Well to be fair, it's only 79.9%

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/around-town/s...73667.html

Wow... that is harsh. Of course, once you get one of those suckers to sign up and carry a balance, how long until they just walk away when you have that kind of interest rate?

I do not have a problem with this. If one chooses to freely contract with this bank for this service..then...caveat emptor.

You do know that these kind of reports lead the news that we are going to have new federal legislation, right? I'm not sure that having legislation banning interest rates above 70% would be a bad thing, but I suspect the number that congress would come up with would be more like 7%

State Usery laws used to be around 10%. The CC Co. spent a ton of money to get them repealed. The Fed. would leave it up to the states to control, again. IMO

(10-26-2009 04:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I do not have a problem with this. If one chooses to freely contract with this bank for this service..then...caveat emptor.

Yeah, I have to agree.

I didn't like the fact that they tried to hide it a bit. Still, every person should be expected to do some due diligence.

First Premier is one of the "sub, sub prime" credit card issuers.

They are infamous for their fees and charges.. you want to make an internet payment on your account, they charge you $10.

I look on Bankruptcy Schedule F's (unsecured debt) and I see First Premier Bank listed 75% of the time.

Lots of FEEs none of my credit cards have.

Quote:Additional Fees: Return Item Charge: $25.00; Autodraft Fee: We impose an $11.00 charge for each payment made through an autodraft service we provide. Autodraft payments requested through our automated systems (i.e. Voice Response or Internet) are assessed $7.00 per transaction. Express Delivery Fee: We impose a $35.00 fee for the express delivery of your Card(s) sent Priority two-day airmail. This service is only available on lost, stolen or replacement cards.

Quote:Program Fee: We impose a one-time Program Fee of $95.00 as a condition of extending credit to you. This fee is a FINANCE CHARGE.

(10-26-2009 07:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yeah, I have to agree.

I didn't like the fact that they tried to hide it a bit. Still, every person should be expected to do some due diligence.

Fully agree, but I will say that this is the kind of thing that raises the ire of politicians (right or wrong, it happens). This bank is just asking for the government to get involved with regulating them by raising eyebrows.

At some point they have to play the game... you don't want to bring attention of this kind, IMO.

Of course, at the end of the day, if you need to have an 80% interest rate due to your risk, you probably should just not give out loans to those people.

(10-27-2009 08:04 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-26-2009 07:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yeah, I have to agree.

I didn't like the fact that they tried to hide it a bit. Still, every person should be expected to do some due diligence.

Fully agree, but I will say that this is the kind of thing that raises the ire of politicians (right or wrong, it happens). This bank is just asking for the government to get involved with regulating them by raising eyebrows.

At some point they have to play the game... you don't want to bring attention of this kind, IMO.

Of course, at the end of the day, if you need to have an 80% interest rate due to your risk, you probably should just not give out loans to those people.

Good points.

I guess I'm waffling a bit. The interest rate is one thing, but after reading about all those other fees, I get pretty steamed.

Sure, the people who get this card pay a penalty for poor past decisions. But, when you ping them for every service, even making their payments, then you've crossed a line. You're keeping people in poverty. It's the same w/ payday loan companies.

These things hurt a society. Yes the poor should make better decisions, but preying on the poor is not healthy either.

And while I can understand how gov't intrusion is a bad thing, it's clear that a healthy society needs some way to deal with these issues.

In the end, I'm not a libertarian, nor even a conservative. My world view (including economics) is Christian. These practices don't fit in a Christian world view (read Deuteronomy*) so I oppose them. And even libertarians should oppose them, because as you pointed out, they're making it easy to get the government over-involved.

*The more I read Deuteronomy, the more I think that those laws are brilliant. Some of them generate a knee-jerk reaction of "that won't work," or "that's not fair." But I think when applied correctly, they lead to a healthier society than we've seen in many places. Brilliant.

Sounds like a clear case of Usury to me, this is detrimental to the Economic Liberties of Society as a whole given what it tends to do to poor people who then turn to the govt. for a bailout.

.

Sounds like "Legal Loan Sharking" to me.

If I were a 'Back Alley Loan Shark', I would simply set up a Credit Card Company and go totally legit !!!!!

Get more on your Return and never have the Cops Breathing Down Your Neck.

Well at least Credit Card Interest is now even with Income Tax Rates !!!!!

.

(10-26-2009 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Well to be fair, it's only 79.9%

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/around-town/s...73667.html

Yet when they tried to pass new usury laws, they didn't pass.

(10-26-2009 06:44 PM)I45owl Wrote:  You do know that these kind of reports lead the news that we are going to have new federal legislation, right? I'm not sure that having legislation banning interest rates above 70% would be a bad thing, but I suspect the number that congress would come up with would be more like 7%

They were trying to get one with a maximum rate of 15% but very few supported it.

(10-27-2009 11:19 AM)Tripster Wrote:  Sounds like "Legal Loan Sharking" to me.

If this was they Olympics even the Russian judge would have given you a 10. The marifa probably charges less but their recovery rate is probably higher.