Federal Reserve Adopts Megabanks' Arguments, Warns Against Added Protections For Small Business Credit Card Users


First Posted: 06- 1-10 06:54 PM   |   Updated: 06- 2-10 09:50 AM

What's Your Reaction:

The Federal Reserve warned Congress in a recent report that protecting small businesses from the kind of "harmful" credit card practices it prohibits from being used on consumers would lead to a reduction of credit and higher borrowing costs for businesses -- a similar argument advanced by the banks the Fed regulates.

The American Bankers Association applauded the report and the Fed's recommendation.

The report comes at a time when Congress is debating how to stimulate moribund bank lending levels to small businesses, which have been hit particularly hard by the credit crunch, financial crisis and subsequent recession.

"[S]mall business credit remains severely constricted," according to a May report issued by the Congressional Oversight Panel, the bailout watchdog. Lending "plummeted during the 2008 financial crisis and remained sharply restricted throughout 2009." With Wall Street banks cutting lending and smaller banks "strained by their exposure to commercial real estate and other liabilities," many small businesses "have had to shut their doors, and some of the survivors are still struggling to find adequate financing."

The report also slammed the Obama administration's efforts to revive small business lending.

Because loans and lines of credit have been so hard to get, many small businesses have had to resort to using credit cards to help finance their operations. The Fed noted in its Friday report that in 2009 small business applications for lines of credit were rejected about two-thirds of the time, while applications for bank loans were rejected at a 50 percent clip. Applications for business credit cards, however, had a rejection rate of just 26 percent.

A little over a third of small businesses used business credit cards in 1998, according to the Fed. That rate now stands at about 64 percent.

Story continues below
Advertisement

The increased use of credit cards by small businesses has elicited calls that they, too, should fall under similar protections currently enjoyed by consumers.

But the Truth in Lending Act, a 1968 law known as TILA that protects consumers by requiring lenders to disclose the terms and costs of credit, generally applies only to consumer credit products. Credit cards issued to small businesses typically aren't covered, as businesses are thought to be more sophisticated borrowers than consumers. Thus, small businesses aren't afforded the same protections as consumers.

A new law passed last year amended TILA, increasing the amount of protection for consumers who use credit cards. Among the changes were new rules governing increases in interest rates and how lenders levy penalty fees and other charges. It also called for a study of how small businesses use credit cards.

President Barack Obama and consumer advocates hailed the new law as a significant victory for borrowers over rapacious lenders. Banks responded by making it harder for consumers to borrow, slashing credit card lines and jacking up interest rates.

Some have called for small businesses to benefit from similar borrower protections. The National Small Business Association backed a recent amendment to the Senate's financial reform bill that would have applied TILA's "sensible protections" to bigger loans, enabling small businesses to benefit from the same kind of protection as consumers, the small-business advocacy group wrote in an April letter to Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat.

But the Fed doesn't think that TILA should apply to small business credit cards, even though it admits the law would protect them from "harmful" practices and compel better disclosure.

"Applying many of TILA's substantive credit card protections to small business credit cards would protect small businesses from practices that the Congress and the Board have found to be harmful in the context of consumer credit cards," the Fed noted in its report. It then lists protections like forbidding lenders from requiring payments on due dates before 5 p.m. and "restrictions on applying increased rates to existing balances and on allocating payments in a manner that maximizes interest charges," the latter of which would help small businesses limit or reduce interest charges.

Also, the Fed noted that it believes that "standardizing and improving disclosures for small business credit cards would benefit small businesses by enhancing their ability to compare the cost of the credit card plans available to them." The cost associated with better disclosures may be "limited," it noted in its 55-page report.

Of course, protecting borrowers from the kind of lending practices Congress outlawed in its 2009 credit card law will lead to decreased profits for the nation's biggest banks, according to the banks' filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

JPMorgan Chase noted in its filings that the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, which limits unfair rate hikes and hidden fees, will cost the nation's second-biggest bank by assets as much as $750 million a year.

So banks cut lines of credit and increased interest rates for consumer cards. The Fed urged that could happen to small business cards if some of these protections were extended to small businesses.

