Nickel And Diming At A 279% APR
Courtesy of a reader, no photoshops were harmed in the creation of this usury. Granted, the finance charge seems to apply to a minuscule amount of what we can hope is merely an overdraft, or some other comparable fluke, yet all vocal consumer protection advocates in the Hill may want to take a look at what exceptions allow BofA to charge almost 3 times the balance as annual interest. And people wonder why the dollar carry trade is alive and well (and why nobody is borrowing).
(3 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:38
#118233
It's time to get us some new politicians in Washington who are beholding to us. This bought and paid for current crop of yahoos are too busy trying to stave off investigations into their misrepresentation to actually do something.
The person in Bank of America who authorized that interest rate needs to be fired. And ... hold your breath with me ... BofA should apologize and write off the debt.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:06
#118272
BofA is a fed govt undertaking....
"BofA should apologize and write off the debt."
are you kidding me or what...?
They are prepping their machines for hyperinflation and 279% is like 2% Balance Transfer Rate in 2011....This is america, we do everything large here, be it cars, food, debt, apr...you name it.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:26
#118301
Yes, fired. Out of a cannon. Into the sun.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 13:01
#118442
Yes fired, booted in the ass out on to the street where an angry crowd with ball bats awaits.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 14:02
#118584
Good grief Angie, can we keep the government out of this. Just stop using these stupid big banks. If enough people would just use local banks and credit unions, we could be done with these criminals.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:39
#118234
Nice. Really...it's legal.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uixz214-Cok
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:43
#118240
Once again, the black sharpie doesn't cut it. Tyler, maybe you can use photoshop to black out the name out a bit better.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:45
#118243
LMAO at Mel Watts this morning. Did he see this headline?
"Bank of America’s Next Chief May Be Based in New York"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a.K1W0A_k3A0
Can't wait until the new CEO guts Charlotte.
That's the loyalty you are going to get, Mel, you stupid fucker.
Next time think about supporting your people, not the corporatists who will knife you in the back the first time you turn around.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:47
#118247
Nothing wrong with pushing the weak around. I guess that's why they never aired the episode of gilligans island where he freaked out shoved the skippers hat up his butt yanked it out of his mouth rubbed it all over his eyeballs until he got pink eye then stuffed it in his belly button where it was NEVER found again.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:48
#118248
Anyone maintaining an unnecessary account at BOA, or any other taxpayer supported major bank, is helping to keep these banksters in business, getting their fat bonuses, and all done by sqeezing the little guy.
I've been withdrawing monies every month from these shysters for the past several months. You should see the look on the local manager's face whenever I walk into his branch. "Sir, What can we do to stop these withdrawals"?
I'd love to see everyone do the same. IMO, they do not deserve to be in business.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:08
#118274
My dad is one of those ideots....
Told them to move money to a credit union but the old guy won't listen.
on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 08:08
#119450
A staunch Republican maybe
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:33
#118302
Problem is that there are not many real "alternatives" out there. On the same principal I have started helping the house of Dimon and likes... What a shame.
Surprises the sht out of me though I am still enjoying some generous 7.24s from C!! (the rest of the costs and fees deferred to April 15th of course)
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:16
#118370
You're absolutely right. A boycott is the only recourse citizens have against the TBTF banks.
By why are you "withdrawing monies every month" instead of closing the entire account?
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 13:51
#118549
That's why I keep a checking account a B of A (no fees) with $50 in it and a 0% interest balance of $2500 (used it to buy gold) on the credit card they issued me with the account.
I'd leave the checking account totally empty, but I use it to make the minimum monthly amortization payment.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:54
#118258
Leave them alone, they are just trying to pay back the TARP.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:04
#118267
gold and dollar rising together, change in character
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:04
#118268
Wow. This site has lost it. It is easy to see at the top that the guy used $1.50 of the credit line and most rational people know that banks have some minimum finance charge such as $0.50 or $1.00 if you use the revolving credit feature. This is leading to the high rate. You guys are real dopes.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:06
#118270
I can't stand BAC either, but his rate is really 12.9%. This 279% is certainly just a function of a fee he incurred on his $1.50 outstanding balance. No big deal.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 14:07
#118595
It is a big deal. I overdrafted my account at a certain TARP bank once, by ~$15. The transaction that caused the overdraft brought me about, $7 in the red and then I charged a burrito, $6 and some snacks at QT, $2.
I was charged the following:
$35 - for overdrafting in the first place
$105 - $35 for each overdraft transaction
$35 - for maintaining a negative balance for 5 business days.
