Banks received gigantic bailouts to cover their losses from bad consumer debts. So, they have been paid by the taxpayers on all outstanding debts prior to the bailout. Why are these loansharks chasing taxpayers for outstanding debt now? No payment balance prior to the bailout is due anymore.

I guess you can't please some people.

You don't generate interest or fees, just merchant charges. You can't buy your executives antique commodes just from the merchant charges.

Deciding not to pay, either through dodging the creditors or through bankruptcy is a *business decision* on the part of the debtor. If they value a clean credit rating and future borrowing, they should pay. If they can't get out of debt, maybe it would be in their best interest to look out for #1 and declare bankruptcy.

Google "Jean Twenge" and "economy" -- she wrote an entire book on it.

@savdavid: You think missing a payment is no biggie? What if you had a tenant who just decided not to pay rent one month? Is that ok?

@KenJason: How can you possibly argue you are not borrowing money? I don't care if you pay 30 days later, a year later or 10 seconds later, you are borrowing!

Paying a balance each month doesn't necessarily mean you are less profitible either as they get merchant fees from the vendors based on what you spend. Of course, they would like you to carry a balance, but only to a point. I too carry a balance and my interest rate is 3.25%. But I don't carry a balance that approaches the upper limit, and I certainly don't miss two payments!

I never said that paying the minimums in and of itself makes you more risky. Just that paying the minimums on high balances relative to your credit limits paints a picture that is riskier than one who pays his balance off each month. I don't care what people want to do with their credit lines. I am just pointing out why one's rates might be raised.

Risk assessment by the CC companies is merely based on the statistics of default by those fitting certain profiles. At the end of the day, there are only two outcomes: either the borrower defaults or he doesn't. However, they have modelling that shows that a person with a 10% debt load who pays his balance each month and never misses a payment defaults, say, 1 time out 500, whereas a person who has an 80% debt load who pays only the minimum and missed two payments in the last twelve months defaults, say 10 times out of 500. And there are all kinds of different imputs, as you recognize. The point is that making payments on time each month doesn't mean you riskless to the company.

Certainly, those with riskier profiles would be expected to pay higher interest rates than those who have less risky profiles.

Basically, this woman acutally proved the bank correct. They perceived her as a riskier borrower and then she misses two payments? Whatever the reason, that doesn't really do her any favors.

I wish I was an attractive woman (I'm 0-2 there) so I could make YouTube videos complaining about the consequences of doing something I shouldn't have done.

@DrLumen:

Christ, say it with me - you don't owe them the minimum payment. You owe them the PRINCIPAL BALANCE ON THE ACCOUNT PLUS THE INTEREST ACCRUED PERIOD TO PERIOD. The fact that consumer protection laws allow for such small minimum payments is a favor to you, not the lender.

In this case, we were talking a woman that has had a near $8000 balance for close to three years. She's missed payments twice (once as part of this revolt) and always pays the minimum. The fact that her interest rate was already that high makes me question her credit history. If someone continues to pay the least possible amount each month, while still owing you that large balance, they are moving into the extra-risky category.

The longer debt takes to be collected, the lower the likelihood it will be. She was worthy of the rate hikes, and was a child on YouTube.

How does paying her bills on time for all those years make her a risky borrower? I am in the same situation as her. Out of nowhere, and for no apparent reason other than greed, BofA DOUBLED the interest rate on my card. I had never had a late payment, never been over the limit and was making more than the minimum payments? I guess I am a risky borrower as they weren't making as much off me as they thought they should...

And, duh, actually BofA is Countrywide now since they bought them!

I don't think your explanation (wherever your statistics came from) of carrying a balance equals risk is justified or accurate. Just because you carry a balance doesn't make you more of a risk, or mean that your score is lower. In fact, don't credit card companies want you to carry a balance? I'm quite certain they make pretty good money from people who do. I carry around 2500 dollars on my credit card, and my score last month when I applied for a loan was 750.

You can't really build credit if you don't borrow, and your not borrowing money if you pay your balance each month. You are less profitable to them by doing that. It is the ratio to which you borrow, and your repayment history that make you a risk or not. It is not an exact science though, as MANY other things can be factored in. A blanket statement saying that your a higher risk for paying the minimums is irresponsible and inaccurate.

I'm not saying carrying a hefty balance is a good idea either. I've always had an excellent score, even though at one time I carried over $8000 in revolving debt. But if you are a regular reader of The Consumerist, you should know how lop-sided the credit industry can be when dealing with people who responsibly carry no debt.

