很多意見是立法者講的, 不是我掰的, 是立法目的與考量.
如果是個人想法, 我會標記 屬於個人想法.
每個產業, 都有好同業, 也有不肖業者, 我沒有想要一竿子打翻一船人.
q 最近通過實施信用卡法案 The credit card accountability responsibility and disclosure act
v 立法目的º杜絕predatory lending practices
· Raising rates on existing balance unless late over 60 days
· Require 45 days notice before raising any rates
· Increase disclosure requirements
· Limits the credit card companies to market the cards to young people
v 就像多數立法, 新法亦採負面列舉違法行為.
R 負面列舉式的立法究竟有效管制信用卡生意?
正反論者皆有, 討論管制方法之前, 先了解[信用卡] 管制對象
v 理論º信用卡本質=小額借貸. 借人錢, 怕欠錢不還, 晚還, 還不完. 零零總總風險便轉為利息形式, 一來獲利二來保險 (消費者償還本金, 信用卡公司賺取利息).
v 實務º 今日信用卡公司對索取本金沒興趣 Lender lending a loan really not wanting to get paid back
è哥倫比亞大學oo教授 “Swap box model”
v Swap box model
· 目的 : 發卡公司無興趣取回本金, 要消費者持續繳費
· 手段 : 貸放款額度超過消費者能負擔額度, 消費者無力償還本金,
º利息+ 各類費用 (fees, penalties…etc) > principal (offset losses)
ºOf course it’s predatory
v Predatory Lending
· No conscience with regard to the consumer’s ability to repay
· Keep paying, never getting out of debt, locked-in as annuity就像在跑步機
§ 個人想法 : 華人的傳統文化實在厚道, 反求諸己. 倘若發生在我國, 我們的家庭, 社會, 學校, 會一面倒火力全開譴責消費者. 千錯萬錯都是消費者不睜大雙眼, 不想清楚量入為出, 扣上 “月光族” 的罪名. 推論至極 î 怎麼可以怪罪業者.
反觀美國社會, 除了呼籲消費者睜大雙眼 (是呼籲, 但並未“指責”消費者) 更釐清 “公平” 尋求 “合理”, 立法規範 “不合理的從業行為”.
就算修法未臻完美理想 í起碼嘗試盡力做, 找平衡點 î.
q 信用卡管制法案
R 始自1968 The truth in lending act
v 立法精神º Disclosure model
v 基本假設º開誠佈公資訊
è消費者接觸, 理解, 運用資訊
è將做出明智且負責決定
ü 是否需要
ü 哪種需求
v 假設瑕疵º Disclosure model is not so good for complex financial products
· Credit cards used to be simple (Single interest rate, maybe an annual fee)
· Today, credit cards have various:
ü Price points
ü Interest rates
ü Fees…etc
· Credit cards became far more complex than any other consumer financial product (若不信, 有興趣同我詳讀並比較汽車貸款, 房屋貸款說明, 條款?)
回顧一下假設如何不成立, 導致模型如何失效…
v 基本假設º開誠佈公 資訊 N>
x消費者接觸Ó理解Ó 運用資訊
x將做出L明智且L負責決定
ü 是否需要
ü 哪種需求
v 結果弊害º makes it very hard for consumers to do comparison shopping,
實例: I can look at 2 credit cards and compare purchase interest rates, but …it does not tell me what the total cost of revolving a balance on the card will be
è Without information of the total cost, there is no price comparison
è Without information of the total cost, there is no apples-2-apples product comparison
R 立法目的雖良善, 但手段無效(前提不成立), 資訊無助消費者, abusive practices 層出不窮
v 消費者(受害者)態樣:
· Inexplicit information
º舉例: 長像彷彿支票的預支現金券, 這玩意兒毒的很, 利息近20%, 凡使
用還有手續費
· Hidden price points
ºDouble cycle billing
循環利息本金非當期額度, 而是平均本期額度與前期額度
若本期低額 (甚至繳清前期), 但仍可能被剝兩次皮 (前期併計)
balance on which interest to cruise is not the balance solely of this current billing period, but is the averaging of this billing period and the previous one
o Even your balance is low on this period, but you are paying high notion on the previous one
· Tricks and traps: Time on which the pay is credited (post 2pm, 2 late, late fee, interest charges) 美國有四個時區, 採計哪個時區更加混淆.
· 轉嫁到消費者Charged to the merchant but get passed on to consumers
ºinterchange fees
· Over limit fees, late fees, foreign transaction fees.
R 為什麼立法目的與立法手段脫鉤, 手段無法達成目的呢?
v 負面列舉管制落入 “立法打地鼠” Regulatory Wack a mole
· card companies have strong incentives to innovate around regulation (if the law says card issuers can’t do A,B,C,…then card issuers will come up with practices D,E,F)
v 道高一尺魔高一丈, 後果更加變本加厲
The practice may even be worse than the old practices
· 比方說逾期繳瓦斯費, 或晚繳有線電視費, 會導致信用卡費率上升 (即使信用卡費準時繳清) 這叫做universal cross default 信用連鎖破產
Ex: default on creditors other than the credit cards would trigger the credit default.
