I think you do have, however, the option of sending in a separate check and giving specific instructions on how you wish this payment to be applied.

Congress is telling the Credit Card comany how they must apply the excess payment. The minimum payment is not addressed, so their is no restriction on how that is applied. How the mininmum payment is applied is decided by Credit Card Company and the terms of the agreement that you agreed to. Your assumption in this case is based on a misunderstanding with how you percieve the agreement between you and your lender. You will have to check with them. But they are not violating any law in this respect, since it is not addressed they can do what they want with the minimum. Particurly since the minimum payment is calulated by figured by a percentage of all the different varing sub interest rates into one payment. They can do what they what with it depending on your agreement with them. Check with the lender to see how the minimum balance is calculated and their probably a section there describing how THEY apply the minimum payment. I assume for the sake of simplicity your credit card company just applies entire minimum payment to the higher rate. It makes sense realy because Goverment should not be medeling too much into how buisness conducts a private transaction between and you and your lendor. And the lender doesn’t want to spend to many BTUs figuring complicated account managment in appling payments.

“Payments in excess of the minimum amount due must go to balances with higher interest rates first.”

If this is correct then they should be applying the minimum to my lower rate and the balance to my higher rate. Unless MSN got it wrong or I am interpreting it incorrectly.

The $1.69 would most probably be the interest charged on the balance between the time your mom recieved the bill and the time the CC company recieved/posted the payment.

It would also be nice to see a spreadsheet with each credit card statement showing a breakdown to the penny. Meanwhile, if you look for the Federal Reserve Bank’s Regulation Z we can at least see a description of how interest is calculated.

I think the new CARD Act also didn’t go far enough. Still, considering how far it actually did go and the resulting difficulties it has caused for a lot of people to get or keep credit, I think the best thing is for COngress to take baby steps and get involved in only those battles that involve clear deception and abuse on the part of the credit card companies. For most Americans credit is a lifeline — just like the blood flowing through their veins — while for the rest it is a very convenient product that makes life a lot simpler. Even though I don’t need credit, I would really hate to have it disappear.

I could — again — be wrong, but in my opinion most credit card companies are actually pretty good. Yes, some without a doubt do suck, but by and large the ones I do business with have been pretty decent — fair, ethical and open. I don’t mind them making money.

It easier to jugle one ball instead of two. If for some, whatever legitimate reason, the you were not able to pay off the entire balance at the end of the month. It could be possible to have a situation where the lower interest rate has a lager balance than the higher interest rate. Over a period of time that lower interest rate balance could still add up.

It is not unlike haveing two credit cards each with a different interest rate. One lower one higher. If can’t afford to pay both off in full, I would rather knock one out all togather to eliminate it despite the lower interest rate. And then concentrate on the smaller balance card with the higher interest rate. The card with the lower interest rate but the higher balance would just nag at me each month.

All I am saying is that the consumer should have the flexablility to apply the payment as they sit fit.

I was looking at my phone bill and internet/TV cable bill from Verizon. Sure it is 10 pages long. But it does give a clear break down of every penny that can be added up with simple adding machine if one took the time to look at it. No ambiguity there on how the total sum was calculated.

Why can’t credit card companies be so transparent?

Additionally, the new law was effective in my newest bills showing breakdowns of how long it takes to pay a bill off at a minimum payment and the sum total of that cost.

The law did not emerge out of thin air. But it also did not go far enough. How do we get the drafter of that bill to make a second one that really addresses consumer needs? I know, I know, baby steps. The new law is a good start though.

Basically I have no problems with a potential creditor saying they offer no grace period on purchases. Again, consumers who do not like the policy are free to take their business elsewhere — as I imagine many will — and sooner or later, I believe, the creditor will either adjust their business model or find themselves inundated with a portfolio of subprime borrowers.

Aside from it now being illegal and, when not illegal, inherently unfair, I don’t have any specific problems with double-cycle billing per se. I have never carried a balance so interest rates, to me, are irrelevant.

I am not sure if the behavior described in the SmartMoney article is really a disguised attempt at double-cycle billing or not. My understanding — and I may be wrong — is that double-cycle billing is only prohibited in those cases where a grace period is offered. I would need to see Macy’s T&C from that specific date to see what was happening. If Macy’s had double-cycle billing for those who had no grace period because they did not pay in full while having a grace period for those who did pay in full, I would think their conduct violated *in spirit* the intent of the recently enacted law.

Actually, the whole double-cycle vs. average daily balance concept can be very confusing. I’d like to see someone present some common, clear examples on an Excel spreadsheet to dumb it down for us in easy-to-see terms.