FINANCIAL FREEDOM IS A PHONE CALL AWAY

Call Now Toll Free! 1.866.761.1227

Credit Card History

The credit card was the successor of a variety of merchant credit schemes. It was first used in the 1920s, in the United States, specifically to sell fuel to a growing number of automobile owners. In 1938 several companies started to accept each other's cards.

The concept of using a card for purchases was invented in 1887 by Edward Bellamy and described in his utopian novel Looking Backward. Bellamy uses the explicit term "Credit Card" eleven times in his novel (Chapters 9, 10, 11, 13, 25 and 26) and 3 times (Chapters 4, 8 and 19) in its sequel, Equality.

The concept of paying merchants using a card was invented in 1950 by Ralph Schneider and Frank X. McNamara in order to consolidate multiple cards. The Diners Club, which was created partially through a merger with Dine and Sign, produced the first "general purpose" charge card, which is similar but required the entire bill to be paid with each statement; it was followed shortly thereafter by American Express and Carte Blanche. Western Union had begun issuing charge cards to its frequent customers in 1914.

Bank of America created the BankAmericard in 1958, a product which eventually evolved into the Visa system ("Chargex" also became Visa). MasterCard came to being in 1966 when a group of credit-issuing banks established MasterCharge. The fractured nature of the US banking system meant that credit cards became an effective way for those who were travelling around the country to, in effect, move their credit to places where they could not directly use their banking facilities. In 1966 Barclaycard in the UK launched the first credit card outside of the US.

There are now countless variations on the basic concept of revolving credit for individuals (as issued by banks and honored by a network of financial institutions), including organization-branded credit cards, corporate-user credit cards, store cards and so on.

In contrast, although having reached very high adoption levels in the US, Canada and the UK, it is important to note that many cultures were much more cash-oriented in the latter half of the twentieth century (Germany, France, Switzerland, among many others). In these places, the take-up of credit cards was initially much slower. It took until the 1990s to reach anything like the percentage market-penetration levels achieved in the US, Canada or UK. In many countries acceptance still remains poor as the use of a credit card system depends on the banking system being perceived as reliable.

In contrast, because of the legislative framework surrounding banking system overdrafts, some countries, France in particular, were much faster to develop and adopt chip-based credit cards which are now seen as major anti-fraud credit devices.

The design of the Credit Card itself has become a major selling point in recent years. The value of the card to the Issuer being related to the Customer's usage of the card. This has led to the rise of Co-Brand and Affinity cards - where the card design is related to the Affinity (a University, for example) leading to higher card usage. In most cases a percentage of the value of the card is returned to the Affinity group.

The ultimate extension of this is the personalised card, first used by Bank of Hawaii in 1969, but now delivered online by software firms such as Serverside to banks including ANZ, KBC, Abbey, Fortis and ING.

Controversy

As mentioned, the merchant pays a negotiated fee -- typically 1-3% for larger merchants and 3-6% for smaller merchants -- to process credit payments. Merchants who accept credit card payments typically sign a "merchant agreement," promising that they won't offer different prices for card and non-card transactions. In some countries the fee may be significantly more. If customers were responsible for this fee, it would often discourage credit card usage. Some critics have observed that this results in what is effectively a hidden tax on all transactions conducted by merchants who accept credit cards since they must build the cost of transaction fees into their overall business expense. The end result is that other customers are essentially subsidizing credit card holder purchases. The cost of the convenience enjoyed by card holders and the profits taken from transaction fees by the card industry (which has come to rely increasingly on this revenue stream over the years) is partially offloaded onto the backs of the cash customer. Critics go on to say that further compounding the issue is the fact that the customers most likely to pay in cash are the least able to afford the additional expense (card holders are more likely to be affluent, non-card holders less so).

A counterargument is that there are also costs to the merchant in other forms of payment. For cash payments these include frequent trips to the bank or use of an armored delivery service, theft, and employee error, such that cash is actually not cheaper for the merchant than credit cards. Some businesses may offer a discount for cash-paying customers.

Some companies offer incentives or bonus coupons for using cash, such as Canadian Tire Money. Australia is currently acting to reduce this by allowing merchants to apply surcharges for credit card users. In the United Kingdom, merchants won the right through The Credit Cards (Price Discrimination) Order 1990 to charge customers different prices according to the payment method, but few merchants do so (the most notable exceptions being budget airlines and travel agents). The United Kingdom is the world's most credit-card-intensive country, with 67 million credit cards for a population of 59 million people.

