All web pages are only one page. Hardly a fair metric for length.
I have two credit cards and a bunch of store specific credit cards. I haven't used the store ones in a while, so don't have any bills handy. I know the Visa has the rate listed on the second page, after all the current and new charges, but I don't have any second pages to confirm (I only keep the current/new charges segment of the bill, rest to the shredder). Amex... credit limit, available credit, previous, current, new balance, cash advance limit, and an available cash all in the first 1/3 of the 1st page. Current rates listed on page 3, again after all the charges. Even shows daily periodic rates and changes to rates from last month so you can determine how much interest as accrued since the bill was printed.
None of this was hidden or difficult to find. I can call cardholder services at any time and find out this information, too.
I'll start with what I think should be done:
1) I agree in part with the "no unilateral adverse changes for no reason" item. I'm against the part where they say the consumer must affirmatively consent to new terms, this will just unnecessarily increase processing time and costs, leading to marginally higher rates and annoying the hell out of most consumers. It's like the new user credentials feature in Microsoft's Vista OS. It sounds good on paper, greater security, more user information and knowledge, etc. But at the end of the first day using it you want to throw the computer out the window, ask your computer nerd friend how to turn it off, and if she's a good friend she tells you how, otherwise they let you suffer. This consent thing sounds good on paper, but in practice it will be an annoyance and get in the way for most people. But, I said I do agree with this item in part... I do believe there should be prior notice for all changes except those enacted through law or court case. A period of 1 month should be sufficient. If a person continues using the card or carries a balance after that point then they are agreeing to the term changes.
2) There is a "Ban retoractive rate increases" item, which is the idiotic idea I mentioned before of essentially turning a credit card into a monthly fixed interest loan for each month's purchases. This is bad for a lot of reasons which I'll go into if you want to delve into it, but suffice it to say I think there is a compromise that would be okay. Impose a prior notice clause on rate changes. If a change is desired by the company, they notify in the statement for the month that it will go into effect starting on the purchases made 1 month from that time. This allows time to either pay off the balance, get a loan to pay it off, or to transfer it to another card if desired. It will also prevent people from making a purchase in the time between the statement being printed and the statement being opened. This one month delay allows the card to retain it's adjustable rate nature while not surprising anyone with a new rate without time to adjust their spending behavior and/or make arrangements for the current balance.
3) Real minimum payment warning: I kind of like this one, but don't think it is a necessary regulation. Kind of thing that would be a good selling point for a card company to do of their own volition to engender some customer loyalty. Also probably of little use to someone who's making minimum payments except to make it clear just how badly they've screwed themselves. If they're doing minimum payments, they're in trouble and simply knowing the scale and duration of it doesn't help them make that payment any larger.
Next, your highlighted point: Enhance ‘Schumer Box’ disclosures. As a New York state resident I say anything named after Chuck Schumer can't be good.
Not that I know this is actually named after him. If it is applied only to post-application agreements and not to the applications themselves, I think this is reasonable. It is also probably entirely unnecessary. The issue here appears to be not that the agreement doesn't already include all this information, only that it isn't in a 5th grade comprehension format. I'm a strong advocate of not dumbing our world down so I have a natural inclination against legislating things to the lowest common denominator. I'd suggest that if a person needs the information to be so presented that they probably don't know what they're signing anyway and have bigger problems than not having Schumer's kind gentle hand to guide them.
Highlight gripes with this plan (not a full list):
1) No unsound loans: While I understand the impulse behind this, I think it is unnecessary and would unnecessarily limit the amount of credit available to most people and businesses. I do not want government defining what "sound underwriting principles" are. They could do themselves a favor by not bailing out lenders if they screw up.
2) Restrict lending to youth without conditions: What is "youth"? Last I knew no one under the age of 18 could enter into a contract without parental consent so I think they mean 18+, which are adults in my book and are thus ready to make their own damned mistakes. Will they make mistakes, certainly, but the great thing about youth is that you have a long time to learn from and fix your mistakes.
3) No abuse of consumers in bankruptcy: This item isn't very specific, but the language makes it sound like credit card companies are forcing people into bankruptcy. To this I say BS, the person forced themselves into it by using too much credit. Maybe they had to, maybe they didn't. It matters little because at the end of the day, if you don't have the cash to make even minimum payments then you are probably missing payments on other things too and need major intervention or a bankruptcy hearing anyway. It's cold, but it's the truth.
4) Ban universal default in all its forms: I suppose they want to stop car insurance companies from raising rates on people for speeding tickets too. When a person defaults on another line of credit or even misses a payment, it is a sign that things might be going off the rails and it makes all the sense in the world for other credit lenders to assess the person's risk of defaulting on their credit as being higher and charge higher rates as a result. This is the negative incentive built into the system to prevent people from letting a payment lapse and to protect the credit issuers from a consumer trying to maintain their spending level through increased use of other, non rate-adjusted cards.
5) Stop late fees for payments mailed on time: Dumb. It clearly says on the statements when payment is due. If it doesn't match up with your paycheck schedule or something then call them up and ask for the billing cycle to be shifted. If they don't do that, then tough, plan ahead. I've been nabbed by this once or twice. Learn the lesson and move on. I actually called them once to let them know it would be late, they waived the late fee. Nice.
6) End roll-over or repeat late and over-limit fees: Basically they want the card company to be strong armed into de facto extending the person's line of credit if they spend beyond it. Sure, they can charge the over limit fee in the first month, but never again, even if they leave the over limit balance on the card. I don't even know what a repeat late fee is. If a person is late with their payment each month, then they get a late fee each month. Pretty simple, no?
7) Ban unfair teasers: Again, I've never seen an application that didn't include the normal purchase/cash advance rates. Astrisk/small print, sure, but clearly indicated none the less. And their complaint that teaser rates can not be termed "fixed rates" is bull. Often the teaser rate is a fixed rate for any outstanding balance you want to bring onto the card. Or it is a fixed rate for a temporary time period (12 months) for new purchases and carry over balances. These are great rates and terms and of great use to a consumer, of course the company should be allowed to trumpet the rate and term length.
8) Ban pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration: I hate that they usually precondition that any arbitration or court dispute has to be in a jurisdiction of their choosing (DE or CA). But, I'm against this item none the less. Such clauses are a cost saving measure that attempts to handle disputes without going to the expense of a trial. These clauses don't preclude trials from happening, even as a first step, they only discourage them from being a first step. They also don't preclude a cardholder from seeking legal counsel in the arbitration process. If someone is so aggrieved that they believe a trial is the only solution available or proper, they can do it. These clauses often say in such an event the cardholder becomes liable for court costs and legal fees of the company if the card holder loses the case. I'm not sure if such terms are enforceable or not, probably depends on the state and the judge. This item sounds like a gimme to trial attorneys, and given Schumer's name has already been invoked I must say I'm not surprised.