Hook, line and sinker.

Well played Genius, well played.

Cripes. This story kind of rubs me the wrong way - not because I have any special compassion for BoA (yea right) but because of the Fox-News-ish tone this obviously not-too-bright lady took and seems to be relishing in: she's leading a "debtor's revolt" as if lodging some sort of moral high ground protest against medieval debt bondage or "company store" indentureship, when the reality is more likely that this woman has a truckload of useless consumer crap paid for on a legally-agreed-upon line of credit which she *chose* to use and abuse. It's distasteful to say the least.

Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford.

@ballistic90: She is not a risky lender but only because she not any kind of lender. She is the borrower.

The premise that you can't be considered risky because you pay the minimums each month is patently false. Which borrower has the higher chance of defaulting: the borrower who pays his balance off each month or the borrower who pays only the minimum on a high credit balance? Unless you are arguing that they are equally risky, one would certainly deserve a higher interest rate!

The fact of the matter is that statistically, those with high debt loads who pay the minimum have lower credit scores... and guess how the lenders determine what to charge you for interest? If you used to have a 750 FICO and now you have a 650, would you be that surprised to see your rates increase? The reason that they insist on charging variable rates is precisely because the same person can become more or less risky!

@threadislocked: As far as I know just paying the minimum is still risky in some banks' minds.

Also, every contract I've seen states that credit card companies can raise the rates at any time with some showing an opt-out period (and thanks to recent legislation) and way to disagree with rate increase but still maintain and pay off the balance. The situation sucks and seems unfair but it is in the contract; that being said I'd hate to see it happen to someone

Plain and simple. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time grasping this concept.

The bank was in no way deceptive in laying out the terms to this woman. She decided she had to have that collection of toy cars you see in the background, so she agreed to their (ridiculous, IMHO) terms.

@MooseOfReason: This woman was stupid. She had a balance of about $5k yet talked about pulling out about $5k from regular BOA checking account.

Yes, using a debit card for usual living expenses is probably better but have several active but idle checking accounts in case your card number gets compromised so you could either wait for a new card or easily switch to another account. Some have one debit account for living expenses, one for automatic payments and one idle one for backup and/or a quasi-savings account.

Don't trust the "I use a cc for everything and pay off my balance each month for frequent flier miles, etc." crowd. You have to be an account hawk logging in all the time to check your balance and credit card geek to some extent to do this and not get burned. This will not work if you only rely on your monthly statement mailed to you. Eventually the CC companies will change a due date or something to hammer you with a missed payment. Some people have even gotten late fees for paying TOO early- ie in the previous cycle.

I'm not referring to the pamphlet you receive with the card, I'm referring to the application she and everyone else fills out to even be considered for credit. People very rarely read these T&Cs, including this woman apparently. By applying for the credit account, you are accepting THEIR terms and conditions. Why are you making excuses for her?

You've got on some wild tangent here about contract law, which frankly I'm not that interested in.

You seem to be implying that this woman was somehow conned into this contract by BofA, which I'm simply trying to explain to you is false. The terms were laid out to her in plain english, as they are for everyone else.

@NeverLetMeDown: She missed one payment and they jacked her % rate to 29.99 (which also happened to me) plus she had some other BOA regular bank accounts. That is why she was mad - that she could get no one to lower the rate like they used to be able to do.

Paying off debts related to being unemployed and getting divorced- not an active CC user- debit cards all the way. BOA jacked my account % up and charged me their fee because I missed a payment. Ok- understood- pay with fire and get burned. Then they said it would take 6 months of on time payments to be considered for a reduction. 7 months pass and I call. They say then "So sorry you don't qualify."

3 months later BOA then sends me some consumer loan advertisement and I work through that with them which would have given me a 17.99% rate. I ask them why this loan could give me that but the card couldn't. No answer- sorry that is the program. I refuse the loan deal. Call back 2 months later which is (1 year from the original missed payment) and ask to get interest rate reduced. "Oh, now we can bring it down to 27.99%" they say. I said "Thanks for the scraps." and took it.

Finally I was able to get a discover card and BOA sent me a refund check for the slight ($40) amount I overpaid on the balance transfer after about 4 months. Kept the card open though and not used it again.

Now the BOA whores are sending me lots of transfer checks for an 8.99% transfer to June 2010. I want to call them and ask: "How is that to work when they could never lower my rate before?"

If you're smart about it, playing the "0% balance transfer" game can save you a whole lot of money, as you have a chance to make a dent in the principal.

