Tag: Typical

CFPB Bans Excessive Credit Card Late Fees, Lowers Typical Fee from $32 to $8

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a rule today to cut excessive credit card late fees by closing a loophole exploited by large card issuers. The rule will curb fees that cost American families more than $14 billion a year. The CFPB estimates that American families will save more than $10 billion in late fees annually once the final rule goes into effect by reducing the typical fee from $32 to $8. This will be an average savings of $220 per year for the more than 45 million people who are charged late fees.

“For over a decade, credit card giants have been exploiting a loophole to harvest billions of dollars in junk fees from American consumers,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Today’s rule ends the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.

Concerned that credit card companies were building a business model on penalties, fee harvesting, and bait-and-switch tactics, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act). The law banned credit card companies from charging excessive penalty fees and established clearer disclosures and consumer protections.

In 2010, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors voted to issue a regulation implementing the CARD Act, which made clear that banks could only charge fees that recover the bank’s costs associated with late payment. However, the rule included an immunity provision that allowed credit card companies to sidestep accountability if they charged no more than $25 for the first late payment, and $35 for subsequent late payments, with both amounts to be adjusted for inflation each year. Those amounts have ballooned to $30 and $41, even as credit card companies have moved to cheaper, digital business

Read More ...

A New Gold Typical for Electronic Ad Measurement?

At any time because Neil Borden coined the term “marketing mix” in 1949, organizations have searched for techniques to examine and refine how they market place and promote their products and solutions. For a extensive time, the major analytic technique to this issue was “marketing mix modeling,” which employs aggregate gross sales and internet marketing data to recommend strategic adjustments to a firm’s advertising and marketing initiatives. But in the realm of digital advertisement measurement, this solution was largely taken for an outdated behemoth, quickly outmaneuvered by the quick, exact, and deterministic attribution new technologies enabled.

Now, however, advertising blend modeling is producing a comeback.

Why? For 1, basic modifications to the digital adverts ecosystem — these as Apple’s new restrictions on what advertisers are equipped to observe — indicate that deterministic person-stage measurement of electronic promoting results is only likely to get extra difficult. As this knowledge dries up, companies that do not adapt run the danger of out of the blue obtaining by themselves in the darkish. In this new landscape marketing and advertising blend designs (MMMs) have a certain advantage: They are able to generate trustworthy measurements — and insight — purely from pure variation in combination information, and do not have to have person-amount info.

Earning MMMs component of your promoting analytics toolkit isn’t as straightforward as flipping a change, even so. Below the completely wrong problems and without careful steering they can be imprecise and can misinform a company’s marketing and advertising decisions.

Firms that want to start — or restart — using MMMs need to use advertisement experiments to dial in their electronic advertising and marketing method. A established of discipline scientific tests that we carried out with electronic advertisers indicates that the approach of applying experiments to calibrate versions is wanted to relieve

Read More ...