Take responsibility for card overspending

By Sally Herigstad

To Her Credit

Sally Herigstad is a certified public accountant and the author of "Help! I Can't Pay My Bills: Surviving a Financial Crisis" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). Ask a question. To Her Credit archive

Dear To Her Credit,
I have $52,000 in credit card debt. I was enrolled in a debt-solving company plan for a year, during which time I paid $657.50 per month and settled two accounts.

With the economic downturn, however, we've been unable to make our full payments. My husband had his hours cut back at his job, and I lost a lot of clients due to the economy (I'm self-employed). I called my debt-solving company to ask if I could reduce the monthly payment for a short time and they said "No." So here I am -- I have already paid them $4,500 and I am back to square one.

Now I am considering bankruptcy on this unsecured debt because I have exhausted every possibility. It's wrong that a consumer should have to pay a company to work with the credit card companies on settling your debt at a reasonable rate because they will not communicate with you. They only will harass you until you're dead and after. So I feel my only option is to file bankruptcy and start fresh. The credit card industry had better look out because President Obama is coming after you. They are nothing less than organized crime. -- Pamela Jean

Dear Pamela Jean,
You are in a tough spot right now. It's bad enough when a recession hits one of your jobs, but both of yours have been affected. I'm going to be honest with you, however. You and your husband put yourselves in a position where any dip like this in the economic road could throw you off kilter.

It's easy when times are good -- especially if they've been good for a long time -- to spend money like the good times will last forever. We look at what we make now, or what we've been making for the last year or so, and decide how much we can spend. The budget expands to fit what's coming in. If we have available credit, the budget can easily expand to use that up, too.

There always have been and always will be economic bumps in the road, unfortunately. Not planning for them can be disastrous. Your $657 monthly payment on credit card debt didn't seem bad when you and your husband were both working full time. Now, it's a hard burden to bear.

Before you get mad at the banks, think about who got you into this predicament. It wasn't the credit card companies. All they did was lend you money that you promised to repay (although communicating with banks can be frustrating -- no doubt there). The debt reduction company did what it said it would do; it negotiated lower balances and consolidated your debts. In return, you agreed to pay a fee and make monthly payments. Perhaps there is more to the story, but it seems you are taking your frustrations out on companies that only want to you fulfill your ends of the bargains you made.

To see it from their point of view, imagine you loan $20 to your brother-in-law today. Next week, he says he wants to negotiate what he owes you. He offers you $10, or even $5. What would you say? I'd think he'd better have a pretty good reason! That's the scenario credit card companies are facing every day with thousands of customers. They are under no legal obligation to automatically reduce people's balances without good cause.

I don't believe $52,000 is worth going bankrupt over. That's only $26,000 apiece for you and your husband -- not impossible amounts for two people in their working years. Bankruptcy costs money -- a lot more than the ads promise. If bankruptcy costs you $5,000 by the time you pay a lawyer and trustee fees, that's money that could have gone to reducing your debt instead. And if you thought debt negotiation was a letdown, wait until you try bankruptcy! Most people who file for bankruptcy later regret it.

Debt negotiation didn't fix the problem. Bankruptcy won't fix it easily or without consequences. Even President Obama cannot make your debt go away. Only you have the power to take control of your finances from this day forward. But you need help to do that.

An outside person who has helped people through troubles just like yours (or worse) can help you see all your options and then help you formulate a plan. Be sure to find a reputable, nonprofit credit counselor.

It's never hopeless. Please see a financial counselor as soon as possible. Make an appointment this week.

What you buy, where you shop may affect your credit

By Connie Prater

What you buy and where you shop may affect your credit score.

As credit card companies continue to tighten their lending standards on card users, some are using purchasing data -- gleaned from millions of card transactions processed daily -- to weed out who may or may not be good credit risks.

Shopping your way to a better credit score
Our interactive guide lets you drop items into a shopping cart and see whether they may raise or lower your score. More

Have you used your credit card at merchants specializing in secondhand clothing, retread tires, bail bond services, massages, casino gambling or betting? Your credit card issuer may be taking note -- and making decisions about your creditworthiness based on your purchasing behavior. The reason: Buying used clothing or retread tires may be an indication of financial distress and a preamble to missed credit card payments or defaults.

