JPMorgan Warns 10% Credit Card Rate Cap Would Backfire on Consumers and Economy (reuters.com) 144
JPMorgan Chase's chief financial officer Jeremy Barnum pushed back hard on Tuesday against President Donald Trump's proposed 10% cap on credit card interest rates, calling the measure "very bad for consumers" and "very bad for the economy" during a call with reporters.
The proposed one-year cap, which Trump has said he wants implemented starting January 20, sent banking stocks tumbling last week and prompted financial groups to mount a defense. Barnum said JPMorgan would have to "change the business significantly and cut back" if the cap takes effect, adding that he believes the policy would produce "the exact opposite consequence to what the administration wants."
Wall Street analysts remain skeptical the proposal will survive, noting that only Congress can enact such a measure. The average credit card interest rate in November stood at 20.97%, according to Federal Reserve data. Financial industry groups have countered that a 10% cap would result in millions of American households and small businesses losing access to credit entirely. A banking industry body called the potential impact "devastating."
The proposed one-year cap, which Trump has said he wants implemented starting January 20, sent banking stocks tumbling last week and prompted financial groups to mount a defense. Barnum said JPMorgan would have to "change the business significantly and cut back" if the cap takes effect, adding that he believes the policy would produce "the exact opposite consequence to what the administration wants."
Wall Street analysts remain skeptical the proposal will survive, noting that only Congress can enact such a measure. The average credit card interest rate in November stood at 20.97%, according to Federal Reserve data. Financial industry groups have countered that a 10% cap would result in millions of American households and small businesses losing access to credit entirely. A banking industry body called the potential impact "devastating."
Uhm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, it h:rts stocks. But commerce?
Wouldn't the spending just happen more on goods rather than financial services?
Feels like a lot of whining by people who already don't know how to be happy with owning everything.
Re: Uhm... (Score:2, Insightful)
It would hurt commerce, because people wouldn't buy things they can't afford... Because they wouldn't have credit.
Sounds like a mixed bag to me.
This is not a new proposal. There are good things about it. But it's much more likely a solicitation for a bribe than a real proposal. It's rather a threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Credit doesn't draw money out of thin air. You still have to pay for things, you just pay more later.
People will still spend all the money they have, just that more of it will go towards actual things rather than paying interest charges.
Re: Uhm... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Credit doesn't draw money out of thin air. "
But it does. Banks loan money that they don't have, the loans "draw money out of thin air".
"You still have to pay for things, you just pay more later."
YOU do, but not everyone.
"People will still spend all the money they have, just that more of it will go towards actual things rather than paying interest charges."
But their quality of life may be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And then better. When people stop spending what they don't have, crazy margins will be reduced to make things more affordable in order to get people to spend again. Credit balances might actually get paid down so less people are financially distressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or maybe the predominant effect will be that businesses will go under because of the reduction in sales of shit people don't actually need, and that will cause job loss, which will cause more people to not have money to buy stuff they do need, which will increase crime, which will cause more businesses to go under...
Re: (Score:2)
And then better.
Or not better. Not everything that people can’t afford and put on credit is frivolous. Lets say tomorrow your car needs a new transmission, it is pretty expensive, more then you have in your bank account, and you only have one car. Let’s also say you work in the office not from home. Let’s also say no viable public transit route works for you. So no car means you are not getting to work, except by getting uber twice a day which isn’t cheap. This isn’t uncommon. I mean i
Re: (Score:2)
It's an increase in the money supply.
You're absolutely right, for the hypothetical person that is pegged out at 100% credit utilization and matching inflows and outflows, essentially only servicing debt- they don't make much impact.
For most people holding revolving accounts however, that is not how it works. The credit acts as an expansion to the money they have at any point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
If I buy something now for $1,000 and I pay a 20% APY over the course of 5 years. So initially I only have to pay $26.49/mo and I get something worth $1,000. However, at the end of five years I've spent $1,589.63. So, yes I did just pluck $1k out of thin air for me to buy something, but now I'm gonna pay almost $600 over the next five year.
If I keep doing that I keep committing my future earnings and reduce what I can spend later. That $50k
Re: (Score:2)
It does, but it has a cost and that cost is your future income. If I buy something now for $1,000 and I pay a 20% APY over the course of 5 years. So initially I only have to pay $26.49/mo and I get something worth $1,000. However, at the end of five years I've spent $1,589.63. So, yes I did just pluck $1k out of thin air for me to buy something, but now I'm gonna pay almost $600 over the next five year.
The problem here is you're looking at the credit card as if it were a payment plan. It is not.
If you bought something for $1,000 and can only pay it off at $26.49 a month, then you are the perfect example of someone who would never have made that $1000 purchase.
If I keep doing that I keep committing my future earnings and reduce what I can spend later. That $50k car, that $600,000 house. That $15,000 vacation. It all adds up and suddenly you run out of money because everything is committed to monthly payments.
If you continue behaving like you did in the first paragraph- confusing what a credit card is- absolutely, that's what happens.
It's a bit like where our federal government is right now. Their biggest expense is interest and it's only going to get bigger.
