Chase Minimum payment

[Anonymous]

Chase bombarded customers 3to 4 times a week with low interest transfer checks,& were asking us all to transfer all our debt to 4.99% till payed off,as long as you keep current ,and ontime! 850,000 paid on time and keep agreement& and out of the blue they said rates would stay the same,but minimum payment would go from 2%,to 5%, 2& one half more on payment due. People on my local news said they would loose everything,since people paying $300.00 would now be paying almost $1200.00. This is the most low down sneaky thing i have ever heard of a credit card co. doing. Some people will lose their homes. They even told us to use these checks instead of getting a home equity loan. They let people do this for 18 months,then dropped this bombshell. I have written FTC, and consumer affairs,because this is nothing more than predatory lending,and the those of us that did transfer needed to lower our payments, and they assured us we would. Can you imagine how many will go bankrupt beause of this?

Message Edited by bredan on 07-06-2009 04:19 PM

[athensguy]

Yes, it's been well discussed that Chase is raising the minimum payments on many who have a life of the balance transfer. It might hurt some people that owe too much to make a 5% minimum payment toward, and others might end up being forced to pay it off sooner.

However, 300*2.5 = 750

They have been offering some customers a reduction in their newly higher minimums in exchange for a higher rate.

[Anonymous]

---

@athensguy wrote:
Yes, it's been well discussed that Chase is raising the minimum payments on many who have a life of the balance transfer. It might hurt some people that owe too much to make a 5% minimum payment toward, and others might end up being forced to pay it off sooner.

However, 300*2.5 = 750

They have been offering some customers a reduction in their newly higher minimums in exchange for a higher rate.

---

This is what I would call a classic Bait & Switch scam, we'll offer you a great rate to draw you in, then raise your minimum payment, then offer you the opportunity to lower that payment by accepting a higher APR that we guaranteed would stay low.

These banks cook up these new schemes everyday and it's hurting allot of people. I hate to hear things like this. I'll pray that others in this situation can come out of this or make other arrangements that are better then these "la cosa nostra" loan shark tactics.

JPMorgan Chase you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing this, but for some reason I don't think you are.

King

Message Edited by 74king on 07-06-2009 05:18 PM

[Anonymous]

You are correct about the 750.00 a month,but that is still more than twice the payment amount. I am just sick about it for myself ,and I used a much smaller amount for myself,but those people who used them to consolidate their debt may lose everything. I promise everyone they bombarded us with these checks,saying we would have low interest until paid off,and like myself,most or even all never dreamed they would come up with raising the amount of monthly payment,thinking that would mean a higher interest rate. Please pray for all 850,000 people,and that the FTC will step in. Thanks

[creditwherecreditisdue]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
You are correct about the 750.00 a month,but that is still more than twice the payment amount. I am just sick about it for myself ,and I used a much smaller amount for myself,but those people who used them to consolidate their debt may lose everything. I promise everyone they bombarded us with these checks,saying we would have low interest until paid off,and like myself,most or even all never dreamed they would come up with raising the amount of monthly payment,thinking that would mean a higher interest rate. Please pray for all 850,000 people,and that the FTC will step in. Thanks

---

How could they? It is all perfectly legal. Or would it be OK with you if the government used some heavy handed arm twisting tactics to get what you want in this case?

Unethical, yes. Illegal, no!

[Watchmann]

A $5,000 loan at 5% APR, and paying just 2% a month as a minimum payment will take 16 years, 8 months to pay off.  One word describes that, DUMB.  What the reality is here is people borrowed way too much money to fund their lifestyles thinking those low interest rates were no big deal.  They focused on the minimum monthly payment instead of the real cost of these loans with no escape plan should conditions change under the terms of these loans.  No one should be surprised that the CCC's want these cheap loans paid off sooner rather than later. We have to start living within our means. 

And please, keep the Barney Frank's and Chris Dodd's of the world out of these issues.  Everytime they meddle they goof things up.

Message Edited by Watchmann on 07-07-2009 06:59 PM

[creditwherecreditisdue]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@athensguy wrote:
Yes, it's been well discussed that Chase is raising the minimum payments on many who have a life of the balance transfer. It might hurt some people that owe too much to make a 5% minimum payment toward, and others might end up being forced to pay it off sooner.

