thanks for reading!

Can a Debt Collector Legally Promise to Delete a Derogatory Credit Mark In Exchange for Payment of the Debt?

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

Hello Readers,

I just received this question from Bankrate.com and thought I’d share both the question and the answer, since this is a very relevant inquiry:

Question: With the practice of payment for deletion, a consumer agrees to pay a debt collector and the debt collector agrees to delete the collection account from the consumer’s credit report. Is it correct that a debt collector that complies with such a request would be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act?

Answer: technically, yes. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, creditors are legally bound to accurately report a consumer’s known credit and debt activity, and this includes accurate reporting of negative, or derogatory, information. Debt collectors have the same obligation. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2 (a) (1): “A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.”
Of course, any creditor or debt collector can determine that a derogatory mark is, in its own judgment, false, inaccurate or that cannot be verified. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2 (b) (1) (E). In such a case, a creditor or debt collector can delete the derogatory credit reporting, but, to comply with the law, the creditor or debt collector would have to have a good faith basis for concluding that a derogatory is false, inaccurate or cannot be verified.

My firm has seen several cases where debt collectors specifically have promised deletion of a derogatory mark in exchange for payment of the debt. What the debt collector is not disclosing is that the debt collector may, in reality, be promising to cease reporting on its own reporting of the debt, but the debt collector has no ability to change the reporting from the original creditor. So, for instance, let’s say someone has a “Dinosaur” credit card which runs late and Dinosaur reports to the credit bureaus a 30-60-90 days late derogatory. Dinosaur then assigns or sells the debt to XYZ Debt Collectors. XYZ may tell the consumer that it will cease credit reporting the debt in exchange for payment, and in fact, in a misleading way, XYZ is telling the truth—it will cease its own negative reporting. However, XYZ does not disclose that it has no ability to affect any reporting being done by Dinosaur. Thus, the derogatory mark remains on the consumer’s credit. By law, it remains on the consumer’s credit report for seven years and six months following the date of first delinquency.

I have also encountered cases where the debt collectors simply lie to collect payment. Remember, the individual debt collectors are usually working on commission, and are given to lying, cheating and stealing to get the consumer to pay the debt. The individual collector rarely is the person at the debt collection agency who is responsible for changing credit reporting, which instead is a task usually given to someone in at least a supervisorial role. The individual debt collectors try just about anything to get the consumer to pay. It is the game. They can and will lie about credit reporting, and the only way a consumer will ever prove that they lied would be if the collector made the promise in writing. However, this will never happen—the promises to clean up credit will always be verbal only, because the individual collectors usually do not have the power to change credit reporting on the accounts.

Also, what debt collectors frequently do is simply to change the reporting from, say, “30-days late” to “settled for less than full amount.” The credit bureaus have created a special derogatory mark for consumers who negotiate down a debt—“settled for less than full amount”—for reporting on consumers who do not pay the full debt and/or who settle it for less than the full amount. This is considered a derogatory mark. So far as is known, it has the same effect as a derogatory mark for “30-days late,” so it makes little difference that a debt collector changes one derogatory for another. However, some debt collectors may believe that they are “cleaning up a consumer’s credit” by making this change. The proof is in the pudding, however—the consumer’s credit score will not change, or will change very little, when one derogatory mark is exchange for another.

So, if someone promises to “clean up your credit” in exchange for paying the debt in full, this promise is probably bogus.