OT - Bank of America Credit

Having failed in their duty to their shareholders by extending the credit in the first place, the companies still have a duty to their shareholders to transfer as much of the suffering as possible onto the deliquent debtor.

Reply to
SpammersDie
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Steve Scott

Andrew DeFaria wrote in news:Rp- dneSRidMdRnvYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I am punishing the banks by doing as much as I can what they do - taking advantage of them. Sevral times I have asked them to forgive late charges and interest because I made a mistake, and they acquiesced beccause they did not wanted to lose me as a customer. Unfortunately, the cost of that business is the extra charge that merchants have to build into their prices because the credit card companies do not allow a discount for cash.

Reply to
Han

Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their consumers.

Reply to
Steve Scott

Steve Scott wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You mean that credit card comapnies and banks are "responsible"? That's laughable ...

Reply to
Han

When the poor credit risk consumer defaults on the CC bill and has no assets to speak of, who do you think foots the bill? You do. I don't think it's really all that hard to understand for the "non mentally challenged" person.

When companies actively pursue poor risk consumers, some of the debt those consumers build is going to be non-recoverable. The rest of the CC company's consumers are going to pay for that. I think that is wrong. That should come from company profits and ultimately the shareholders.

Is that pla>Steve Scott wrote:

Reply to
Steve Scott

It's up to the consumers to make that happen. If the company's competitors do a better job of controlling costs due to bad loans, consumers can move to them.

If there are no such competitors and there's no evidence of antitrust activity by the existing players, it's a good sign consumers are too apathetic to care, in which case, the free market is still working correctly. It has found the right balance between the extreme of having one financial mistake turn you into a credit pariah for life vs. the other extreme of having 10% of the debtors paying for the irresponsibility of the other 90%.

Reply to
SpammersDie

Did you mean to say something?

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

Aside from being very minor and not really directly related, what you are doing is pale in comparison to the masses who take on debt and then default, leaving us all the burden. IOW your actions are unconnected and do nothing for the problem we were speaking about here.

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as possible.

Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time in most businesses.

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

Actually we all do and I said that already.

The real question is whether or not that person really doesn't have any assets to speak of. Very often they do.

Yes we are talking a matter of degree here. Exactly how many of those people are actually unable to pay.

Which kinda kills your "you do" claim...

So do I.

No it should, when at all possible, come from the deadbeats who refuse to pay their bills first.

It is plain enough for you?

Or are you trying to say that 100% of those who claim they can't pay really can't pay?

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

CC companies have two kins of customers who cost them $$

The biggest and by far the largest cost of $$ to the CC companies are people like me who write a check for the balance in full every month. CC companies make *NO* money off these people and in fact it costs them $$ to print and mail the bills and the capital needed to float the merchants the money.

The second and vanishingly small number of people the CC's lose money to are the ones who open an account and never pay a dime on it.

The biggest profit center to the CC's are the people who make the minimum payment month to month. They are the ones who finance the entire rest of us.

As for bad credit risk, are you laboring under the assumption that everyone pays the same interest rate? I've got news for you, that ain't the truth. Those bad risks are paying a higher rate than the good risks. (Well if the good risk bothers to call the CC up and ask to have their rate lowered.)

Think about this, at 30% interest, how long does the bad risk have to pay minimum payment to cover the debit and the rate of commercial paper to cover the float? How long before the bad risk defaults? Did the CC make or lose money? What you want to bet there is a chart posted in the board room with these very numbers?!

Reply to
Golden California Girls

They make money off the merchant fees. And if my bank would wake up and offer the option to opt out of snail-mailed statements, I'd be happy to take them up on it. Not because it saves *them* money (even though it does) and not because it saves trees but because it represents 12 less opportunity/year for a security breach due to mail misdelivery or mail theft.

Though the general point is true - us "deadbeats" (um, "convenience users") are truly despised by the cc industry (and that's why we have to wait so long to get a human voice if/when we call in for support - the phone queue management software will drop us to the back of the line.)

Reply to
SpammersDie

Andrew DeFaria wrote in news:E6OdnX3Cg74FOXrYnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I go for the lowest cost (to me) financial institutions which maximize my ease of use (those are contradictory in some cases, e.g. Citibank). That's all I can do. Congresscritters do not emphasize their effort to maximize efficiency by FI's (to say the least).

Reply to
Han

Reply to
Steve Scott

Reply to
Steve Scott

It's about the same proft margin as a grocery store.

Reply to
HeyBub

I'm not sure if you're dense or just playing dense. AFTER the deadbeats have every drop of blood wrung from their miserable bodies and AFTER their children have been sold into servitude and AFTER anyone who has ever known them has had their assets stripped from them, there is STILL unpaid debt. That is what I'm talking about. Clear enough now?

I'm of the opinion the CC companies should be eating that debt to the detriment of the company and their shareholders, rather than passing it along to their other CC holders.

That doesn't seem to me to be all that hard to understand.

My business certainly couldn't thrive if I solicit work from people who won't or can't pay me. I know Wal-Mart won't let me come in and buy items from it unless they get paid right then. Just which businesses, other than CC companies, solicit business from those who will not or can't pay them?

Reply to
Steve Scott

Yes, it is.

CC companies... WITHOUT interest, WITHOUT fees - make money.

Allowing folks who are not creditworthy to have CC cards MAKES THEM MORE MONEY - because the merchants still pay fees on transactions.

There is absolutely NO INCENTIVE for CC companies to decline credit.

Reply to
L

Two "kins"? Really? ;-)

Check your facts Jill! CC companies charge a premium to the vendor for the privilege of allowing the customer to charge. "*NO* money"? Not really.

Cite a reference! Surely you don't expect me to take that on face value.

Irrelevant.

No I am not and I challenge you to point out where I said that. You won't fine it.

Really?!? Tell me something I don't know. Better yet tell me something that's germane to my point!

Regardless, when CC companies get hit, innocents get hit. That's wrong no matter what you say.

Irrelevant.

All of this is irrelevant. Either a person is responsible for their actions or they are not. I can't believe that you appear to be arguing that people should not be responsible for their actions.

When such deadbeats do not pay their debts then other innocent people suffer. It is irrelevant if those other innocents are good risks or bad risks. The point is they are INNOCENT!?! Are you that stupid as to not understand this simple concept?

Reply to
Andrew DeFaria

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.