no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Credit Card Scams Part II: Reverse Payment Prioritization

June 17th, 2008

I used to think that the debt-relief commercials that said things like, “The credit card companies want you to stay in debt forever,” were ridiculous. I still think that many of the “get out of debt for free” programs that they offer are scams, but they are probably not any worse than the scams routinely perpetrated by the credit card companies.

  1. Debt Collection Practices & Impropriety
  2. The Reverse Payment Prioritization Scam
  3. The Balance Transfer Scam
  4. The Penalty Rate Scam
  5. Exploiting Ignorance: Money for Nothing

In a previous post, I discussed some debt collection tactics, specifically pertaining to the use of arbitration by credit card issuers.Since, to my knowledge, unsecured debt can’t be repudiated without filing bankruptcy, which may involve forfeiture of assets, there really is no such thing as unsecured debt: it is all eventually secured by your future earnings or your current assets in one form or another.  If a debtor contests the charges against him, he is generally compelled to arbitration which is probably meted out by one of a handful of oligopolistic firms, which are really a judicial arm of the creditors themselves, who are themselves a cartel of debt-issuers, operating largely by the same rules, along the same standards. Arbitration is binding and typically upheld by law courts if the debtor escalates the determination. Creditors also use default judgements issued by law courts to encumber real property held by their debtors. This transforms unsecured debt into a sort of quasi-secured debt, since at the creditors’ discretion, the debt becomes a lien that must be repaid.

There are a number of problems endemic to unsecured debt, not the least of which is the legal and economic tomfoolery which permits its continued existence (to be discussed in subsequent posts).  For the time being, I’d like to focus on some other brow-beating tactics used by credit issuers to basically make debt-slaves out of their “customers.”

Let’s begin with what I like to call the Reverse Payment Prioritization Scam. There may be a technical term for this, there may be a more concise term for this. Frankly, I don’t give a damn. I’m at a loss for words trying to cogently pump out a handful of posts on this topic that all came to fruition in relatively short order, so RPP is what I settled on. The Reverse Payment Prioritization Scame is one method that credit card companies use to keep you in debt longer than you otherwise would be. It works like this:

If you carry a credit card balance month-to-month, and you examine your statement, you’ll probably notice that you have several different balances and each at a different interest rate. You’ll have one rate charged for your carry-over balances, a different rate for cash advances (if any), and probably another rate for promotions or balance transfers (if applicable). What you have is three (or more) balances, each accruing interest individually, but towards which you submit a single payment which is only ever applied to a single balance.

One of the biggest scams perpetrated by credit card companies is how they apply your payments. Although some counselors suggest attacking the smallest balance first, in order to win the moral victory of eliminating one debt in its entirety, anyone with 1/2 of a brain will tell you that it behooves the borrower to apply payment to the debt bearing the highest interest rate, first, and until it is paid in full, and then to the next highest interest rate, and so on. ALL credit card companies do the exact opposite, and to my knowledge, there is no way around this.

If debtor make a $100 payment on a $1000 balance at 15.99%, his balance carrying over is $913. If during this billing cycle, he transfers $1,000 from another card at a promotional rate of 4.99% and a $50 fee, this is what happens: The $50 fee immediately wipes out almost all of the principle he had just paid on the previous balance. Then, assuming a payment of $100/month, it takes 11 months to pay off the transferred balance, during which time that carryover $913 becomes $1,057. If the debtor had begun by paying down the highest interest rate first, repayment of debts is accomplished with fewer payments, and with smaller sum payments of principle and interest in the long-run.

In this example, the debtor might have saved $100 or so over the course of a year or two. This does not sound like much, but if the payments are smaller and/or the debts are larger (the average indebtedness is much more than $1,000) and/or any additional transactions occur, the repayment process grinds to a halt. For instance, if the borrower transfers another balance or makes a new purchase on the card, the subsequent payments apply to that lower balance (permitting the higher-yielding balances to accrue more interest charges). Furthermore, since most credit cards are variable rates tied to the prime rate, any change in that rate will affect the repayment schedule, which means that as the Fed raises interest rates, it becomes harder and harder for borrowers to service these debts.