Congress should recognize "the potential for adverse effects on the cost and availability of small business credit cards," the Fed noted in its report. The protections "could have negative consequences for small businesses," the Fed warned.

"Restricting the ability of card issuers to adjust interest rates may lead to higher initial interest rates, which would harm those firms that borrow on small business credit cards.

"In addition, if credit card issuers were to reduce credit limits in response to the imposition of TILA's substantive requirements, even those businesses that use credit cards for transactions and cash management would be harmed," the Fed cautioned.

"Based on this review, it is not apparent...that the potential benefits of applying substantive restrictions similar to those in TILA to small business cards outweigh the potential risk of increased cost and reduced credit card availability for small businesses," the Fed said in its report.

The American Bankers Association said in a statement that the Fed report "affirms the industry's long-held belief."

The powerful banking lobby concluded its statement by quoting the Fed's line that the potential benefits of added borrower protections are outweighed by the potential risk of reduced and higher-priced credit.

Get HuffPost Business On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
The Federal Reserve warned Congress in a recent report that protecting small businesses from the kind of "harmful" credit card practices it prohibits from being used on consumers would lead to a reduc...
The Federal Reserve warned Congress in a recent report that protecting small businesses from the kind of "harmful" credit card practices it prohibits from being used on consumers would lead to a reduc...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
575
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (22 total)
Cassandrawept   08:06 PM on 6/08/2010
Stalin knew you had to kill all the bankers. :-0 He made a good try at it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pepenero   03:26 PM on 6/02/2010
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wealth-to-Freedom   01:25 PM on 6/02/2010
The Fed is a bank cartel. The big banks own and operate The Fed.

There is a Conspiracy Against Your Money. Knowledge and understanding of how money works is what the middle class lacks. We are in a place in time when those who are informed and financially educated are taking their wealth to higher ground. Those who are not, are going to be seriously surprised when the transfer of wealth is finished.

The Central banks in every country are banking cartels for the banks of those countries. The entire worlds finance system is run on fiat currency which creates fractional reserve lending. The Euro is in trouble and that is evident by what has been in the news with Greece and now Spain.

The Fed bailed out the Euro a few weeks ago. The inflated economic bubble based on the fiat currency is collapsing. Get financial educated today and get your wealth to higher ground. To learn about The Conspiracy Against Your Money visit http://Wealth-To-Freedom.com
goforitlisa   12:22 PM on 6/02/2010
Yes, the Fed is big business. Congress is big business. We have the best politicians that money can buy. Congress does not do their business with democratic principles or its constituents in mind. Our country is a corporatocracy. How can big business continue to reap billions in profit? They continue to court politicians and screw the public. Ah yes, all for their mega salaries and shareholder returns.
Jose 58   12:20 PM on 6/02/2010
I've changed my ways and stopped using credit, but I'm still borrowing indirectly because my high tax rate pays the interest on all the borrowing that my city state and country keep doing. Guess I'm stuck for life.
photo
JohnnyTraveler   11:11 AM on 6/02/2010
The fault lays with regular people for supporting these parasites.
Pull out your money today and invest locally.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinns17   11:53 AM on 6/02/2010
2nd that
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wealth-to-Freedom   01:27 PM on 6/02/2010
Get informed and financial educated too.
DustinTime   11:08 AM on 6/02/2010
This headline is so insane.

The Federal Reserve IS the mega-banks! They are a 100% private enterprise owned by big banks! And we still don't know where the trillions went. Bloomberg News has been suing in court under the Freedom of Information Act, and winning, but the Fed still holds back.

Good God, does the Orwellian madness ever end?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wealth-to-Freedom   01:28 PM on 6/02/2010
The picture is so clear when you have the knowledge to connect the dots.
lastep   10:54 AM on 6/02/2010
what a surprise. The Fed siding with itself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinns17   11:53 AM on 6/02/2010
lol
cljj888   10:53 AM on 6/02/2010
Yet it is amazing that as they increase the cost to borrow for all consumers, threatened to reduce lending that they are already reducing , they still are earning billions of profit per quarter. And no one seems to think there is something wrong with this picture? This utter greed and pillaging of the consumer and small business is evil and immoral.