· 國會修法禁止業界此行為, 結果業者變本加厲, 導入 “爽, 不需要理由”
隨時隨地, 不問理由, 單方片面調高消費者成本. Industry dropping universal cross default by introducing “anytime, any reason” practice…
v 所以學者 (當然不是業界御用學者)主張正面列舉立法
ºcan’t do anything except a, b, and c
v 具體做法
o product standardization on credit card terms,
o compete its hart out on a few essential price points namely (I rate, transaction fee, availability fee)
o Reasonable product differentiation and price competition
o Making cards like grocery products (unit price, and apples to apples comparison)
v 結果: 國會當然沒有採納
個人想法 : º想也知道, 信用卡公司又不是棒槌, 豈會束手就擒?
º學術正確, 不必然政治可行, 校園講堂與議會殿堂距離
º很多產業一般黑, 目前給我溫飽, 賜我衣裘, 免我露宿街頭的產業也黑
R 意者論, 好在沒通過, 否則過度干預市場, 企業被國有化(社會主義化), 重挫創新精神
v 迷思Innovation is not always a good thing
o An innovative Product is a good thing, but
o Current regulatory system encourages innovation in figuring out how to work around the regulatory rather than how to make a cheaper better product
o Innovation in the credit card industry has not been product innovation but it’s been price innovation
· structure the same credit product to make it less transparent to consumers
ºNegative innovation , we want to channel innovation to benefit consumers,
not to harm consumers
q 新法的優點
v Imposes the basic requirement of contract law on the credit card industry
o 長久以來, 信用卡產業似乎置身於契約法之外. 契約法基本精神: 損害賠償必須合乎比例, 此比例專指可預期實際損害
For a long time, the industry operated as if it is not subject to contract law
Basic contract law principle: penalties have to be reasonable in relate to the actual land of anticipated harms
個人想法 :我很認命的念完信用卡合約 (4號字體, 密密麻麻), 各種費用, 罰款完全不合乎比例原則. 舉例: 晚一天罰30元, 晚一百天也是 30 元. 線性關係與非線性關係都無法得證, 有欠合理.
v Prohibits lots of retroactive term changes
o Current problem: card companies can change your rates, but can change in retroactively to apply to existing balances
o Card limits card issuers ability to do that in a few narrow circumstances
q 新法鞭長未及之憾
v 並未規範信用卡公司向商家索取交易費“interchange fees” to merchants (僅隔靴搔癢提到政府應成立專責單位研究費用). 消費者用信用卡向商家買東西, 每刷一筆, 信用卡公司兩頭收費 (消費者與商家), 交易費除了具轉嫁性之外, 更有許多驚人內幕:
· Home Depo paid more transaction fees to card companies than it spent on healthcare last year
· #1 rapidly growing cost for merchant
· merchant are not seeing value of these additional fees
o 交易費的問題還有:
· encourage card usage even when it is not efficient
· 商家交易費與紅利活動的關係
º如果有機會看信用卡公司給主管機關的財務細部報告, 會發現信
用卡公司的紅利活動, 就是交易費用的扣項. (或論, 紅利活動是回饋給消費者, 無傷消費者權益. 此論沒錯, 倘若會傷荷包?)
º為了刷卡紅利績點, 刷卡次數多過實際需求, 一來消費者卡債變
多, 陷入卡債流沙的卡奴也變多
º二來刷卡次數膨脹, 店家繳更多交易費給信用卡公司, 但利潤反
而變薄, 將成本轉嫁給消費者, 墊高商品價格. 就連不用信用
卡購物的消費者 (用現金, 提款卡, 支票, 等價貨幣券), 也必須蒙受增加的成本價差.
v 還是能殘害幼苗 (只要幼苗自願, 主動送上門, 或者監護人首肯說 “殘害吧”)
個人想法 : 年滿18歲的大學生, 立法者認為不夠成熟, 不夠獨立使用信用卡.
但是掌權者卻安心送18歲的大學生上戰場, 去槍林彈雨裡送死. 兩套標準, 詭異…
v 未規費消費者消費資料 (要稱機密或隱私也可以, 反正各為期主)
o 近期有訴訟案 Lawsuit against - CompuCredit
· CompuCredit was raising rates on people based on where they shop (某甲去看心理醫生à 喔, 他可能會憂鬱自殺, 高風險, 提高他的費用吧)
· 究竟有無侵害隱私權, 頗具爭議性…(目前信用卡公司無法取得產品明細SKU level, item level data) 必然拼命想得到(高舉避免詐欺大旗, 就看遊說團體實力囉) in the name of fraud prevention, in the name of national security, in the name of public interest, in the name of 為你好… 哈
· 身為消費者, 是否願意自動奉上自己資料, 助長他人賺你錢
個人想法 : º當然有一派人士反問, 自己不買什麼鬼怪東西, 行的正做的正, 光明正大, 有什麼好怕人知道的.
º同一批人也許還說過: 執政者可以無止境實施宵禁, 反正我晚上不出門鬼混. 無止境實施戒嚴, 反正我又不跟執政者作對. 無止境言論管制與媒體新聞, 因為執政者會替老百姓把關, 好好過濾暴力色情, 偏激, 對大眾有害的題材…)
.jpg){kind=small}
沒有留言:
張貼留言