-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Credit card balance plans and payment hierarchy: inadequate information within the CDS #292
Comments
This issue was discussed in the 7th maintenance iteration call: https://github.com/ConsumerDataStandardsAustralia/standards/wiki/DSB-Maintenance-Iteration-7:-Agenda-&-Meeting-Notes-(19th-May-2021)#meeting-minutes Participants agreed to prioritise this change request at the top of the backlog. It has been updated accordingly in the Banking Maintenance Kanban. The intention will be to address this issue once all in-flight iteration candidates have been dealt with. Time permitting, they will be consulted on during Iteration 7, otherwise they will form part of the scope for Iteration 8. |
Westpac requests 9 months lead time for any changes identified as part of this proposal or as part of issue #291. We recommend that DSB broadly consider loan products as part of this change product before identifying any of the required changes to the balances and account detail APIs. In particular, a number of lending products, not just credit cards, may have accounts with multiple ‘sub-loans’. The Westpac Margin Loan is an example of a product of this type. For this product, different sub-loans may have different start dates, loan amounts, loan currencies, end dates and so on. Additionally it is possible for one or more sub-loans to be closed, but the loan account to still be open. The loan has an overall balance, but each individual sub-loan under a facility also has potentially distinct balances and interest rates. We have previously sought guidance via ZenDesk on providing balances and account detail for that product under the current standards. Noting that some of the additions suggested by @af-stayorgo are already in the We also remark that the order of application of payments for balance plans, for most institutions, requires balances to be paid off in the order of the annual percentage rate they attract from highest to lowest – this has been required by legislation for new accounts since 1 July 2012. Hence. the inclusion of payment hierarchy information is likely of limited additional value for data recipients and customers in many cases. If included, we recommend that omission is taken to mean that balances will be paid off in the order of highest annual percentage rate to lowest. |
This issue was discussed in the Maintenance Iteration call. The following considerations were discussed:
|
Like Westpac, CBA requests 9 months lead time for any changes identified as part of this proposal due to the technical complexities with making this data available. |
Hi @af-stayorgo |
Hi @af-stayorgo Structure for Consultation on making the Candidate Standards binding is now open through Decision Proposal 338. |
Description
Credit cards include a variety of "balance plans" such as the "purchase plan", the "cash plan", the "balance transfer" plan, and "instalment plans". Each plan has its own interest rate and features such as interest free days, introductory interest rate periods, minimum repayment amounts, and instalment amounts. Additional each plan has a place in the "payment hierarchy" - i.e. the order in which a customer repayment is applied to reduce the balances of each plan.
Other details that are important:
These details are fundamental to the accurate calculation of interest on a credit card, and the accurate comparison of different products, including the assessment of product suitability for any given customer.
Currently the CDR contains very little of the above mentioned information, and therefore it cannot be reliability used to evaluate or compare credit card products.
Please see the attached example for more detail.
Balance Plans and Payment Hierarchy Example.pdf
Area Affected
APIs such as 'get product detail' and 'get account detail', and schema such as BankingProduct and BankingProductDetail
Change Proposed
A potential solution to the above issues is to enhance the BankingBalance schema to allow for multiple ‘plans’ (in a similar way to how it currently allows for multiple ‘purses’ for multi-currency Travel Cards), as well as the BankingProductLendingRate schema (in a similar way to how it currently allows for multiple interest rate ‘tiers’). For example, adding a list of plans with the following fields to the appropriate schema:
Additionally, an appropriate way to capture historical changes to a plan's "interest free" status is likely required.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: