More

Fed Proposes Limits On Credit Card Penalty Fees

EILEEN AJ CONNELLY   03/ 3/10 08:15 PM ET   AP

Credit Cards

NEW YORK — The Federal Reserve on Wednesday proposed strict limits on penalty fees and other charges that credit card companies can slap on customers for missteps such as late payments or going over credit limits.

The proposal outlines rules that would take effect on Aug. 22 as the third stage of credit card legislation signed by President Barack Obama last May. The majority of the new law took effect last week, and earlier provisions kicked in last August.

Among the biggest changes in the Fed proposal is capping penalty fees to no more than the dollar amount of the violation.

"A consumer who exceeds the credit limit by $5 should not be penalized to the same degree as a consumer who exceeds the limit by $500," the proposal states. If the rule is adopted, spending $5 over the credit limit would could incur no more than a $5 penalty.

Currently, most major credit card companies charge over-the-limit fees that average $39, even when the amount spent beyond the limit is just a few dollars. Consumer advocates have complained this can turn a $5 coffee into one that costs $44.

The law that took effect last week already requires that card holders agree to paying fees if they are allowed to exceed their limit.

The Fed proposal also would limit late payment fees to no more than the minimum required payment. So a bank would not be able to charge a $39 late payment fee – the current average for major issuers – for a late payment of $20. The same rule would apply for returned payments.

The proposal would also end multiple penalty fees for a single event or transaction. So a card payment that is returned could generate a returned payment fee, but not a late payment fee as well. And it would prohibit charging fees for transactions that are declined, or for accounts that are inactive. Currently, at least one bank charges a $19 inactivity fee for cards not used in 12 months.

The Fed proposal is not quite as strong in another area: rate increase reviews. The credit card law requires card issuers to review rate increases six months after they take effect, to see if conditions changed that would merit cutting the rate back down. The Fed would allow card companies to review the increases based not only on the reason the rate was hiked, like someone's credit score dropping, but on other factors like current market conditions. And the proposal wouldn't require a company to return to the previous rate it charged before a penalty rate was imposed if a review finds a decrease is warranted.

The initial reaction on the proposal was mixed.

Nick Bourke, author of a study for The Pew Charitable Trusts Safe Credit Card Project that is quoted in the Fed proposal, praised most of the fee limits. But he questioned whether the Fed was meeting the "reasonable and proportional" standard set by Congress in the law in certain cases.

For instance, a bank would still be able to charge a $39 late payment fee on a $70 payment that's past due – the average for a balance of around $2,500. That fee would equal roughly 60 percent of the payment. "The Fed doesn't say anything about whether that's reasonable and proportional," Bourke said.

He also noted the Fed wouldn't require interest rate increase reviews to consider the same factors that led to the hikes in the first place. And he pointed out there is no limit in the proposal to how much a bank could increase an interest rate. In the past nine months, millions of card holders saw increases that doubled or tripled their interest rates. Pew seeks a limit of a 7 percent hike in any given increase.

The Fed will accept public comments on the proposal for a month before finalizing the rules. The full text of the rules can be found on the regulator's Web site at . http://www.federalreserve.gov

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
NEW YORK — The Federal Reserve on Wednesday proposed strict limits on penalty fees and other charges that credit card companies can slap on customers for missteps such as late payments or going ...
NEW YORK — The Federal Reserve on Wednesday proposed strict limits on penalty fees and other charges that credit card companies can slap on customers for missteps such as late payments or going ...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 100
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
01:49 PM on 03/08/2010
Hmmm. Why are we letting this private institution write our Federal Laws anyway? Isn't this Congress' job?
photo
newtom
eschew obfuscation
10:31 AM on 03/04/2010
Because of the common spend, spend, spend approach many Americans live by, credit card companies allowed you to go over your credit limit so you could buy that essential flat-screen TV rather than decline the sale and cause you embarrassment at the cash register. The price of convenience and avoidance of embarrassment: a $20 to $40 fee.

The new CARD Act requires consumers to opt in or out of over-limit fees, thereby giving you the choice to bypass those fees.
10:23 AM on 03/04/2010
Well well, it is about time that the FED woke up and decided to do something about the despicable fees and rates that credit card companies charge.
Now, if someone would just notice what the credit reporting companies are doing and put some regulations on them, America may just end up back on top again.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:53 AM on 03/04/2010
Fans of deregulation should be aware that usually regulation makes a business more profitable.

For example, the FDA. Before it existed "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) was the rule for selling drugs. Let the consumer decide if they work and are safe. Result: people couldn't tell which ones worked and which did not, so they stopped by any drugs. The FDA was established, and now Americans (4% of the population) buy 60% of the prescription drugs sold in the world.

As to financial regulation, people who remembered 1929 never bought another stock. Wall Street lost an entire generation of buyers.

Do you think anyone, other than the total sucker, will ever buy another CDO or CDS from Wall Street? Unless people believe that Wall Street has changed, with laws that ensure it, not many will.