Now, Congress and federal regulators will be probing the extent to which credit card issuers have used information about where a person shops or what they buy as reasons to lower credit limits or increase interest rates. When credit limits are lowered, it can adversely affect utilization ratios, a measure of how much of cardholders' credit limits are used. Lowering the credit limit increases the utilization ratio and can lead to a lower credit score.

New credit card law: Study this practice
The new credit card reform law signed by President Obama in May 2009 includes a provision requiring federal regulators to investigate whether credit card issuers used information about where consumers shopped, what they purchased, the types of merchants they shopped with and their locations, and the mortgage company they borrowed from as bases for increasing interest rates or reducing credit limits.

"Where a person shops, in my opinion, has little bearing on whether they can pay back a credit card balance," Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California said during an April 22, 2009 hearing on credit card reform conducted by the U.S. House Financial Services Committee. "I want this study done because I want to stop some of these outrageous practices in the future."

Where a person shops, in my opinion, has little bearing on whether they can pay back a credit card balance.

-- Maxine Waters U.S. congresswoman

The Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission and other banking regulators must report to the U.S. House and Senate financial services and banking committees, respectively, detailing whether card issuers engaged in the practice between May 22, 2006, and May 22, 2009.

Regulators must also determine whether the profiling negatively affected minority and low-income card users. The Fed must make recommendations for any changes to existing rules or laws that may be necessary to curb harmful practices.

Results of the study are due no later than May 22, 2010.

Waters noted that American Express has already acknowledged it used information about where customers shopped to lower credit limits. After a firestorm of criticism and outrage earlier this year, AmEx announced it would no longer engage in the practice.

Is it 'redlining'?
"I'm concerned that limiting credit based on where a person shops or the neighborhood they live in could amount to redlining," Waters said, referring to the practice of targeting certain areas or neighborhoods for discriminatory housing, insurance or lending treatment.

With credit card transactions, every time you make a purchase, a record of that sale is logged into a database of information collected by your credit card issuer. Privacy experts warn that consumers should be mindful of what they buy with plastic and what purchasing data credit card issuers may be analyzing.

Privacy questions
"Obviously that is something that most credit cardholders are not going to think about," says Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a San Diego-based privacy rights groups. "They've obtained a credit card and think they can go out and use it in any way they like."

Experts say cardholders concerned about keeping purchasing habits private or avoiding credit score dings should consider using cash or gift cards, stored value or prepaid debit cards. Shopping at large supermarkets or wholesale clubs -- which offer a variety of product lines -- may also keep some purchases private. Other tips: Spread purchases that may indicate risky behavior over several credit cards to avoid triggering an alert for a single issuer.

"Cash is the ultimate privacy protector," says Stephens. "It's kind of hard to trace. With most other payment mechanisms there is going to be a trail."

But avoiding credit cards for the sake of privacy may present a quandary for some users: If they had the cash to pay for an item, they wouldn't need a credit card. For others, the convenience of using a credit card over other payment methods far outweighs the potential privacy concerns.

Mining for data
Known in the industry by a number of terms, including behavioral modeling, data mining and psychographic behavior analysis, the practice of mining internal credit card issuer databases for customer spending trends and other patterns is not new. Issuers have been analyzing data perhaps since the first credit cards were issued.

Representatives from the four top credit card issuers -- Bank of America, Citi, Chase and Wells Fargo -- declined to discuss details of how they use purchasing data internally. Many consider this highly proprietary information. A spokeswoman from a banking industry trade group acknowledged that the practice is common.

Tracking credit card purchases with merchant category codes (MCC)

Here's a sample of the electronic payment tracking codes assigned to different types of merchants: 4900 Bail and bond payments 5300 Wholesale clubs (Costco, Sam's Club, etc.) 5411 Grocery supermarkets 5532 Automotive stores 5698 Wig and toupee stores 5813 Drinking places (bars, nightclubs) 5814 Fast food restaurants 5912 Drug stores and pharmacies 5921 Packaged beer, wine and liquor stores 5931 Used and secondhand stores 5933 Pawnshops 5944 Jewelry, watches, clocks and silverware stores 7251 Shoe repair shops 7273 Dating/escort services 7277 Counseling services (debt, marriage, personal) 7297 Massage parlors 7393 Detective agencies 7534 Tire retreading and tire repair 7995 Betting/casino gambling establishments 8011 Doctors 8062 Hospitals 8099 Medical services 8351 Child care services 8651 Political organizations 9211 Court costs (child support and alimony payments) A complete MCC list can be found on the IRS Web site.

