From, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/12/banks-supposedly-will-cut-consume...

You have to scroll downa bit, but this a letter received by Yves Smith (the host blogger) from an AMEX customer. And this is obviously from someone whose got a good job and spends a lot of money.

I am writing to tell you about my sincere disappointment with my recent service from American Express. I have been an American Express card member since 2003. I put almost everything on my Amex. I charged and paid-off $91,000 dollars on my card in 2007, it was an especially big year because I got married. So far in 2008 I have charged and paid off $75,000 or so on the card, I got a new job this year and relocated... This is an average of about $7,000 per month in charges and payments over the past 2 years I would think this would make me at least a decent card holder.

On December 12, 2008 the credit limit on 2 of my American Express Cards was cut from a total of $50,000 (way more than I needed, since I rarely carry a balance) to $3,200 (way too low, especially in December), this is a 95% cut and about 1/3 of my average monthly charges / payments over the prior 2 years.

The way to look at this is, how many people are being affected by this? How much combined purchasing power does this remove from the global economy? It affects each and every sector. If Joe Average's credit is curtailed or stopped his purchasing ability to buy cars, computers, big screen tv's etc falls through the floor. That in turn affects the global economy, export growth starts slumping in China, Japan, Korea, Germany etc. Which makes the global economy worse and thus banks will curtail more credit.

In short a vicious self reinforcing cycle. What makes this credit burst so bad is that the global economy is uttery dependent on credit, people hardly buy things with cash and most global players are to the leveraged to the hilt.

What is most frightening is what happens when natural gas companies, oil companies and alternative energy companies are forced to work from cash flows, no access to credit at all? I read that Rockman said his company has been forced to cut their budget from 1.4 bn to 700 million. That's half! And the worst lies ahead. Peak credit will only accelerate the downslope of peak oil.

The consumer simply won't be able to afford much oil and the leveraged producers simply won't be able to survive. It is a possibility but this crisis is getting exponentially worse, but could oil production plummet from 75mn to 60mn or less in one year due to lack of credit?

It's hugely deflationary and the potential is devestating. :-(

Strange that they would do that to someone who has been such a good customer.

Maybe he works in the financial industry or something.

That's the weirdest thing: they're cutting back people's credit based not on their payment history, but on what industry they work in, where they live, and what stores they shop at.

Not to sound contrite, but then they pay in cash.

This is not a bad thing, folks... Actually, this is VERY good in the long run. Here's why:

Let's say I go out and buy $1000 in Christmas gifts and put it on a credit card, and it has 20% interest that I pay off the rest of the year. Ignoring compound interest, I ultimately end up paying $1200 for the Christmas gifts. In other words, another $200 of income is taken from me and given to the credit card company.

If, on the other hand I pay cash for the gifts for $1000, I will not have to pay $200 in interest. I can use that extra $200 for other consumption or (heaven forbid) SAVING.

This is very good news. This gives people a chance to get off the credit card hell that they put themselves in. The alternative to credit cards are check cards... I use one. I never have to worry about a credit card bill... EVER. (I do have a credit card for emergencies, with a $500 limit, but that's always paid off). I am financially much better off not having to loan out my money from a credit card company.

I understand interest. I said I was in favor of more limitations on credit.

However, it seems odd from the credit card issuer's POV. They make money off each transaction, whether you run a balance or not, so it seems strange they would cut off one of their best customers that way.

I don't know if that is so strange Leanan.

I think you explained the reasoning quite clearly one post up - the credit card companies are cutting credit lines based on "the industry the card holder works in, where they shop, what they buy...etc"

Maybe the CC companies are screening the population of card (bag)holders based on their sources of income and buying habits for a good reason.

That reason being, source of income and buying habits likely determine which card(bag) holders will become extinct next.

Makes perfect sense.

If your models predict that 50% of the finance or insurance positions in city X are going tits up... you withdraw exposure to those card holders.

If you know the card holder shops at Department Store Z and your latest D&B suggests that Z is going down the tubes, you withdraw exposure. You don't want your receivables (transaction fees) tied up in court.

Multi-variate segmentation is very powerful.

"50% of the finance or insurance positions in city X are going tits up... you withdraw exposure to those card holders"

Yup. Or if the card holder is in the auto industry, shipping industry... lots of occupations will be losing creditworthyness.

It seems strange they would cut off one of their best customers that way.

Part of the new regulations that just went into effect include more data sharing between various cc companies - and who knows what else. Perhaps this newly married customer who charges $90k per year is a wee bit too risky for some other reason.

cfm in Gray, ME

Geckolizard, I agree that this would be wise. The problem is going to be the way it happens. For example, credit card companies will often lower limits to existing balances - that means a single charge will put people over limit, and send their interest rates up to 30% on their existing balances - which they won't be able to pay. This is likely to drive people into bankruptcy, into foreclosure.

