mbna 2% no maximum letter.

jnd

Used to look forward to the 0% offers even with the 2% transfer fee but I reckon now there's no need to keep this card anymore.

Handling fees etc....... will remain at 2%. Minimum fee £3 and there will be no maximum. With a 10k credit limit that's a £200 fee!

I assume this is just the main MBNA cards and not any affinity ones. Maybe someone can confirm.........

Walletwatch

Why am I not surprised? It fits in with the gradual phasing out of stoozing opportunities - the general clampdown on moneysavers taking advantage of interest-earning avenues.

Just hope that the few good souls left in the trade (like egg) last long enough.

Why do I get the spooky feeling that fora like these are monitored by the banking community and counter-strategies designed?

YorkshireBoy

Yeah, but I'm still new to this stoozing activity and, although I initially thought I'd jumped on an ebbing tide, I'm hoping that the banks realise that cutting their noses off to spight(sp?) their faces isn't the best way to make money.

I still believe that good deals will continue to be offered, because for every MSE there will be 100 people "not so expert with their finances". Therefore the card providers will still make money from them.

Just my opinion

realaledrinker

"Fora"???

OK so you got GCSE Latin, but"Forums" sounds easier on the ear to me at least!!

realaledrinker

I agree with Yorks Boy.

Provided egg stay on-side, there are plenty of 0% offer around to stooze into your savings account.

Tim_L

There's a general move towards fees. You'll find many issuers are starting to amend T&C to include the "may charge a fee" provision.

The industry are quite aware of stoozing (if you want to prove this to yourself, go to google and look up the word and look at the ads section on the right as you page through the results). Previously it's been tolerated because the aim of the game is to build market share, but as more people do it it becomes increasingly costly. Whether or not people in the industry read these forums, they're not stupid, and perfectly aware of how their cards are being used.

Walletwatch

realaledrinker wrote:

"Fora"???

OK so you got GCSE Latin, but"Forums" sounds easier on the ear to me at least!!

Both fora and forums are correct expressions, realaledrinker. I prefer 'fora', so think I'll stick with it.

westernpromise

Tim_L wrote:

The industry are quite aware of stoozing...Previously it's been tolerated because the aim of the game is to build market share, but as more people do it it becomes increasingly costly.

I read a report online this morning which suggested that 0% debt now accounts for 7% of all personal debt:-

"In total, 7% of all unsecured debt reported in the survey is interest free. This proportion is higher among homeowners (40%) than renters (30%); it increases with household income; and it is greatest among those in employment. So interest-free credit seems to be targeted at — or more accessible to — households who are likely to represent better credit
risks."

Here's another gem:-

"Between 1995 and 2002, on average 34% of homeowners with unsecured debt reported that it was somewhat of a burden or a heavy burden, compared with an average of 49% of renters with unsecured debt."

Taken together, those 2 statements go a long way to explaining why 0% players don't like renters.

Full report here http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/qb/qb040401.pdf

I'd always supposed that us stoozers were quite small players, but if the 7% figure is right, we are quite significant. Unsecured debt in this country is about £180 billion, so if 7% of that is on permanent rotating stooze, that's £13 billion that's earning the banks nothing. So stoozing costs them around £600 million a year in interest foregone.