A friend's response to Citibank survey

[Autumn Colors]

Someone I know from another forum posted this. LOL. I wish I had written this. My feelings exactly....
---------------------

Overall my satisfaction with Citi as a company has hit the fan, and this is despite numerous years of positive impressions and interactions with customer service.

The representative I spoke with on the phone was professional and expedient in complying with my request, but Citi's intentions were made well known by his lack of even a question at why I would opt out of my card. The new policy is to hike rates to get rid of customers, even reliable ones, before the new rules kick in starting next year. A year ago, a representative would've fought to retain a customer, but now it's all clearly different.

To whomever is the unfortunate soul reading this, I apologize. But your company spiked my interest rate to 29.99, despite never having missed a payment, and having no late payments in my recent memory. In fact, the default rate didn't change, and it was left at 29.99. And because of my unwillingness to submit to this egregious request, my credit score will invariably take a hit.

That's not a rate adjustment. Those aren't "New Terms." That's an insult. It's a middle finger straight from the Citi executives.

And, dear reader, I know this isn't your fault. And it's not your representative's fault either. I can only hope that you retain some humanity, and your job, in this horrible period for your company.

[MadMaddie]

1. I hope more folks do this!

[varelse]

2. Very well done

I hope it grows some legs :)

[SOS]

3. Citibank should have been seized by the OCC in September 2008

This insolvent, corrupt, usurious outfit should be out of business, not charging 30%.

[nilram]

4. I hadn't thought of it that way. Why would they *want* to get rid of cc customers?

I was hit by the 29.99% rate change, too; also with good credit. They probably don't like that I pay may cards off every month, but they seem to make this change to everybody. They generally make money from everybody, though less from the likes of me. Do the new rules distinguish between new and existing customers? I can't see why they would want to get rid of customers.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. I don't think they want to get rid of customers,

they probably assume most will sit still for it. Isn't that rate high enough to be considered usury? And the Congress, as a whole, is a party to it.
:shrug:

[nilram]

6. Yup, I agree it's usary, and that Congress is party to it.

But this was a question about the original posting's statement that Citi is wanting to get rid of customers. Wondering why the OP had that conclusion. Still wondering.

[FBaggins]

7. Usury is historicall a state-defined term

A 30-year-old USSC case says that nationally chartered banks aren't impacted by state-to-state usury laws, but by the bank's home state. That's why many credit card companies used to put their HQ in one of a handful of states (usually Delaware IIRC). State-chartered banks were added to that loophole a couple years later DIDMCA by changing it to federally insured (rather than "chartered") banks.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley (and following state laws) then said that a bank could charge higher rates (even if they were only in a state with a low usury definition) if there were another bank with branches in the state that could charge a higher rate due to be HQ'd somewhere else.

So now basically any credit card can charge just about anything and it isn't (legally) usury.