It sounds like this credit card legislation DOES control the APR

[TwixVoy]

From what I have read this credit card legislation will do the following (among other things)

*APR for past balances can NOT be changed just because the lender feels like it.

*APR for past balances can ONLY be increased if payments are not made for over 60 days.

*Even if payments are not made for over 60 days, the rate must go back down if the person continues to pay for six months

Sounds pretty good to me. People know how much they are going to pay APR wise if they carry a balance, and that rate can not be changed randomly on them.

[hobbit709]

1. That's why they're all raising it now

BEFORE any new laws take effect.

[ejpoeta]

2. the msm has been talking about how the credit card companies will make a profit.

they can't target college kid, supposedly either... which i like. so, to make profits the cc companies may bring back annual fees and get rid of the perks. good. and a question i have is.... when did we get to the need for super crazy profits? i mean, wouldn't it be better to have a steady consistent profit rather than a super profit from those who may not be able to pay but you may not get paid? i tend to not have much sympathy for cc companies who courted folks with financial troubles already just because they could charge more interest. or courting college students, many of which who didn't even understand the concept of the credit cards. me, the only cc i have is connected to my bank account. and my husband has a home depot card because he needed a revolving credit for his credit score. the fact that they can rig our whole worthiness for credit to make it so we HAVE to have credit cards ticks me off. gotta have it to rent a hotel room or a car. grr.

[stray cat]

3. Some people think borrowing money w/o collateral should be relatively cheap and easy

[TwixVoy]

4. Hopefully it won't be anymore

However... when you have an entire economy that produces little and is based on consumption using credit......

[Still Sensible]

5. This legislation is not as good as the

congressional leaders or the White House will claim. Nor is it as bad as some here would claim. I would have liked to see an absolute cap at 20% (some here have suggested 15%) to prevent usury. That is not in this bill because of the influence of the bankers on Congress. The protections against arbitrary rate hikes being applied to past balances is good.

If credit card companies start/continue jacking up rates in advance of this new law they should be called out on it. In the old days, we could count on some in the MSM to do that. Today not so much.

[madfloridian]

6. That's not how this reads....CS Monitor

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/19/credit-card-bill-what-it-does-what-it-doesnt-do/

Bank of America is raising rates right now on past balances. They can do it because they told us were going to do it.

Since I use it moderately, I will continue to use the card for online purchases. Hubby and I will put off other purchases we don't pay cash for.

Yes, they can jack up the rates with no limits on them.

[madfloridian]

7. "-No cap on interest rates or fees."

-No cap on interest rates or fees. It does not put a maximum on the interest rates or fees that credit-card companies can charge consumers.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/19/credit-card-bill-what-it-does-what-it-doesnt-do/