"The issuing bank has the date of transaction, name of the merchant and the amount of the transaction that allows them to process that transaction," says Nessa Feddis, senior counsel and vice president of the American Bankers Association. She says specific information about items purchased (that you bought a gallon of milk, for example) is not included in the data transferred from the merchant. "As a general rule, the specific transaction information is not transmitted to the issuing bank. They are going to know where the person used the card."

Keeping track
Tracking is conducted for four primary reasons:

• Marketing. Issuers use past purchasing patterns as a basis for offering additional products. Someone purchasing airline tickets with a credit card may get offers of airline rewards credit cards or travel-related services from the issuer or an affiliate.
• Fraud detection. Credit card companies monitor spending to detect unusual purchasing habits that could be red flags for fraud.
• Risk management. Card users who continually go over their credit limits or exhibit unusual spending habits -- such as charging large amounts of merchandise on a card they had previously rarely used -- may be at greater risk of not paying their bills or filing for bankruptcy.
• Law enforcement. Remember that TV crime show where police tracked a missing person or a killer using credit card transaction data? Law enforcement agencies can subpoena records from both the credit card issuer and the merchant to find out the time, date and place of a credit card purchase -- information that may be helpful in determining the last known location of a crime victim or suspect. The Department of Homeland Security also tracks terrorist activity by monitoring certain purchases.

Massive databases of information
Millions of credit card users receive monthly statements detailing their spending during the billing cycle: The standard information provided includes the date of a purchase, the place of the purchase, including the name of the merchant, city, state, amount of the purchase and a transaction reference number.

Every transaction processed by the card networks (Visa and MasterCard) is assigned a merchant category code (MCC), a four-digit number that denotes the type of business providing a service or selling merchandise. The MCC for pawnshops, for example, is 5933. For dating and escort services, it's 7273, and for massage parlors, it's 7297. (See MCC list).

The MCC is used, for example, to restrict health care spending on health care-related credit and debit cards. Some health care flexible spending accounts allow users to make purchases only at pharmacies or merchants with medical-related services. Small business owners also use the codes to prevent employee abuse of company credit cards.

The MCCs, along with the name of the merchant, give credit card issuers a spyglass into cardholder spending.

'A pretty clear picture'
Stephens says the database's purchasing information can provide a pretty clear picture of credit card users. "What do they know about you? Depending on how extensively you use your credit card, they conceivably have a very clear, distinct picture of an individual. It's not only your retail purchases, but your online purchases. It can really paint a very complete picture. The stores that you shop at can paint a picture. You also may use it at a doctor's office if you pay for care with a credit card. Some people pay for their utilities with credit cards."

Depending on how extensively you use your credit card, they conceivably have a very clear, distinct picture of an individual.

-- Paul Stephens privacy rights expert

Federal financial privacy laws (Regulation P) prohibit credit card issuers from sharing your personal and payment information with third parties not affiliated with the issuer (except under court order or when fraud is involved). Banks must send annual copies of their privacy policies to cardholders, but the law does not govern what the issuer does with payment information internally.

It is a common industry practice to analyze the data for trends. Several issuers offer cardholders annual summaries of their spending that categorize purchasing by type of merchant and amounts spent. This information can be a handy tool to help families budget for the coming year and determine where they can cut back in spending.

"Once you use your credit card at a store, that code is tracked," says Steve Shaw, a strategic marketing manager for Fiserv, a company that develops online banking software to help financial institutions manage customer accounts. Shaw says banks are developing programs to track customer transactions and activities. The information is used to help make customer-specific offers of services. "A lot of financial institutions are trying to find more ways to generate revenue."

A rare glimpse into the details of behavioral modeling was revealed in a federal lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission in June 2008 against subprime credit card marketer CompuCredit Corp. According to the lawsuit, CompuCredit used an undisclosed behavioral scoring model to track customer purchases. The company lowered credit limits on cardholders who shopped at certain establishments or used certain services, including pawnshops, massage parlors, tire retread shops, marriage counselors and bars and nightclubs.

CompuCredit agreed to a settlement that included crediting $114 million to the accounts of affected cardholders and paying a $2.4 million penalty. The company did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Risky behavior?
The recent credit crunch has placed greater emphasis on using the data to predict who may be a higher credit risk. Credit card issuers have said people living in states hard hit by foreclosures, such as Florida, Nevada and California (referred to as the "sand states") may be considered increased risks by virtue of the fact that they live there. People who shop at the same establishments where subprime borrowers shop also may be considered higher risk.