There also exists an economic argument that credit card use increases the "velocity" of money in an economy. The result is higher consumer spending rates and higher GDP. Although there is many a sad story of credit card abuse, the trend is increasing use, with some predicting a cashless society in the not so distant future.

There is some controversy about credit card usage in recent years. Credit card debt has soared, particularly among young people. Since the late 1990s, lawmakers, consumer advocacy groups, college officials and other higher education affiliates have become increasingly concerned about the rising use of credit cards among college students. The major credit card companies have been accused of targeting a younger audience, in particular college students, many of whom are already in debt with college tuition fees and college loans and who typically are less experienced at managing their own finances. A recent study by United College Marketing Services has shown that student credit lines have increased to over $6,000. Credit card usage has tripled since 2001 amongst teenagers as well. Since eighteen year-olds in many countries and most U.S. states are eligible for a card without parental consent or employment, the likelihood of increased balances, unwise use of credit and damaged credit scores increases.

According to Larry Chiang of United College Marketing Services, an example of a credit card class action was where issuers were "rolling back" posting times to extract more late fees. The due dates were "rolled back" from 1pm to 10am because mail was delivered in the afternoon so due dates were actually rolled back to charge more late fees. The following banks are listed (with the amounts penalized) in this one particular class action.

Another controversial area is the universal default feature of many North American credit card contracts. When a cardholder is late paying a particular credit card issuer, that card's interest rate can be raised, often considerably. Given this circumstance with one credit card, universal default allows other card issuers to raise the cardholder's interest rates on other accounts, even if those other accounts are not in default.

In the United States, Congress has been slow to introduce credit card reform legislation. A push toward expanding the disclosure box and incorporating balance payoff disclosures on credit card statements could help clarify credit card debt's ramifications.

Minimum payments

In the UK, there has recently been increasing concern about the minimum payments required on outstanding credit card balances. Until the mid-1990s the required minimum monthly payment was generally 5% of the outstanding balance, but competition in the last 15 years to attract customers has led to this figure being eroded on the premise that the minimum monthly payment to service a debt will be lower. Typically, credit card companies now only require a monthly minimum payment of between 2% and 3% of the outstanding balance, or a fixed cash fee, whichever is the greater. For example, on a debt of £1,000, the card holder can expect to pay back only £20 - £30 per month.

Unfortunately, some people are not aware of how long it can take to repay a debt when only paying the minimum each month. An example of this: by paying 2.5% of the debt each month, while accruing interest at 14% (in line with modern credit card interest rates), it can take over 14 years to pay back an original debt of £1,000.

It has recently been suggested that credit card companies include a warning on their statements discouraging customers from paying only the minimum, however few companies have so far acted upon this. Companies which do include a warning tend not to inform customers how long full repayment will take, i.e. they discourage users from making just minimum payments but do not explain why. Less financially savvy customers may ignore these empty warnings as a result.

Starting in 2006, most US credit card companies regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have been required to increase customers' minimum payments to cover at least the interest and late fees from the prior statement plus 1% of the outstanding balance. The reason is to avoid a negative amortization situation which may result when the previous 3% minimum was enforced.

Trailing interest

Trailing interest, sometimes called final or residual interest, is a method of calculation whereby interest is charged right up until the day of a full payment. Cardholders of banks that use this method receive a bill with the balance owing and interest accrued and pay it off in full. On the next statement they are billed a "final" amount of interest even if no purchases or cash advances have been debited since. The reason for this is that interest continues to accrue from the time of the close of the previous statement until the day the payment for that statement is actually received.

In comparison to the normal method of interest calculation, this method is judged by many to be a hidden and thus unfair cost. Uninformed cardholders often inquire as to what amount they need to pay by their due date in order to have paid off their credit card in full and to stop interest from accumulating. They then proceed to pay off this amount under the belief that they are finished paying interest charges, only to find trailing interest on their next statement which was posted to their account on the day of the statement billing (so even if they check their balance a day before that next billing date, it would still show a zero balance).

All information provided by Wikipedia

T.A.S.C 539563

DSCP Accredited

State Certified