Why is it normal for banks to issue cards without showing their terms first?

[Anonymous]

---

@elim wrote:

---

Pretty sure 90% of the population doesn't know these limiting factors to the tee (like we try to master here).  One day someone will probably implement this, an HP will be required, and it will be a success.

---

That's true, but for the sake of this conversation we are all part of the 10% that are in the know. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

My point is BOA is particularly terrible because they issue the other product without giving the bonus that prompted one to apply. I understand you are agreeing with the terms but it is still an absurd practice, and ended up costing BOA close to $150 dollars... ($50 Alaska Coupon + 5,000 Alaska Miles). They probably didn't pay face value for this but it still represents that by asking for my confirmation BOA could have saved themselves some money, and would not have made me want to avoid them for life. 

---

But it's an absurd practice that you know exists and can happen to anyone, anywhere and anytime as stated in the terms and conditions.

If one doesn't agree with the terms and conditions, they don't have to apply.  If they do agree with them, they run the risk of getting approved but not necessarily on the terms that they would desire.  Sign on bonuses are pretty clear about this up front... basically stating that in order to be eligible for the sign on (or spend) bonus one must meet certain criteria in the event of approval.

Also, not to add insult to injury, but I just checked the credit pulls database and of the 6 denials I see quickly on there for that card, 5 of the 6 were with scores in the 700's (two 760+).  I know you said your scores were over 700 and I'm not sure exactly what they are, but based on that data it would seem to me that you definitely assumed some marginal risk when applying. 

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

My point is BOA is particularly terrible because they issue the other product without giving the bonus that prompted one to apply. I understand you are agreeing with the terms but it is still an absurd practice, and ended up costing BOA close to $150 dollars... ($50 Alaska Coupon + 5,000 Alaska Miles). They probably didn't pay face value for this but it still represents that by asking for my confirmation BOA could have saved themselves some money, and would not have made me want to avoid them for life. 

---

But it's an absurd practice that you know exists and can happen to anyone, anywhere and anytime as stated in the terms and conditions.

If one doesn't agree with the terms and conditions, they don't have to apply.  If they do agree with them, they run the risk of getting approved but not necessarily on the terms that they would desire.  Sign on bonuses are pretty clear about this up front... basically stating that in order to be eligible for the sign on (or spend) bonus one must meet certain criteria in the event of approval.

---

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

Well, you keep saying the same thing too!   Poor business practice for who?   Clearly it's OK for the business.   And if it was so detrimental to (normal) customers, you would expect an issuer to come up with a solution like the ones proposed here, and gain market share  ("We show you exactly what you will get and let you decide!!!!!").    So, as per my comment about real-world customers, I doubt if enough of them care so that there is any pressure to change.   And banks won't spend money to make life easier for credit card junkies.....

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

No one said it isn't a poor practice.  It's just that it's disclosed up front so there's no reason to cry over spilled milk.

A person may choose to buy a product from a company that is rated a "C" by the BBB as opposed to a company rated "A" by the BBB in order to save 15%.  They read the thousands of reviews saying that the product arrived damaged, the "C" rated company wouldn't accept a return, their CS wouldn't return emails etc. yet the buyer took on the risk of purchasing it from them in order to save that 15%.  Poor business practices by the "C" rated company?  Absolutely.  But can the buyer really say much about it after fact?

It's like when I have to terminate an employee, and leading up to it I follow protocol and have them sign written documentation 3 different times illustrating their lack of performance.  Then a week later when it happens a 4th time and I have to let them go they try to file a wrongful termination suit.  If someone knows the expectation going in, I simply don't think it's fair to get upset after the fact if things don't work out exactly the way you want them to.  That's my opinion.

[Anonymous]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

Well, you keep saying the same thing too!   Poor business practice for who?   Clearly it's OK for the business.   And if it was so detrimental to (normal) customers, you would expect an issuer to come up with a solution like the ones proposed here, and gain market share  ("We show you exactly what you will get and let you decide!!!!!").    So, as per my comment about real-world customers, I doubt if enough of them care so that there is any pressure to change.   And banks won't spend money to make life easier for credit card junkies.....

---

Apparently I keep having to repeat myself because my point is not getting across. In my opinion it is a poor business practice which is why I won't do business with them.. and by implementing this there is the potential that BOA and others who substitute lesser cards could actually save money instead of spending more.... 

[Aahz]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

No one said it isn't a poor practice.  It's just that it's disclosed up front so there's no reason to cry over spilled milk.

---

I'll say it's not a poor practice!

Evidence that it IS a poor business practice - a few irritated credit junkies (who likely generate little, if any, profit for the businesses following the practice).

Evidence that it ISN'T a poor business practice - billions of dollars in profits for the businesses following the practice.

[NRB525]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

---

---

Apparently I keep having to repeat myself because my point is not getting across. In my opinion it is a poor business practice which is why I won't do business with them.. and by implementing this there is the potential that BOA and others who substitute lesser cards could actually save money instead of spending more.... 

---

Your point is valid, and it is part of your decision process to not apply at such a bank. That is your option. The banks do not get many people who go through that decision tree as part of their decision whether to app, or as noted by others, they haven't determined that the "customer decline" option makes sense yet. They might in the future. For now, seems not to be the case.

[Anonymous]

---

@Aahz wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

---

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

No one said it isn't a poor practice.  It's just that it's disclosed up front so there's no reason to cry over spilled milk.

---

I'll say it's not a poor practice!

Evidence that it IS a poor business practice - a few irritated credit junkies (who likely generate little, if any, profit for the businesses following the practice.

Evidence that it ISN'T a poor business practice - billions of dollars in profits for the businesses following the practice.

---

Evidence that it IS a poor practice - people closing their accounts 

Evidence that it IS a poor practice - people who don't use the account because they did not get the reward structure that they wanted. 

Evidence that it IS a poor practice - Chase Bank has made billions of dollars in profits and they do NOT follow this practice... and in fact Chase made way more than BOA. 

Your argument that it is making more in profit really has no credence. 

[longtimelurker]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

You keep repeating the same point... How you view this practice depends on your perspective I suppose. As I have said before it is still a poor business practice. 

---

Well, you keep saying the same thing too!   Poor business practice for who?   Clearly it's OK for the business.   And if it was so detrimental to (normal) customers, you would expect an issuer to come up with a solution like the ones proposed here, and gain market share  ("We show you exactly what you will get and let you decide!!!!!").    So, as per my comment about real-world customers, I doubt if enough of them care so that there is any pressure to change.   And banks won't spend money to make life easier for credit card junkies.....

---

Apparently I keep having to repeat myself because my point is not getting across. In my opinion it is a poor business practice which is why I won't do business with them.. and by implementing this there is the potential that BOA and others who substitute lesser cards could actually save money instead of spending more.... 

---

But your cost-analysis is a huge assumption.    Banks may well have found that substituting generates money.   Here, when people going for Cash + got the 1% card,  a lot of the advice was to use it heavily and see if you can upgrade in a few months.   People outside forums might just accept and use a lower-reward card because that's the one the got.

So for everyone like you who considers this unpardonable bad business, there may be lots of people who don't care (and even more who aren't really aware) so again, no pressure to change, especially if this technique is considered to be a money earner.

After all, lots of things about credit cards could be could bad business practice, high APR driving people into debt, but for things to change there has to be a generally agreed problem, and either market forces or legislation (and I doubt if that is a priority for the incoming administration) to force a change.   We saw how really bad things can be addressed with the CARD Act, but the damage done here (a hit to AAoA) seems to low to galvanize anyone into action