The other issue is that when people are laid off, lose insurance, etc.., they usually do run up their credit cards - it isn't a good thing, but it does serve to mitigate some of the suffering - they can hang on for some months, they are still eating, they can still keep their interview clothes clean and their kids warm. Take away credit lines, and that fallback position is completely gone - period.

Add to that that those who lose them are likely to experience credit quality declines - which as more and more people move out of owned homes and into rental markets, mean that it gets harder to find an apartment. No credit means travel is harder - those looking for jobs in other areas end up sleeping in their cars, rather than a motel. And, all industries that rely on credit take the hit - instead of gradually declining sales, we see a sudden, full stop.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you we need less credit, and wiser use of what we have. I don't carry a balance. But the truth is that some people do need large credit balances - small business owners, for example, or someone trying (if anyone still is) to build a house. This is going to really be another blow to the economy - just as we should be spending less, but the problem is that all of us spending less at once is an issue.

Sharon

Very interesting counterpoint. Thanks!

FWIW...the new regulations wouldn't let them raise interest rates on existing balances, unless they were more than 30 days late.

.... the truth is that some people do need large credit balances - small business owners, for example, or someone trying (if anyone still is) to build a house.

And therein lies the answer to why the banks and credit card Capones cut credit to ''good'' customers. They simply can no longer afford to have so many people have so much outstanding credit, even if they pay it back at the end of the month. The numbers get too large. It's not just that one guy, there's millions of people like him. If 10 million people at one given company have $7000 outstanding basically continously, the company has to find financing and insurance for $70 billion at any given time, all the time. They simply don't have the collateral, and they can't take (re: pay for) the risk.

This is, among other things, what the term "credit crunch" means. It's not about the client paying back or not, though the risk factor increases hugely, and so does the insurance, whatever form it may take. It now comes down to the cold hard numbers in the morning: what do you have, what are you owed, and what are the chances you'll get that back?

Come January, this will be true for business throughout the economy, and the consequences will be disastrous. Everything runs on credit, nobody owns enough to do without. This has always been a great system for banks until now, they have worked hard to establish it. Imagine, every penny spent carries an interest rate owed to you, including all the money the government issues.

The new regulations will make credit availability worse, until credit is there only for who doesn't need it, and of course that has already been discounted in all sorts of rates. I say good riddance, because although people are used to credit, making loan shark operations an essential part of your economy is a process that cannot possibly end well. That said, expect the largest credit card companies to apply for bank holding company status when push come to shove. I think Amex already has?!

The end of credit will be a hard lesson, though. Think Clint Eastwood. Pay first, talk later. Lines of credit, letters of credit, they are disappearing so fast it's scary, and they are the sole lubricant of our economies.

The end of credit will be a hard lesson, though.

I saw a scary story on the BBC. Apparently the Commora (Italian Mafia) credit business is doing great. When people can't get credit from legitimate sources, they turn to those who aren't so picky. And the mob isn't so concerned about the credit risk, they have effective ways of preventing defaults.

And probably lower interest rates, too.

And fashionable Art-Deco redesigned kneecaps too.

Credit card interest rates are obscene. Anyone who actually does not pay off their cards every month is not very financially smart.

On the other hand, I have one card that rebates 3% on all gas, dining out, office suppy stores and hardware stores. I have another that rebates 2% on everything else. Well, that is a no brainer as long as you pay off the balance every month.

What if you lose your job and your credit at the same time like a lot of other people?
How would you buy food with no credit? Pay medical bills, car expenses, utilities.
Credit is a buffer, and without it, a lot of people will become homeless.
Even stocks, homes and savings are losing value.....
We may be living in tent cities soon!

What if you lose your job and your credit at the same time like a lot of other people? How would you buy food with no credit? Pay medical bills, car expenses, utilities.

I have money saved away. I'd have to be unemployed for about 3 years before I run out. So, I'm golden... But, I am unlike the 90+% of the population... Yeah, too many people have lived hand-to-mouth for too long (even going so far as to leverage themselves to the moon) and this is causing a lot of issues...

When I was much younger, but still not young, I remember that after I first got my job at a very big oil co, I applied for a credit card. No! Had to be there a year. Couldn't get a mortgage, had to change banks -- no credit history. By the time my kids were teenagers, and didn't have a pot to pee in, except mine, they were getting credit card offers every week.

I go thru the roof when every 5 years or so something slips up and a payment is late and I have to pay a penalty. I hate credit cards and don't use them for credit -- I use them simply as a way of not carrying around a lot of cash. And when I first got one, it was because you needed it to rent a car. I didn't have one then.