Feddis, the ABA spokeswoman, says decisions to cut credit limits based on customer behavior are based on evidence. "They don't want to risk a bad judgment that's going to lose a good customer. It's too hard to get a good customer," Feddis says. "They must have some sort of statistics that would demonstrate it's predictive -- to show that people who shop at pawnshops within six months stop paying their credit card bills."

Stephens, the privacy expert, warns of the potential fallout of using purchasing data. "One of the dangers of data mining is you're getting a little snippet of information that doesn't portray the full picture," he says. Does one purchase at a pawnshop signal a pattern of credit trouble? How many purchases qualify?

Stephens says issuers should make clear disclosures about how they use purchasing data: "We recognize that most consumers don't read privacy policies, but nonetheless, a company that is utilizing data in this fashion ought to make it quite clear that the purchase transaction history is being utilized for purposes other than billing ... that they are using it to make re-pricing decisions as well as credit line adjustment decisions."

Europe to U.S.: Back off online gambling enforcement

By Martin Merzer

U.S. credit cardholders and issuers hoping to clear the legal minefield that currently surrounds online gambling are finding new backers in an unlikely place -- the 27-member European Union.

The European Commission, which administers the union, ruled this week that U.S. laws that ban most forms of online gambling discriminate against European companies and violate international trade agreements.

A 94-page report released by the commission in the wake of an investigation it began on March 11, 2008, concludes that "the U.S. measures constitute an obstacle to trade that is inconsistent with WTO [World Trade Organization] rules."

In addition, the commission alleged that the U.S. Department of Justice has been strong-arming foreign banks and credit card processors as part of its campaign to discourage online betting.

Though the Europeans could seek sanctions, they prefer to engage the Obama administration in negotiations, according to the commission's representatives.

"Internet gambling is a complex and delicate area," said EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton, "and we do not want to dictate how the U.S. should regulate its market.

"However, the U.S. must respect its WTO obligations," she said. "I hope that we will be able to reach an amicable solution to this issue."

Long battle over online gambling
"Complex and delicate" puts it mildly.

The controversy over Internet betting has been intensifying for years, complicating life for gamblers, generating serious compliance issues for credit card issuers and other bankers, and reaching deeply and regularly into Congress and the White House.

In the most recent round of political gamesmanship, legislation that banned U.S.-based firms from conducting most online gambling operations was approved by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.

Passed in the dead of night and widely criticized as vague and confusing, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) did little to block online betting -- it merely nudged gamblers into using European or other offshore Internet gambling sites.

To this day, Internet gambling remains a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States. The European Union estimates the size of the U.S. online gambling market at $4 billion annually, though other estimates range as high as $12 billion per year.

Other laws used to enforce gambling ban
Meanwhile, the commission found, the U.S. Department of Justice has been citing other laws -- including the Wire Act and Travel Act, both passed nearly 50 years ago -- to harass European companies active in the field of online gambling.

"There has been substantial enforcement activity by the DOJ against EU Internet gambling and betting companies and their shareholders and executives," the report said.

"This activity includes cases where the investigation has resulted in formal charges being brought against EU companies and executives and/or a settlement with the authorities, and cases where a criminal investigation has been launched and is ongoing but has not yet resulted in formal charges being brought."

In addition, the report said, U.S. officials have been targeting credit card payment companies that process transactions between European gambling operations and American gamblers. At least two firms have been fined millions of dollars and several principals of those firms have been arrested.

This report particularly shows the inconsistency of the Bush administration, which frequently argued we had to abide by the WTO even when it cost American jobs, but ignored the WTO when it didn't fit the conservatives' ideological beliefs.

-- Barney Frank U.S. congressman

All of these actions violate trade agreements signed by the United States, according to the Europeans, and must cease.

"The obstacles to trade identified in the complaint have forced the total withdrawal and/or absence of EU companies from the U.S. market and have significant negative effects on their business outside the United States ...," the report concluded. "The obstacles to trade can therefore be considered as causing and threatening to cause adverse trade effects, having a material impact on a sector of economic activity and a region of the [European] Community."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, swiftly found much to admire in the report. Frank recently introduced legislation that essentially would replace UIGEA with a law that would permit U.S.-based companies to accept online bets from Americans.