She has proven herself not to be a risky lender. The reason I mentioned the types of purchases is that, if they are not recurring, then she would be paying the money back without adding more debt to it. That was my point.

So you're blind. Ok, fine. Let me go back to your original question:

"That is a lie. Show me one example of a corporation knowingly violating Federal Law like this."

Again: [www.engadget.com]

Exactly: A corporation knowingly violating Federal Law.

"Maybe you were overstating your position a bit, no?"

No, I didn't. You just didn't read it.

"Bottom line is, they are required by law to disclose in plain english what your rate is and where it maxes out. You still haven't shown me a single example where this isn't the case."

And this is where we come full circle. I have deduced that you do not know what a contract really is, and are going on a pamphlet they send you in the mail. This is not the contract, number 1, but a listing of their general terms. Number 2, you also go to state here that they need to disclose where it maxes it, and you're saying that they just write 'variable' in that box. That is not full disclosure.

"Furthermore, if I sign a contract w/o understanding it... who's to blame? "

Well, if you do, you're not to blame since it's very difficult to get the signature of someone with a perceived mental disability to actually be fit to sign the contract to begin with. (True law used in a joking way. Don't take it seriously)

Seriously though, the banks are still held accountable, to a point, permitting first that they did not first prevent you from seeing the entire terms of the contract in any way. If you do see and don't understand it and sign it anyways, most of the problems would be on your end. HOWEVER, the courts have thrown out contracts that were perfectly legal, that did disclose everything, but were considered one-sided. Everyone who writes a contract has an obligation to make it relatively 'fair'. If a contract is very one sided, depending on a decision at court it can be thrown out. Most people don't know this, and it can be very difficult to find a lawyer to take it to court (not a lot of money in it, and it's not an easy win), so contracts like that still exist today.

@ballistic90:

Wait, so you're saying the terms provided in the contract are not valid? She freely admits that she signed up for a variable rate card. VARIABLE, as in changing. Said terms are also free to change pending other events, such as defaulting on another loan, failing to pay on time, etc etc etc.

There have also been situations where hospitals don't offer a payment plan upfront and request the money in full, even if a payment plan is available.

Also, there are prolonged stays or family members that are bedridden or require an indefinite stay in the hospital. I can't see a hospital being too quick to settle on a payment plan in those cases, but I've never been in that situation myself.

@SacraBos:

Except that actuarial analysis says that the majority of customers that are only able to pay their minimums and need reductions in rates to continue making said minimum payments are super high default risks. Worst case scenario for BOA is a chap 11 bankruptcy, but judging based soley on her living conditions in the background, I imagine a chap 13 or 7 (with restructuring and disposition of assets) to be more likely.

BOA needed to jump the rates before she defaulted. Get the most for as long as possible if she's walking away no matter the decision.

Writing 'Variable' in a box does not constitute an irrefutable contract, and I'd also like to make a case in point that if it does have a box that says 'Variable' in it in a chart of some time, you're not looking at a contract. You're looking at a loose set of terms that they hand you in a pamphlet.

If you have sudden unexpected medical debt, you can negotiate a payment plan with the hospital/clinic. Their rate will ALWAYS be better than a credit card rate.

@The Marionette:

What part of the world do I need to see to properly understand a hissy fit? Did you even WATCH her videos?

By the by, she consented to the screwing. She took THEIR money and agreed to repay it according to the terms of the contract.

I don't know what "has her's a" means, but honestly, she still loses because if you don't think her name is coming up black to all future lenders you're crazy!

@msbask:

If you remember from the original story, she was making minimum payments on the card. Individuals that make the minimum and ONLY the minimum payment are exponentially risky borrowers. Adding in the fact that she lost her job (she self-reported to BOA) and the actuarial red flags fly up. Her risk of non-payment is/was much higher than the average person.

Well, being debt free is a good aim, but for those that run into medical bills or unemployment, debt is unavoidable. Considering that independent medical insurance can often leave people with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills, I don't blame them for getting into debt.

And regardless of the entire situation, I still, STILL think making a Youtube video to complain about a interest rate hike and to 'rise up and take down the banks' is tacky and over dramatic. It's good for her that it got her results, but still....

Maybe you were overstating your position a bit, no?

Bottom line is, they are required by law to disclose in plain english what your rate is and where it maxes out. You still haven't shown me a single example where this isn't the case.

Furthermore, if I sign a contract w/o understanding it... who's to blame?