"Caveat emptor" does not work, because a wary buyer is a non-buyer.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
11:22 AM on 03/04/2010
Well written and a perspective not often heard. Thanks. Fanned.
.
11:31 AM on 03/08/2010
Of course, regulations exist to protect the marketplace. We do not worry about the scales in the supermarket being inaccurate or that the gas pump at the gas station delivers less than the promised amount because the scales and gas pumps are regulated and inspected.

Any first year law student can tell you that Courts do not enforce penalties for breaches of contract. Yes, you can recover damages, if you have actually been damaged. But the notion of penalties as a profit center is not something which exists in the common law.

It is only by calling penalties "interest" that the credit card companies get away with the practice. But this practice is in derogation of the common law. By allowing any penalties at all, the Fed is giving Credit Card companies something they are not entitled to receive.
photo
Helzapoppin
Don't Piss Down My Back And Tell Me It's Raining.
09:43 AM on 03/04/2010
This is just the Fed trying to stave off a new consumer protection agency. The Fed has long been in charge of these kinds of regulations, and haven't lifted a finger for consumers.
photo
John Mainstream
I'm a Clinton Democrat that is now an independent.
09:13 AM on 03/04/2010
Hasn't Congress helped us too much already? With the new credit card bill of rights, we all have interest rates near 30%, plus new fees.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Waltfl
ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώ ὑμᾶς
09:36 AM on 03/04/2010
There was a cap on interest in the bill, as it is usual in every civilized country. Upon request of our republican friends, the cap got taken out. No, the CC Bill is absolutely useless, because banks can just jack up interest to compensate for lost fee-revenue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MalteseTiger
"Faux News Lacks Objectivity" - Al-Qaeda
01:20 PM on 03/04/2010
When common sense closes the door.. republicans and Wall street open about 20 windows
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
08:52 AM on 03/04/2010
The fees and interest rates banks charge are close to criminal. BUT, the government is not capable of micro-managing this industry. If you plug a leak at one end, another leak will pop up at the other end. The banks and financial institutions have had 30 years of lobbyists writing laws for them while the consumer hasn't. Rather than writing consumer laws to counter the banking laws, eliminate some of the special favors banks have had over consumers.
1. Decrease the penalties for credit card fraud. ( makes Credit card companies more responsible)
2. Allow a consumer to dispute the charge in a court. Now, a disputed charge is handled internally and with the cooperation of Credit reporting agencies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dressking
08:39 AM on 03/04/2010
Bank overdraft fee should be limited too. I was recently charged $32 over draft fee for going overdraft by less than $3.
09:10 AM on 03/04/2010
And the problem is? You obviously need to borrow money from someone else at that time - you paid a previously agreed upon fee to do so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Quitcherbichin
If you are posting here, thank a veteran.
01:38 PM on 03/05/2010
Sounds to me like you need to do a better job of bookkeeping.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:20 AM on 03/04/2010
My first job in 1972 was in banking, as an auditor. At the time there were "usury" laws that limited bank lending, including what interest rate they could charge. Practically no one had credit cards. You will find that the economy grew much faster in those days.

Since the current deregulation fad began in the '80s, economic growth has stagnated, and median wages have actually declined.

Unless you count Wall Street bonuses for causing world financial meltdown, and the fact that 1% of Americans now own 90% of all US assets, there is no evidence that deregulation helps an economy. But deregulation helps the rich, so it will always have its fans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
08:44 AM on 03/04/2010
You logic is off. There is much more regulation today than 15 years ago. Everything is regulated and controlled. You are confused because there were a few regulations that affect very large corporations dealing with mergers and acquisitions that were reversed. For every law over turned, there were 10 new regulations that replaced it.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:01 AM on 03/04/2010
You are obviously young, weren't alive then, and know not what you are talking about. What age where you in 1980?

Of course there always new laws, but they are puny compared to the laws that were repealed. In particular, Glass-Steagall, passed after the Depression (1933) to prevent another one. It was repealed in 1999 (Clinton signed it), and 9 years later we had a Depression.

Neocons will tell you its repeal was not the reason, but it was. They are in denial because they got rich from that deregulation, not because they care about the country.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
11:25 AM on 03/04/2010
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

Wrong on every "point."
.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
06:55 AM on 03/04/2010
Why do people think the government can interfere with private businesses and make things better? They never have before.

If the Fed puts limits on fees the credit card companies will raise rates. If they try to control the rates the ccc will lower available credit. If they restrict that the ccc will deny more credit. It's like pinching a balloon. The government needs to let the free markets work. If people don't like the fees they will go to another company and if the government would get out of the way you could open a better company with lower rates and fees and we will have free market competition and rates and fees will go down on their own. Right now the government has so many regulations and red tape it is impossible for anyone to compete.

GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT AND GIVE FREE MARKETS A CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
08:04 AM on 03/04/2010
Free markets do not willingly bring about competition on rates or fees or product and service features or any other customer factor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
08:35 AM on 03/04/2010
How do you figure?

Cellphones and the cell company's rates, Lasik, TVs, laptops etc prices continue to go down due to competition. Hospitals, USPS, energy companies etc. rates continue to rise because they block competition. Common sense!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter007
08:45 AM on 03/04/2010
Thats mindless rhetoric. Its like graffiti on highway walls.
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
08:32 AM on 03/04/2010
The free markets got their chance; they used it to make bad loans, under false pretenses, bundle them as CDOs and sell them to the world. The free markets caused a global economic collapse.