"This is further argument for repealing the law, which currently restricts the personal freedom of American adults to gamble online," Frank said. "This report particularly shows the inconsistency of the Bush administration, which frequently argued we had to abide by the WTO even when it cost American jobs, but ignored the WTO when it didn't fit the conservatives' ideological beliefs."

Frank's proposed legislation would require investigations of potential licensees and technological barriers to deter underage gambling, fraud, money laundering and tax avoidance.

Back on the other side of the ocean, the Remote Gambling Association, a London-based group that represents online betting companies and filed the original complaint with the European Commission, said it was looking forward to a speedy resolution of the case -- one that would ease the way for U.S. credit cardholders to legally place bets over the Internet.

"The publication of the full report will now enable others to see what a comprehensive and objective investigation was undertaken by the European Commission before it reached such a clear conclusion and found in our favor," said Clive Hawkswood, the RGA's chief executive. "This is another step forward in the process and we hope that negotiations between the U.S. and E.U. on this issue will now progress to a satisfactory outcome without delay."

New credit cards to help in fight against breast cancer

A new credit card launched by Bank of America will allow consumers to help support breast cancer research and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a prominent breast cancer organization, through their everyday banking activities.

With each new "pink ribbon-themed" card or account opened, Bank of America will make a donation to Komen for the Cure and will contribute an additional percentage of each subsequent purchase a consumer makes. For each new credit card, Komen for the Cure will receive a minimum of $3 and a minimum of 20 cents for every $100 in purchases. New BofA checking accounts or check cards will also contribute $2 each to Komen and 10 cents for every $100 in purchases made with the check card. Bank of America pledged between $1,950,000 and $2,700,000 to Komen by 2011.

Katrina McGhee, vice president, global partnerships, for Komen, said the partnership will strengthen the fight against breast cancer by raising awareness as well as funds for research and community funds. "This new partnership represents a great opportunity for the breast cancer movement," said McGhee.

Consumers can sign up for Komen cards or accounts at any BofA location or at certain Komen events, such as the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, which the bank is also sponsoring for the first time.

"We are very excited to have the Susan G. Komen for the Cure partnership and the availability of their branded financial services products through Bank of America," said Mike Simpson, affinity management executive for Bank of America. "Their mission touches many lives and continues to have a great impact with the efforts to find a cure for breast cancer."

The Susan G. Komen Foundation arose from a promise to fight breast cancer that founder Nancy G. Brinker made to her dying sister, who would serve as Komen's namesake. Since 1982, Komen for the Cure has raised $1.3 billion for research, education and health services and with more than 100,000 volunteers in 125 locations, is the world's largest breast cancer charity.

Credit card foreign transaction fees going up

By Tamara E. Holmes

If you're planning a foreign trip, double-check with your credit card issuers to find out how much using your credit and debit cards will cost you: Many have increased their foreign exchange fees. (See charts below)

If you've used your credit card overseas before, you're probably aware that the convenience generally comes at a cost, as card issuers tack on a foreign exchange fee (sometimes called a currency conversion fee). The amount of this charge varies from card issuer to card issuer, as do the guidelines for determining when this fee will be added on.

"Most people have three or four cards and every card has a different foreign exchange fee," says Charles Leocha, publisher of Tripso, a travel news and commentary Web site. For that reason, it's worth taking the time to find out which cards will add the least to theyour trip's overall cost.

Breaking down the fees
Visa and MasterCard, which handle the transactions between the merchant and the bank that issued your card, each charge a 1 percent foreign transaction fee. However, most card issuers that use the Visa and MasterCard payment system add their own fees on top of that. If you have a Bank of America MasterCard, for example, you'll pay the 1 percent MasterCard charges plus an additional 2 percent levied by Bank of America, for a total of 3 percent.

Discover and American Express don't utilize the Visa or MasterCard payment system, but they, too, add their own fees for foreign transactions. Both have raised that fee recently. American Express now charges a 2.7 percent foreign transaction fee, up from 2 percent, while Discover recently started charging cardholders 2 percent after charging no foreign transaction fee for purchases made overseas. If you have a Discover card, it's also important to note that it's not accepted in many countries, so the foreign transaction fee may not even be applicable.