Of course, it’s easy for critics to sit back and say, “Well, you shouldn’t use credit cards unless you can pay the balance each month.” Lulz. If everyone did this, the creditors would quickly go out of business, because it is an unprofitable business model to give people interest-free revolvers. In fact, this business model can only be sustained in a legal environment that permits the creation of ex nihilo debt-money.

Next: The Balance Transfer Scam

Capital Markets are Profoundly Distorted

May 16th, 2008

One of my Finance professors used to always say that anyone who could figure out how to competitively loan money to the small business would be a billionaire overnight. He cited a number of hurdles that would need to first be overcome: the hands-on, labor-intensive inventory accounting that often takes place when evaluating a prospective borrower, and the all-too-often requirement that the borrower mortgage his house in order to secure the loan.

That adage crossed my mind the other night. I started thinking, “Why is it so hard to lend money to small businesses?”

It’s simply too easy for the big businesses to borrow money. Real savings decreases in the presence of artificial and ex-nihilo credit, so there is a smaller amount of savings (in this case, generally, “real” savings) available to lend, at rates comparatively higher than those at which the larger, more politically-connected businesses can borrow.   Real savings decreases because the prevailing interest rate is no longer market-generated, and is generally held artificially low.  Since non-institutional investors can’t earn an adequate return on their investments, the tendency is to forego investment in favor of consumption which is made artificially more attractive by low interest rates.  These low interest rates also send a signal to borrowers, encouraging them to take on more debt than they otherwise would.When big businesses borrow money from big banks, who borrow money from the Government, this is not actual, accumulated capital which they are borrowing.  It is pure debt-money.  The injection of this new money distorts the marketplace, as the recipients thereof use this money to bid resources away from those who don’t have access to the new credit.  They must pay a price higher than the prevailing market price, causing prices to rise.

On the other hand,  if you borrow $20,000 from your grandfather in order to start a Landscaping business, that’s arguably $20,000 of actual, accumulated wealth. It’s money that gramps can’t use in the meantime, except incrementally per the payback schedule.

The substantive difference here is that in the case of the Landscaper, a tradeoff was made: Grandpa foregoes present consumption in favor of future consumption, whereas the big business does not need to make any such tradeoff.
One consequence of this scenario, is that smaller borrowers have a harder time securing loans. Too much credit is being made available to big business, without the backing of any actual collateral. Credit expansion crowds out the real savings, on which smaller businesses depend.  It is difficult for the small business to raise capital, because the market for capital is profoundly distorted.

Treasury Wants Stronger FED

May 13th, 2008

According to the Financial Times, the U.S. Treasury wants to see a stronger Federal Reserve, which would be able to “stop credit and asset market excesses from reaching the point where they threaten economic stability.”

Another argument in favor of expanding the Fed’s regulatory/oversight powers, is that

The market stability regulator must have access to detailed information about all types of financial institutions..

Lulz @ the “market stability regulator.” Maybe it means that they’re trying to “regulate” the economy. One would think that the calculation debate could be put to rest. One would think.

Or maybe it means that they are aggressively trying to find a stable currency, i.e., the economic fiction that there can exist a medium of exchange which is not affected by exchange.  Poppycock, indeed!

I would argue that the Fed is too strong, as it is. All it needed to do in order to prevent run-ups in the housing market (or any market, for that matter) was to put the brakes on credit expansion. But the Fed’s sole purpose is to inflate, in order to concentrate economic power. Neglecting to expand credit when credit could be expanded would be a dereliction of the Fed’s duty towards its member banks (which is to say: all of them).

Of course, the Fed actively tries to manage inflation, so as to give the appearance of economic stability. But the people see inflation as an effect of rising prices. On the contrary, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, caused by the debasement of currency through legal tender laws in tandem with monetary expansion.

Because the people see inflation as an effect of rising prices and not as the cause of rising prices, they have no problem asking for more money to combat the pressure of rising prices. They expect the Fed to accomodate this, all the while not understanding that it is the injection of unbacked, irredeemable fiat money which causes prices to rise, in the first place.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics