Scottrick

I don't think the concern is that carrying a balance will lower your score. The greater concern is that most 0% rates are introductory. Past that period, the interest fees increase the cost of earning miles and points through a rewards card. Remember that when compared to the large number of 1-2% cash rebate cards, you are essentially paying 1-2 cents for every mile or point. If you are also paying interest fees, then the cost of each mile or point earned increases. You need to be able to redeem them for more value than that or the cash is a better deal.

Of course, carrying a balance can still have an effect on your score in terms of the credit utilization ratio, but that is only a danger if it goes above 30-50%. I think the impact is minimal if you keep it under 10% (e.g., $1,000 on a $10,000 limit).

Scottrick

I'm not judging. Many of them do a good job. And it IS a lot of work. I'm just trying to clarify the situation without violating disclosure rules for individual cards. The "small" claim annoys me. Just say you get a commission and be done with it.

ma91pmh

Ah ok I get your point - "if you apply under my link I get a small commission" -you are right. I am not (as yet) under any such disclosure restrictions so am happy to blurb they are anywhere from $50 - $250 with probably around $125 the average. Or so I hear. You are right not small. And agree just say "I get a commission".

Although I have seen plenty of financial credit card type blogs that do not disclose at all. And your insurance agent doesn't disclose to you he gets commission for selling you a policy. And your bank teller doesn't tell you he or she gets a commission for getting you to open an account at their branch. So frankly the bloggers are more open than average about it

ma91pmh

Thanks for the contribution

I do agree... there are some very beneficial 0% offers out there and I have maxed out several of them. Chase AARP back in it's day was a great one but plenty of others too.

Carrying balances does not necessarily trash your credit but it does drag it down for sure. Particularly in my case I ended up around 90% utilization on my Chase AARP card and for sure that took it's effect. Ironically the only issuer that took, er, issue with it was Chase itself when I tried to apply for more cards they asked why I had so many cards including some with big balances. I just said they kept offering such great cards and when offered 0% it was too good to pass and I plan on paying in full out of savings once the 0% expires. Ker-ching, approved for more!

MM56

It is the law now to disclose, so the bloggers who disclose are not doing so in the interest of being altruistic.

aubreyfromwheaton

I think Darius has had the best blog lately.

iceman77_7

Some of the disclosures are a joke. I called out one financial blogger who kept pushing credit card offers about not disclosing and he referred me to a disclosure page for his website that he says covers all his posts. Lame..

mnscout

Why? He tells you he does get paid by the affiliates, doesn't he? What else do you want to know? Do you really want the bloggers to disclose how much they are making with every affiliate they work with on their website? You don't find it just a little absurd?

mnscout

Those 0% intro cards are just teasers. What happens when you're out of those? We all believe that 6 months from now we3 will be better off. Banks know it's an illusion and build their whole business model around it. Carrying a balance on a reward credit card that have a higher APR to begin with gotta hurt. Aren't there personal loans you could take to pay off the credit card debt. If you have a good credit, and get a loan at say 7-8% vs CC's 15% APR, wouldn't it save you an arm and a leg?

Happy

I dont think those folks take out the 0% are due to debts they carry.

Before the financial crisis, many folks took out the 0% (and 0 fee too) and put the free money into MMA, CDs or whathaveyou high yield instruments - this is a game of arbitrage. Big banks do it all the time - they put their excess deposits into FDIC earning the interest spread, or buy the commercial papers, or other instruments... Individuals just do it in a much much much smaller scale.

Though these days I dont know what benefits people see on the 0% BT, especially most still charge a fee at 3 to 4% unlike in the past it was 0% and 0 fee - there is no RISK-FREE yield earning investment vehicle such as the Treasuries, the MMA, the CDs that yields enough to utilize such money which is not really free when a fee is charged. (playing the stock market with them should NOT be used as an example because it is not risk free.)

ma91pmh

eh what? take 0% for as long as available and then pay it off. i never pay the interest. my arms and legs are fine

MM56

Because new consumer protection laws say that bloggers need to inform readers when they have been or are being compensated for what they are writing about. It is in place to prevent readers from being taken advantage of. I am not sure which financial blogger is being referred to, but if he isn't writing a disclosure on every single post that has referral links (and not just one page somewhere on the website), he is in violation.

soccerguy985

Can you please point me to the law that says they must disclose? I am not criticizing you by any means. I am just curious and would actually like to read the law.

Mile-a-holic

What I would find interesting would be if we started tracking if FT tips came from bloggers either directly (such as FTG) or indirectly. So, for example, the 1k points for BA for BMI membership - that was all over the blogs, so did that originate with a first tier blog? Regardless whether I prefer to read FT or blogs, I would feel that I should support a blogger via card applications if I've been using his/her tips via FT. Given how viral things are, however, finding "Blogger Zero" might be impossible?

What leaves a bad taste in my mouth are the third tier bloggers who use FT to troll. Fortunately they are the exception (I can only think of two in the past year), as by far most are respectful and contribute meaningfully to FT

MM56

This is a NY Times article written about the FTC rule change that happened in 2009. I guess maybe thats not considered a law, but the FTC governs what can and cannot happen and (I assume) issues fines to bloggers in violation. It came about because several bloggers (not mile & point related) were offering "give aways" and such and not mentioning to their readers that they were being paid for the give away (and that the readers are being advertised to). In 2009, the change was made and bloggers either needed to stop the give aways or tell people they are being paid, and what the reader is reading is an advertisement. Gawker Media did this a lot, such as on Gizmodo they would get paid to review a product but write the review as if it was an organic review. Now they must disclose if one of their posts is an advertisement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/bu...ia/06adco.html