The US economy is the most deregulated economy in the world, the most since the US in 1920s and Britain in late 1800s. The result has always been the same: massive poverty, a depression, and the end of a financial empire (Britain, maybe US next.) Read Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips.

Arguing the solution is more deregulation is insane. But as George Carlin said, religion is a form of insanity, and so is the faith-based economics of Milton Friedman. It even has a prayer they say on Larry Kurlow's show: "I believe that free market capitalism is the route to prosperity" Economists should be scientists who know that's a hypothesis, and searches for evidence to prove or disprove it. Not so neocons. Like evangelicals, they know the truth and if you don't agree, you're wrong! and an abomination to God; that is, Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
10:02 AM on 03/04/2010
We have not had free markets. the government is heavily involved in controlling the markets. The collapse was caused by cheap money, price fixing by the Fed and government loan guarantees that removed risk.

We are over regulated and should at least try free markets. Let the people open businesses and fail if they should. You really think the government should be propping up bad businesses and guarantee bad risks?
06:43 AM on 03/04/2010
Part of the reason for these obscene fees and interest rates is that too many people have run up so much debt on credit cards that is not being paid and the need for the banks to assure revenue to cover it yet still make a sure profit. In turn this is putting many even more behind as thier debts are compounded by these fees and jacked up interest rates.
The banks need to realilze if they made a bad business decision allowing too many to run up debt they should pay the price with them having to take writedowns and corporate losses, not try to recover by ripping off consumers.
There also needs to be major reforms in the credit reporting agency business. One should be able to terminate a credit card they don't use or no longer want to pay the ratched up fees and interest rates on without a penalty. There should be limits on the use of credit reports when one is applying for a job or to retain it. We need transparancy as to how credit ratings and numbers are determined as well as restricting reporting of medical debts or disputed debts.
09:16 AM on 03/04/2010
-by ripping off consumers.-

When they charge you a fee or APR you've agreed to - you may not like it - but it's not ripping you off.

-There also needs to be major reforms in the credit reporting agency business.-

It's a private business and none of the government's business.

-One should be able to terminate a credit card they don't use or no longer want to pay the ratched up fees and interest rates on without a penalty. -

Then take your case to Fair Issac - as a matter of fact they recently revised how FICO scores are calculated.

-There should be limits on the use of credit reports when one is applying for a job or to retain it. -

There are - I agreed when I applied for my job that I am subject to a background check including my credit and random drug screenings. If I didn't want to agree to them I didn't have to.

-We need transparancy as to how credit ratings and numbers are determined-

It's not a secret - what goes into them and how calculated are on the internet and easy to find.

-as well as restricting reporting of medical debts or disputed debts.-

Why shouldn't medical debt be reported? Debt is debt. Disputed debts is already covered in existing consumer law.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Pupadup4oBama
09:56 AM on 03/04/2010
Well said!!
Id like to add BOTH sides need to take responsibility for the abuses by BOTH parties
photo
david5000
Detective & Pilot
06:30 AM on 03/04/2010
What kind of nonsense is charging a penalty" not more than the amount exceeding the limit"? first of all, all transactions are electronically tabulated and there is no chance one can exceed a limit.

And why this sort of gouging is allowed, while at it, why not send the client to a firing squad and finish him off.

Who writes these nonsense laws? the banks?

I had at least 8 to 10 credit cards that I do not use and never did, during last year's crisis, I got letters from all of them threatening me to either use the cards or lose them, I did not bother with them, they canceled all of them.

I am using a platinum Amex since 84 and my only complaint is the huge yearly fee $ 400 , but I do not feel the weight of interest rates or any of the penalties, as I was never charged anything since it's a charge card payable in full within 30 days.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
06:40 AM on 03/04/2010
American Express was the only credit card company that would give me a credit card when I was in graduate school in 1976. I bought my first suit on the card a few days before I started my first job. They made me pay off the balance a month later, which took a lot of my first paycheck. But they trained me well to pay off the card every month, which I have done ever since.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Pupadup4oBama
09:52 AM on 03/04/2010
I feel Amex is a very reputable company. Probably because they started off that way.
It's my only credit card besides my debit.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
06:29 AM on 03/04/2010
Some of us like higher fees. I just love the way waiters look up to me when I plonk down my American Express Black Card. I paid $5,000 to get that beauty, and $2,500 a year, and it is worth every penny.
lastpost
see biography
06:29 AM on 03/04/2010
“Penalty Fees”

Pick a card. No, don’t tell me. Is it, an Ace of Spades for the economy?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Toby1kanobe
SoCal is REALLY different from Vancouver!
06:01 AM on 03/04/2010
Where all the comments suggesting we not use credit cards? Or how we not spend money we don't have?
06:27 AM on 03/04/2010
Here's mine.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.
Don't spend money you can't pay back.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Amalek
Highly decorated HP warrior
06:30 AM on 03/04/2010
You don't have money? Have you checked your trust fund?