Aaaaand an article written by a Harvard Law professor:

[www.law.harvard.edu]

"How did financial products get so dangerous? Part of the problem is that disclosure has become a way to obfuscate rather than to inform. According to The Wall Street Journal, in the early 1980s, the typical credit card contract was a page long; by the early 2000s, that contract had grown to more than 30 pages of incomprehensible text."

Coming from someone trained to read contracts.

@ballistic90: I am not sure why you think I am displeased. Whatever terms she was able to work out with the lender is fine by me. I just don't buy her argument.

My question to you: why would her ability to pay change based on what the charges were for? I don't see how what she spent the money on is relevant to a discussion regarding risk and interest rates.

The fact of the matter is that under the terms of the agreement, the credit card company can arbitrarily raise rates. Because you don't see how they can does not mean that they are not permitted to do so. She has the right to close the account and pay the debt. Paying on time is not a sign of low credit risk, as this is the expectation. Not paying on time, of course, reflects poorly on the borrower.

If she has catastrophic health issues and cannot pay the debt, she is well within her rights to apply for bankrupcy protection and have the debt disharged. Her credit would be ruined for a period of years, but then again, why should someone who literally can't or won't pay have good credit? Certainly someone who is unemployed and/or has a negative net worth is a higher default risk than someone who is employed and has a positive net worth!

If I am a lender, and a borrower wants access to a credit line, I'd determine ability to pay back the debt. If the person was a multimillionaire, I'd consider the risk of default low, therefore, I could only command a low interest rate. If the person could not pay their debt (for whatever reason, medical or otherwise), I'd insist on charging a higher rate as the risk of default increases immensely.

I'm still waiting for an example of a CC app not disclosing all the terms, as you falsely claim to have seen.

Either way, one thing everyone here seems to be forgetting: SHE WAS GIVEN THE OPTION TO OPT-OUT OF THE RATE INCREASE, AND APPARENTLY CHOSE NOT TO.

@drmcclin: I don't think you read the orginal article.

There was no opt-out for her. They raised the rate on her prior balance with no chance to close the account and pay off the balance at the old rate.

As for me not knowing what the terms of the contract were b/c I haven't held it in my hands... Yeah, I'm sure BofA flew some lawyers out to negotiate their standard contract with this lady... If that's going to be your argument, I'm not going to waste any more of my time.

Enjoy.

@DollaValueLIFO: How was she a risky borrower?

As far a hissy fit, I think you may have to see the world a bit more to know what a hissy fit is.

BoA made her a deal and yet has her's a 29.99%, that isn't exactly 12.99% now is it?

@ballistic90:

Sounds to me like your beef is with contract law. More importantly, you ask him to post the part of her contract that specifically allows for the rates to be jumped, knowing he can't...completely ignoring the logical retort, which is hey, ballistic90, post the terms that says that they CAN'T!

Variable rate cards are just that. Any balance on the line is at a VARIABLE FREAKING RATE.

A few years ago, large numbers of complaints had gone up about credit card contracts, because they were exceedingly difficult to read. They took a sample of one to Harvard law to get it 'translated' by a 3rd year law student, and they were not able to find one that could do it. This had led to a reform.

Now, this is very, very important, because a contract or terms of service or any legal agreement will not hold up in court if there is proof that the company is attempting to withhold information from you during signing. If a representative from the company tells you something about a contract when you ask about it, what he said becomes the contract, or at least the part in question. So not only can you NOT tell me what the contract was, but you can't even tell me what the agreement was if you had it in your hands.

Now I'm waiting for your 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' speech that I'm willing to bet that you have stacked away somewhere. Before you do, I would further denounce the financial industry, as I find it irritating that they can increase the interest on a previous purchase, using a legal loophole to do so. A retail company would never get away with requesting more money from a customer on something they purchased previously. The only difference is a classification, and they enjoy a lot of legal protection with said classification.

@ballistic90:

Look at her house, even if unemployed, she clearly has assets of which to dispense in a bankruptcy settlement. You know, assuming she actually is incapable of paying her debts and needs the courts to step in.

It isn't "taking advantage" to change terms that were agreed to by the consumer. I've been un and under employed in the past two years, it sucks. I wasn't even eligible for benefits. I also didn't put up videos on youtube about how I was in debt and making no money and blahblah revolution

That is a lie. Show me one example of a corporation knowingly violating Federal Law like this.

There has never been anything remotely vague or hidden in the hundreds of credit applications I've filled out over my 6 year credit card profiteering career.

You're clearly just grasping at straws at this point.