However, 300*2.5 = 750

They have been offering some customers a reduction in their newly higher minimums in exchange for a higher rate.

---

This is what I would call a classic Bait & Switch scam, we'll offer you a great rate to draw you in, then raise your minimum payment, then offer you the opportunity to lower that payment by accepting a higher APR that we guaranteed would stay low.

These banks cook up these new schemes everyday and it's hurting allot of people. I hate to hear things like this. I'll pray that others in this situation can come out of this or make other arrangements that are better then these "la cosa nostra" loan shark tactics.

JPMorgan Chase you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing this, but for some reason I don't think you are.

King

Message Edited by 74king on 07-06-2009 05:18 PM

---

Credit card companies were granted special legislation decades ago that amounted to a license to steal, including exemption from state usury laws. Changing the deal mid-course, i.e. contracts that are only binding on one party, are another province of theirs. You try either one of those in a deal and see how far you get.

As far as enticing you to act and then screwing you for it they follow in the footsteps of Providian. They were the OG's of the CLI/RJ backstab. Nice to know that Chase is capable of putting a new twist on an old racket.

Just remember CC's are the issuer's game and the deck is heavily stacked in their favor. If you keep that in mind at all times you retain some chance of surviving.

[Anonymous]

I am in full agreement with those who point out that this is an obviously unfair change. Personally, I see no reason that the minimum payment could not have been increased in 0.5% increments, perhaps at 6-month intervals. Affected customers would have had a bit more time to seek other options. Chase would have still seen the repayment of these accounts speeded up, which is their primary goal. Maybe not quite as fast as using the 5% hammer but, after all, 850,000 still only represent about 0.6% of Chase accounts, so it shouldn't have made a massive difference to them. By the way, I believe 850,000 is the number of accounts - the number of affected customers is probably half that number or less, since many customers had multiple for-life BTs (I had 4 myself).

The question I have is whether people are going to learn anything from this. People are extremely quick to point out (rightly) that Chase is evil (as are most CCCs). Yet many people admit they acted naively: "Chase promoted these BTs as replacements for HELOCs or installment loans". Sorry, but if someone who is known to be evil advertises something, why would you believe them? Do you buy a "Rolex" on the street because it costs less than a real one? A simple comparison of terms shows that the for-life BTs were not equivalent to installment loans. The terms of an installment loan guarantee a fixed minimum payment amount that cannot be arbitrarily changed by the lender. The terms of the for-life BT do not. They are apples and oranges.

These days, every financial offer must be scrutinized for loopholes that might allow the lender to take advantage of the customer. If you can't find a loophole, that usually means you didn't look hard enough. A quick "this looks like a good deal, where do I sign up?" often ends up costing big time if nobody reads the fine print. You shouldn't carry a balance unless you have a contingency plan in case of a rate-jack, and you shouldn't carry a large balance with a non-fixed minimum payment unless you have a contingency plan. Unless minimum payments get firmly regulated (and I doubt they will), other institutions will follow in Chase's footsteps (or some variation) whenever it becomes useful for them to do so. Customers need to make themselves aware of all the risks of dealing with CC products, so they don't get surprised again ...

[GregB]

It is a person's responsibility to educate themselves regarding the BT offer. It is a business agreement that they are entering with the CC company. Yes, it is a bit unfair for Chase to make this change so dramatically but lots of CC are doing similar things. AND it has been obvious that we were headed this way for a couple years now.

If someone is "going bankrupt" because of this, they already were bankrupt and just didn't know it yet. From your description: they were bankrupt, decided to use a too-good-to-be-true offer to try to keep disaster away, and now are not getting what they hoped for. Maybe they should go solve their problems by buying lottery tickets instead of paying their bills...........

There are many, many ways for companies to make money from uneducated consumers. That is why the information on this site and many others is so valuable.

[Imhotrodcrazy]

Is anyone as old as I am here, who remembers the old days of "lay aways"?  You didnt get your item until it was fully paid for.  Maybe,  it is time to return to those days.  Its just a thought.