This is not about responsible banking (can't have it both ways crap), because they haven't been responsible for decades only greedier. Why on earth should the american citizenry be held hostage to thesecriminals. We really should figure out a boycott strategy that would knock this industry to their knees. They think they should not be regulated in any way. it is bad enough that the small regulation put in place do nothing to really stop the crime these banks have gotten away with. Isn't the Fed suppose to look out for americans? They are cow towing to these criminals, what is this country coming to???
jetskier   11:30 AM on 6/02/2010
The words RESPONSIBLE and BANKING should not be in a sentence together....or even in the same room or town.......unless it is a hotel room in the sleazy part of town..the Ultra Oxymoron.,.they write the rules as they go along at the expense of the pubic at large...we cannot win over them...
jetskier   12:28 PM on 6/02/2010
the word is public
cslib   10:47 AM on 6/02/2010
Gee I am so surprised to see the FED trying to protect the banks.
photo
DakotaMinnesota   10:43 AM on 6/02/2010
"This is going to hurt Main Street because we are going to do so intentionally as retalliation."
BoiseLib   01:17 PM on 6/02/2010
Fan # 50
photo
hellboundtrain   10:39 AM on 6/02/2010
At all costs, maintain the status quo! Keep f.ing the people!
WHAT ELSE DO YOU EXPECT ANYONE FROM THE BAND OF BANKSTERS TO SAY?!!

WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
FunkSands   10:32 AM on 6/02/2010
I believe the kids call this "extortion". The banks call it "unfortunate due to tightening of credit requirements".
just sayin   10:20 AM on 6/02/2010
Many on this blog seem to want a world without consequences. Responsible lending by necessity means less lending, less available credit, than we’ve gotten used to. Higher reserves for banks means less lending. Interest caps means less income for the banks, which has a direct impact on the amount of risk they can afford to take, which means less lending.

The biggest problems with the current lack of lending are the result of unintended consequences of government actions. When the govt. started forcing weak banks to take TARP money (I’m not talking about the ones which failed; I’m talking about the ones that the govt thought might fail in the near future) banks voluntarily increased their reserves to prevent the same from happening to them. When the Fed reduced interest rates to near 0 to stimulate the economy it created a scenario in which banks could make money on cheap Fed money without having to lend to businesses and consumers.

My point is that we can’t have it both ways. If we want responsible banks we will have to accept the fact that credit will not be as readily available as it has in the past.
RickshawJohnson   10:45 AM on 6/02/2010
Fanned for having a clue and being the only person so far in this thread to make a truthful, reasoned argument. Listen to this guy, he knows exactly what he is talking about.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinns17   11:56 AM on 6/02/2010
pass me some of that stuff your smokeing.lol
jetskier   11:17 AM on 6/02/2010
when it comes to too big to fail institutions..the words RESPONSIBLE and BANKS are an oxymoron of sorts.. some regional banks were, as one might expect, o.k.. at the least. but the large bailed out unstitutions all ego'ed out and tried UNSUCCESSFULLY and with great failure at that, to be the grandest of 'em all...Case in Point the biggest 'Yankster' Ken Lewis of "Yank Off America"..his mission ..to be the largest institution in the universe.. we see what that brought and wrought upon this society, and still yields to us all..ZERO....you are absolutely wrong about responsible lending being stymied by the tules and regulations.. and such...they are the guilty party here, but sadly they never break the law.. A Yankster like Jamie Dimon standing under oath before congress and saying.."yuck yuck we just didn';t think housing pricec would stall or fall" ..is a sad point, as 2 weeks later he was rewarded a bonus of $16,500.000.00 or $8,000.00/per hour) for his ineptedness and IRRESPONSIBILITY which is nothing more tha criminal act without the consequence.... Who is the consequence reigned upon..The Public as we are dispensible to those
e-con-o-hacks... sadly fatigue sets in and nothng once again has happened to change things
NO PAIN..NO CHANGE
RickshawJohnson   01:58 PM on 6/02/2010
Tell me, what exactly has that "wrought" upon society? You don't even have the first clue what you are talking about, just another crazed citizen looking for a scapegoat.
DaveInWheaton   11:24 AM on 6/02/2010
"When the Fed reduced interest rates to near 0 to stimulate the economy it created a scenario in which banks could make money on cheap Fed money without having to lend to businesses and consumers."