Credit cards don't solve the problem of losing jobs. They make it worse, even though one resorts to them if there's no choice.

The solution to losing jobs is, individually, savings, and societally to guarantee a job to everyone willing to work. What can't and shouldn't be guaranteed is high standard of living -- but the basics should be. The idea that the billionaires have worked for their money is becoming laughable. There needs to be steep progressive taxation, estates too, so that there is a net for people. Millions of people don't hit the bread lines because there's a sudden epidemic of laziness. The bailout money is totally misdirected.

I share your aversion with credit cards and have never had one in 40 years of
working. Why not get a number of debit cards to avoid carrying around cash?
You only spend what you have saved and there are no service fees, at least here in
Asia.

Hm, I had to think about why I (we, my wife and I) don't use our debit card. I keep a minimal amount in my bank (debit card), and the rest someplace else. By using a credit card, we don't worry about overdrawing, and just make sure to pay on time, and add more to the account if needed. In other words, we do utilize the few weeks of free credit, free as long as we don't slip up.

I think they are doing it based on "Models", and we know how well those work?...

I also believe that social mood plays a prevalent role in how we feel and behave.
This 31 page PDF document was written in Dec 2007. Explains the kondratieff long cycle. Predicts the current fiasco pretty well. We are in the midst of a severe deflationary winter. These cycles tend to persist for some time - A generation or more from historical records and observances.

http://www.thelongwaveanalyst.ca/pdf/07_12_04_News.pdf

It's probably based on a change in his payment pattern/average payment amount.

I've had no change in my American Express credit line, and I've had no changes in my trading credit lines or personal credit lines.

Also, those "deflationary winters" and similar cycles don't hold up to back tests.

All that needs to happen to stop deflation in the prices of goods and services is for the rest of OPEC to follow through on the cuts Saudi Arabia has already announced.

If you have a job that requires a lot of travel, and I suspect that is why he charged so much on his amex card, a $3200 limit could easily be reached early in the month. Think of how many people this could affect in the world. It would require using several credit cards just to get through the month.

I travel a fair amount overseas, anything less than a 10k limit is useless since some of my trips may last a month. Try getting a reasonably safe hotel in Tel Aviv for less than $350 a night. It adds up pretty quick. I refuse to do business with AMex due to previous negative experience and use my personal Mastercard instead of a corporate card.

USAA for us vets charges 6% interest currently.

AMEX is a real PITA to their merchants too. I know!

They cannot go bankrupt fast enough for me.

Pete

That's the weirdest thing: they're cutting back people's credit based not on their payment history, but on what industry they work in, where they live, and what stores they shop at.

I think they may simply be applying tried and trusted actuarial principles, which are based on probabilities. Payment history is of course one important determinant, but clearly it is not the only one. Debtors may have identical payment histories but that does not mean that they have the same probability of default. All variables count -- where you live, your marital status, your ethnicity -- and possibly whether your dog is a Yorkshire Terrier or a Rotweiler!

Amex credit is based on RECENT amount spent. if you spent 5k a month 2 years ago but recently was only 100$ per month, they are going to limit your purchases. And vice versa.

I wonder if AmEx thinks of this person as a good customer. This person runs up a high balance and then pays it off every month. This leaves Amex with the need to get $7,500 (or whatever) a month to lend to a customer from whom they collect only an annual fee (what, $60-$100?) and never collect any interest. They probably think of this as a lousy customer, not a good one. They use credit cards merely as transaction instruments, not for access to credit. I'm not doing the calculation, but wouldn't a person who has a $3,500 credit limit, maxes it out, and pays the minimum every month be a much better customer from a profit perspective? Also, the total exposure is only $3,500 when that customer goes under, whereas someone with a $50,000 limit causes that much exposure when they go under.

I'm imagining a huge return to the cash economy. People realize it's easier to budget when you see bills and coins slipping through your fingers. There's only a month difference between the consumer who banks the $7,500 and pays cash all the following month and the guy who spends $7,500 using a credit card and pays it at the end of the month in full.

Of course, that transition month will be a real pain.

Very good points, that's why people who pay off their credit bills every month are known in the industry as deadbeats. The profit comes from the clients who don't and can't pay. Al Capone built an empire on the principle.

My guess is that this American Express customer is using one of their "cash back" cards. Their no annual feel Blue Cash card pays back up to 5% on some purchases. Over $75k this can add up to a lot vs. the useless junk the "points" get you on their other cards.

Years ago I dumped my AMEX green card for their Blue Cash card because I got cash instead of other incentives, and no annual fee. Best of my knowledge the traditional AMEX (green, gold, platinum, black) still have no preset spending limit - but must be paid in full each month.

So in this scenario I bet the decision to cut this guys spending limit was purely financial.