The percentage charged by card issuers varies, but can you avoid the fees completely? You can if you have a Capital One card or some Charles Schwab cards. Both of those issuers waive the fee completely, which can save cardholders a lot of money if they travel frequently, says Linda Sherry, director of national priorities for San Francisco-based advocacy firm Consumer Action.

Cardholders also face a costly change in the definition of the word "foreign." It used to be you were charged a "foreign" fee only when you made a purchase while standing on foreign soil. Now, Visa and MasterCard have both redefined foreign transactions as any purchase that at any point touches a foreign bank. So, for example, you can be sitting at your computer buying a piece of clothing online from a company based in France. If that company uses a French bank to process transactions, Visa and MasterCard charge your card-issuing bank an additional fee. Most large card issuers pass the fees on to their customers.

If your card issuer has been taken over by a bigger bank, the change in ownership also may cost you. Before they were swallowed by bigger banks in 2008, Washington Mutual and Wachovia charged cardholders only the 1 percent MasterCard/Visa fee for foreign transactions. Today, Washington Mutual is owned by Chase and Wachovia by Wells Fargo. Chase and Wells Fargo also pass on to their cardholders the 1 percent MasterCard/Visa foreign transaction fee and both tack on an extra 2 percent fee of their own.

Most people have three or four cards and every card has a different foreign exchange fee.

-- Charles Leocha Tripso publisher

The cash factor
Not only do you have to pay to use credit, but many banks charge for using debit cards to make purchases and for accessing cash at foreign ATMs. Make sure you find out the cost of each scenario so you can determine whether it makes more sense to use your debit card to make a direct purchase or to use it to make a withdrawal from an ATM and pay with cash instead. For example, Citi charges a 3 percent foreign transaction fee for purchases made with a debit card, while if you are a Citibank user withdrawing funds overseas from a nonCitibank ATM, you'll pay that 3 percent foreign transaction fee along with $1.50 per withdrawal.

Consumer advocates have voiced concerns that the cost of using plastic overseas will go up, as a result of the Credit Card Act of 2009. "Some foresee that fees in general will be a place where banks will look to make up for some of the lost income from their inability to put higher interest rates on accounts," says Sherry. "It has been mentioned that this could be an area that some issuers might add another percentage point."

Others complain that card issuers and banks often don't make this information readily available. In some cases, the foreign transaction fee is not easily found on a card issuer's Web site or on credit card statements, meaning cardholders must call the issuer to even find out what the fee is. "It is a hidden fee in every sense of the word," says Leocha. "They do have it in their fine print, but the normal consumer has no way of knowing if they're being ripped off."

While some argue that the card issuers and banks are being greedy in charging these fees, others point out that the banks are providing consumers with the convenience of being able to make international purchases easily, and convenience is worth a price. In addition, "there's a cost associated with converting currency or doing transactions between two banks that deal with different currencies," says Consumer Action's Sherry. "Banks have that same cost whether the person is overseas presenting the card or the person is buying something over the Internet from a foreign-based company and foreign bank."

The only thing cardholders can really do is find out the fees in advance so they can determine the best cards to use and budget appropriately. Doing otherwise "can get pretty expensive," Leocha adds.

Credit card foreign transaction fee (updated 6/8/2009)
Issuer	Issuer fee	MasterCard/Visa fee	Total fee
American Express	2.7%	n/a	2.7%
Bank of America	2%	1%	3%
Barclaycard/Juniper	Between 1% and 2%	1%	Between 2% and 3%
Capital One	none	none	none
Citi	2%	1%	3%
Discover	2%	n/a	2%
HSBC*	2%	1%	3%
Chase	2%	1%	3%
US Bancorp	2%	1%	3%
USAA (available only to members of the military and their immediate families)	none	1%	1%
Wells Fargo	2%	1%	3%

Foreign ATM transaction fees
Issuer	Foreign ATM cost
Bank of America	None at Global ATM Alliance ATMs/$5 plus 1 percent currency conversion fee at Non-Global ATM Alliance ATMs
Citi	Citibank ATMs: $0 plus a 3 percent currency conversion fee/Non-Citibank ATMs: $1.50 plus a 3 percent currency conversion fee
HSBC	1 percent for ATM withdrawal
Chase	$3 plus 3 percent currency conversion fee
USAA	$0 plus 1 percent currency conversion fee
Wells Fargo	$5 withdrawal fee

*HSBC's Premier World MasterCard has no foreign transaction fee.