@DollaValueLIFO:Yes her FICO score is impervious to consumer rants and protests; algorithms don't watch You Tube videos :)

The fact that they didn't put up a fight can be chalked up to one thing: they don't want the negative publicity. Period. They were not "in the wrong".

It sucks that she lost her job, and not everyone is perfect, but life isn't fair and you have to be aware of what you sign and the terms you agree to.

Though I Do Like the tag "don't try this at home" Kudos Laura!!!

She says that the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing..." I don't really want to know where either hand has been.

Precedence: Gateway had been sued for their contracts a number of years ago, because it stated that by opening the box for the computer, you were agreeing to the terms. The only way to read said terms was to open the box.

I've seen credit card applications that didn't give you full disclosure of all the terms until you had already signed up for it.

As you can see, contracts are not the end-all, be-all of legality that they may appear to be.

@drmcclin:

Double agreed, though her FICO won't move with one late payment - usually it doesn't ding until 90 days. It saves the CC companies the trouble of fixing the on time status of folks whose checks got delayed in the mail and such.

@Antiks:

I know bankruptcy is tough to go through, but can you provide more details as to why this is a "Yay" for you?

@sammy_b:

Isn't that so true?

Debt is a tough issue for most (including me, my high revolving balance was $18k), but letting people like the OP get credit for starting some kind of revolt smacks of Hummer owners bitching about gas prices.

But hey, if you ever have a loan that the financial company tries to change terms on you to bilk more money from you, feel free to post her and to be promptly ignored, and/or ridiculed.

Yeah, that's what I thought: You don't. Also, considering the bank took this long to increase the interest, I'd assume she had been paying on time the whole time. Considering that's the terms the bank itself lays out, I don't see how they can raise her rates arbitrarily. Sorry if that DISPLEASES you.

@NeverLetMeDown: unfortunately, i don't think a lot of people understand that a CC is a line of revolving credit. if people understood the difference between a line of credit and a loan, i bet they'd be less likely to let balances get out of hand

The issue here is ALL personal responsibility. She could've avoided this whole situation at several different points, but chose to throw a youtube tantrum instead.

Take the time to educate yourselves before you sign your lives away OR do something that will ruin you or your credit, people.

1. She should have never skipped her August payment in protest as she mentions. That made things worse and would effect her FICO score and lending from other places.

2. She is a bit crazy to think she can speak to a BofA person and be offered a 12.99% rate and her statement sent to her the same day would not say that. The statements are probably cut before she even got the call. Let's be fair and give BofA a day or two to update their system.

@LostAtoll: My name was decided with my tongue planted firmly in cheek. I don't think I am "better" than anyone, and frankly, a major point to my post is that this whole issue is not (or shouldn't be) and emotionally charged one.

I, for one, DO carry a credit card balance. It's very low. If the card company raised it, I'd pay it off. If for some reason I couldn't, I'd expect that my rate would increase. I just don't understand why a woman who wants to rail against the evils of banks, etc, would do business with one. If I felt like I was being screwed by a business that lended to me, I would pay my obligation and stop patronizing that business full stop. If she can't live up to the terms she agreed to (or more likely didn't read in the first place), she can always receive bankrupcy protection.

I don't really know how my view on risk and lending affects my interpersonal relationships, but my social life suits me just fine. You are right about the failed relationships, but that was more because I was dating girls through high school and the first part of college and it turns out I like boys. But I will be sure to send you an invitation to my big gay wedding to my partner of 6 years just as soon as it becomes legal in DC.

@threadislocked: I'm assuming that is what her rate was before they jacked it up. She asked for them to return it to the rate she had before.

@kaptainkk: They aren't screwing anyone over by increasing rates. You have the right to close the account and pay the balance without paying the increased interest.

OTOH, if you have a $5000 balance on a limit of $6000 and pay the minimum every month, you are perceived as being a higher risk than someone who pays the balance each month. As such the riskier borrower pays a higher interest rate.

And if a lender arbitrarily raises rates on those who pay their balances each month, the bank doesn't actually profit because the borrower doesn't pay any interest.

With the increase of bankruptcies, it's to be expected that lenders will increase rates to be compensated for the extra risk.

Bottom line: if you can pay your balances each month, do so. If you cannot, you are a risker borrower and therefore your rate will (and should) increase.

All that said, I think there are plenty of shady things CC companies do like the 20 day grace period, and charging 4% transfer fees and stuff like that. I just don't think raising the interest rate to compensate for taking on added risk is a bad thing.