This statement is true, but ONLY because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which the senate, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corrupt financial industry, failed to reinstate. When the banks can make money in their casinos (derivatives), they don't need to lend to the "real" economy. Without reinstating Glass-Stegall, without breaking up the TBTF banks (and enforcing the anti-trust laws across the board), and without outlawing much of the derivatives that number in the trillions of dollars, there will continue to be limited lending to the "real" economy, and the leeches at the top will continue to bleed us dry.
prock   11:24 AM on 6/02/2010
A world without consequences is what we currently have. Banks are currently allowed to charge "sophisticated" small business owners hidden fees and raise their rates willy nilly. These are patently unethical practices and are essentially the same as allowing conmen to run 3-card monty games on every corner.

I would argue that forcing banks to abandon fraudulent practices may have the INTENDED consequence of reducing their profits (as in the case of JPM Chase which has lost $750 million thanks to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009). If that continues, then the banks will have to make their profits in ways other than committing fraud.

If Congress were to shut down other fraudulent avenues of banking profit (ie: rampant speculation at prop desks, carry trades, commodities hoarding, CDS shell games, etc) then they might have the INTENDED consequence of forcing the banks to make an honest dollar by... oh, I dunno... actually lending to small businesses.
just sayin   11:53 AM on 6/02/2010
I'm not advocating that we condone fraud or unethical practices, merely that people recognize that a more regulated banking industry will also be one that lends less than what we are used to. I'm not even saying that's a bad thing - just that we can't have it all. If we want sound banks with high reserves, low loan rates and fewer bad loans - even if they are run by some new breed of beatified banker - we will have to accept that credit will not be as readily available as it has in the past.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Terry Karney   04:13 AM on 6/06/2010
Would that world without consequences be the one where bankers who gambled on CDS, and other derivatives were fired when those failed? Where the people who tranched really risky mortgages as AAA investments were fired?

Where banks who made terrible gambles were allowed to go belly-up; because they made bad investments?

No, that would be the world where Alan Greenspan recommended ARMs to first time home buyers. The one where I saw negative amortization loans being advertised on TV, targeted at people with the lines, "have you had a hard time buying a home because of bad credit?"

The one where those banks were bailed out, with my money; and now say they need to be allowed to fleece small businesses to keep making a profit; with my money.

The one where the little guy, who goes bankrupt from medical bills, is still required to pay off the credit cards the bank sent him, with fine print that lets them change the rules on a whim.

I can't say I really feel much pity for them.
just sayin   11:17 AM on 6/06/2010
I'm not suggesting that the bankers were the victims or didn't do anything wrong. I was just trying to point out to the many who would hang them first and worry about the fallout later that if all the financial reforms they wish for come true that they are likely to find that there will be unanticipated (by them, anyway) consequences. I'm not even opposed to changes - credit has been much too loose for some time.

I just want those whose only experience with credit has been in the past 15 years that the reforms they are advocating will change their world. It will no longer be as easy to get a credit card or buy a house. It will also mean a slower-growing economy. Again, reform is probably a good thing overall, but people need to understand what it is they are advocating for. Push for new restrictions but don't complain when the results affect you (not "you" specifically) personally.
tazzman   09:52 AM on 6/02/2010
You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to scratch your head and look at things and go Why?
The White House is staffed with Goldman Sachs, Congress passed the Bankruptcy reform that benefits only the banks and lawyers besides the free money taxpayers gave the banking industry.
When added up this amounts to nothing less than voluntary servitude for the rest of your life: You borrowed it, you pay for it on our changing terms.
Is it not ironic that the more regulation and oversight the less competition? Look at the auto or tobacco industries. Who supported the regulations? What happened next? Reducing the banking industry to three or four main entities would constitute quasi government monopoly as the industry would in effect run or ruin the economy. Evidence this by the lack of lending at reasonable terms and qualifications going on now.

Twitter Edition