So that's $175 on a $15 loan (though they would never use the term "loan" or it would be usury) for a week. That's ~ 60,000% IRR.
I yelled at the bank manager for about ten minutes, but just paid it. I am fairly financially sophisticated so I just write it off as a stupidity fee (never overdrafted again, that's for damn sure). But for someone who doesn't know anything or doesn't have $175 to spare that is huge and completely usurious.
The worst part is that I asked the bank manager to change my account settings so that I couldn't overdraft, and the card would just be declined. I was told that they couldn't do that. So basically they are encouraging overdrafts, charging ridiculous fees and telling someone who asked not to be extended credit to fuck off. That is a bullshit business.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:13
#118279
He only has a $1.50 outstanding. Does the APY calculate fees on outstanding balances?
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:14
#118280
To TD: It looks like there isbreaking down of corelation. Dollar is up,yet gols is up oil is up (from yesterday).Even though the market looks hesitant,but yet with 10 year at 3.44 I expect a drop in the market. But why is gold up with the dollar up?could life after QE be very volatile and full with surprises?
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:29
#118307
The same thing happened at the beginning of this year.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:16
#118282
I hate to be the one defending BOA (ever), but this APR was applied to what appears to be a balance of $1.50.
Given that the APR includes minimum late fees, etc., on such a small balance a 279% APR is quite possible.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:29
#118304
This seems quite likely, but just demonstrates how the "law" (ha,ha) on credit card arrangements bears little resemblance to the law governing virtually all other contracts and commercial transactions. Hundreds of years of common law history prohibit a contract from imposing a penalty just for penalty's sake. Liquidated damages are fine, if they are reasonable (which is usually a wide barn door of a test), but I can't see that a late fee of $30 or whatever imposed on a $1.50 balance is reasonable.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:20
#118379
Actually, I think it demonstrates how a measure like APR is inadequate. If they charge him $35 for being late and that is calculated as a finance charge, the true problem is that APR is a stupid measure of what actually happened.
Now of course, the $35 late fee is another matter altogether...
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:26
#118299
Liesman just took a savage beat down from Santelli. Should post that clip.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:35
#118316
Saw that and it was deserved. I am pretty sure Liesman said something like why should you care about the value of the dollar.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:30
#118310
MASSIVE UPSIDE EXPLOSION IN GOLD.
BUY GOLD NOW.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:46
#118327
The easiest and best way to obscure information on a document that is going to be photocopied is to use a product like Liquid Paper's Dryline grip.
I have been using it for years to alter documents that contain data that I wanted not to exist.
It has never failed me. The data is completely obscured and if done correctly, one cannot tell that the data ever existed on the document.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:54
#118339
There may be a simpler explanation for this:
Back in the day I spent some time in the CC biz, and generally the finance charges are the greater of X% of the balance or some other rate/fixed amount. Doubtful, but something along those lines may explain this statement.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 17:44
#119018
The undrestanding you bring to specific subject matter continues to astound..
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:59
#118347
The trouble is when you hybridize Democratic/Republican Solutions the end product is lots of laws and no enforcement.
Door number three please Vanna
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 12:32
#118394
The guy has a current balance of $1.50. A minimum finance charge easily explains this.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 13:33
#118505
279% APR -- But look at all the perks you get. 2 for 1 mileage and they will match your change.
on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 14:53
#118711
Hey somebody has got to pay for K. Lewis's package. 279% APR on balances might just take care it.
on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 17:14
#124071
People, this is BS. I see perhaps many of you have never encountered this. This is not actual 279 APR, it is a stupid calculation that includes all the overdraft, overlimit, etc fees, as if the were part of the interest charge. THe automatic portion of the bil this overstates the annual apr for this month. Next month, if there are no extra fees, except for the interest, the rate will show 1/12th of the corresponding annual APR of 12.90 as per the picture. If the person in question had a balance of $100, means he would pay around $1 in interest per month, now if you add one $29 fee this month, and the computer calculates $29+$1 as interest and the balance is $100, the results as follows:
$30x12=$260 per annum. $260/$100 (balance) = 260% apr. There you go.
I hate the banks as much as the next guy, but don't take it to ridiculous levels, and know the subject in advance before wasting your time and spreading misinformation. A real 270% APR would create so much havoc in the fractional reserve system, that it wouldn't even be benefitial to the banks themselves at this point
on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 22:42
#124262
...and forgive my last post's spelling. I was in a hurry, but I suppose I relayed what I needed.