If the mortgage companies & Fannie & Freddie would have done the same thing instead of giving artificially low rates to those who were uncreditworthy, many of these folks wouldn't have entered in the mortgage in the first place and not bought the house.

A great way to not care what the balance is (my Chase card went from 0% in 2007 to 25% in 2009), is to have a savings account for emergencies, not spend what you can't afford, and pay it off in full every month, well before the actual 'due date.'

@drmcclin: +1

@redskull: It's not that deep. It's not about compassion. It's about ability to pay on a revolving line of credit. One of two things must be true: either she could pay off her balance, in which case she could close the account and not pay the interest; or she couldn't pay her obligation and proves herself to be a riskier borrower which generally indicates an increase in interest rate so that the bank is compensated for increase in risk.

I totally support her right to make a YouTube video and supporting a populist revolt. I support B of A negotiating with her.

I do not support borrowing money and just deciding not to pay it back because you don't like the terms of the credit line.

Are you saying that those who fit the profile of individuals more likely to be able to pay should have HIGHER rates than those who are less likely to pay?

I guess I don't see a credit card as an unalienable right.

@tbax929 is back from the beach: 12% is not a win.

@yorick328:

BoA bought Merrill, not Lehman. Lehman went bankrupt.

@MooseOfReason:

If you use a credit card, and pay your balance in full every month, you won't pay interest. If you don't pay your entire balance, however, you'll pay interest. She wasn't paying her entire balance.

@TuxthePenguin:

Remember, when you borrow money with a credit card, you borrow it for one month. The credit card company _can_, but doesn't _have to_, allow you to continue to roll over the borrowing. It's not one loan, it's a long series of monthly loans.

Don't like it? No one is forcing you to agree to their terms.

It's just disgusting to me how this woman is trying to shift responsibility for HER actions onto BofA. And everyone's buying it hook, line, and sinker just because they're a "greedy mega-corporation!"

Here's a tip: stop enslaving YOURSELVES

Put on a new record, mrgenius.

Did this woman not do that? I'm confused.

@thebaron:

If you invest in a 401k or a ROTH IRA and make over 25-40% in returns over a period of a year or to, are you making criminal amounts of money?

CARD would have changed little in her scenario. Primarily the calculation is as follows: line of credit is extended, they expect to make XXX dollars in interests over the life of her account. She runs in to trouble, starts paying less and less each month. Old debt under CARD is fixed at her lower rate. Her ability to pay is declining. Actuarial tables suggest her data leads to a bankruptcy filing (and discharge of debt) in 8-15 months. In order to make the XXX dollars they wanted when they signed her up, the rates go up to compensate.

@kaptainkk:

But she WAS a risky borrower, so to them, they figured they should cut their losses, jack up the rate and make the most money before she bankrupted.

To suggest that her case was predatory ignores the facts of the prior article. BOA is bad, but they aren't Countrywide.

When I called to ask for a lower rate, I was offered my old rate, but I would have to close the account to get it. Otherwise, tough shit, no offers available, check back nest month.

Solution: I transferred the entire balance to another card. 4% fee, yuck. But 200 dollars in fees is better than 800-900 bucks in interest over the next 12-18 months.

Oddly, when I called back afterward and explained this, suddenly a new promotional rate was available. Funny how that works

@JGKojak:

I'm certainly not on the payroll of any CC companies (nor have I been) and I agree with mrgenius. She threw a hissy fit on YouTube, BOA made her a deal, and she took it. Clearly she's not a stable borrower, and while BOA would rather she pay something rather than nothing, it is likely only a matter of time before the freaks out again.

Let's face it, lenders only screw you over if you let them. Taking out a CC, a mortgage, or a line of credit with terms that singularly favor one party is indicitave of your approval of the terms and conditions contained therewithin. If it means you just signed up for an ARM that adjusts up 10% in three months, deal with it.

Now, that to me is wrong, but I also understand that they aren't promptly repaying the money they borrowed. Its a tough argument either way. Personal responsibility vs corporate greed.

@mrgenius:
Mr. Genius... so how long you been on a credit card companies payroll?

@threadislocked:
I think there's more than whether or not she pays her payments that goes toward calculating interest. If she wasn't happy with it, she shouldn't have accepted it.

How exactly was she "wronged?" A vendor she deals with raised prices, as is their right.

She pays her monthly payments, they should have given lower than 12.99%.

I hope they made her close her account in exchange for the interest rate decrease. Clearly she is a risky borrower and her nonpayment just screws over the rest of us who are responsible with our credit lines.