That's patently untrue. It is, however, a pretty fucking big expense. As for it continuing to get bigger- no question abou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The credit acts as an expansion to the money they have at any point in time."
The credit acts as an expansion to the spending capacity they have at any point in time but actually utilizing that credit acts as a siphon on the CASH FLOW of the individual, the total amount of income they get a year stays the same but their net spending power potential is decreased.
Until the last decade nobody who uses credit spending responsibly [which generally means just keeping it active and siphoning benefits without reall
Re: (Score:2)
The credit acts as an expansion to the spending capacity they have at any point in time but actually utilizing that credit acts as a siphon on the CASH FLOW of the individual
No. This can be true in scenarios where your credit is tapped out and you're only servicing debt, but this is a minority of cases, and trying to legislate for them is pure idiocy.
the total amount of income they get a year stays the same but their net spending power potential is decreased.
This is simply not true in practice.
I'm using extreme numbers to demonstrate the point. In practice, the low end isn't this low, and the high end is higher.
Imagine you only have $83 a month in discretionary funds.
Imagine you need a $1000 repair for your car.
With credit, you can make that $1000 purchase, for a monthly (decreasin
Re: (Score:2)
I have cards below 15%.
Re: (Score:2)
The latter are the people whose credit scores will be good enough to get credit under the cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Not-for-profit Credit Unions don't even offer 10%- but they do offer well below the subprime lender rate of 19-28%.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, it's clear our concern (at least nominally, though I suspect not actually) is subprime lending. There are ways to target that.
What is actually happening, is a bunch of fucking morons are using subprime lending and the damage it can facilitate for its borrowers as a way to try to get their own credit card limited to a c
Re: (Score:2)
Even JP Morgan suggested that credit cards would continue to be offered to people with a high credit score in their doomsday message.
Re: (Score:2)
People would probably just switch to even more predatory forms of credit like "buy now, pay later", and keep buying things they can't afford.
Re: (Score:2)
more predatory forms of credit like "buy now, pay later”
Are they more predatory? I’ve seen tons of “Pay $100 now and be done, or $25 now and $25 for the next 3 months” BNPL offers. They look ok to me, the total is the same as one pay purchase. What is the catch I missed? Or is there some other buy now pay later plan that you are talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
It would hurt commerce, because people wouldn't buy things they can't afford... Because they wouldn't have credit.
Something doesn't make sense to me. The banks that issue credit cards earn almost all their profit off low to middle income people via revolving interest and transactions fees. High income card holders are generally a net loss or at best break-even because they don't pay revolving interest and furthermore earn the highest card rewards. So, the banks are going to deny credit to the only people that hand them their profit just because they aren't allowed to earn as much profit. This is an obvious lie. Th
Re: Uhm... (Score:2)
Giving people cheap debt has always proven to be a great thing with little to no consequences.
Just eliminate the tariffs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The next 48 hours will be interesting as the SC may do just that: Trump warns of ‘complete mess’ if supreme court rejects tariffs [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just eliminate the tariffs. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I like to say, they called him "Sleepy Joe" because we could sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How big of a shoehorn did you need to make that joke. I thought comedy was legal again?
Re: (Score:2)
I buy electrical components for my job and also my hobby. My job passes 100% of the tariff fees onto the customers. This is nothing more than a tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have to show respect for them, they jump to unpredictable places.
Trump jumps to "unpredictable places", and I have nothing but disdain for him...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mandy Rice-Davies applies (Score:2)
Correction to headline (Score:5, Interesting)
It should read, JPMorgan Warns 10% Credit Card Rate Cap Would Hit Profits. That's what this is about. After reading the article, the only thing mentioned about how this cap would hurt consumers is banks make a lot of money on these interest charges. Nowhere did anyone say how this would hurt consumers except for the warning that consumer credit would be curtailed. Without an explanation why this would be.
In short, not having a 25% interest rate would hurt banks beause they wouldn't generate the billions in income from people who don't pay their balance off each month.
Re: (Score:2)
Will they lose the money they're making by increasing the money supply for people who need it by billions of dollars? Yes. They don't want that.
But do you know why they'll lose that money? It's not because they'll be charging less interest. It's because they will be charging no interest, because they will no longer extend that credit to those people.
You should shorten your sig to "We will ban
Re: (Score:2)
From the story:
If implemented, âa 10% interest rate cap would hit a major âdriver of industry profits. The business generates âstrong returns as banks charge high interest rates to compensate for the greater risk of default associated with card loans, which are unsecured.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly 60% of the revenue of a card lender is interest.
Nearly 100% of the cost is defaults.
The overall profitability, is ~3%.
Now, let's say we cut that 60% revenue down to 50% of what it was. So a 30% drop in revenue.
How do we balance the equation?
Re:Correction to headline (Score:5, Insightful)
In the short term it would most certainly hit profits, not merely because of lower revenues from interest, but because credit card is unsecured, bad debts taking a bigger bite out of profits. The ultimate result would be that it would become much harder to get a credit card. In the end consumers would effectively have their short-term lending capacity reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both. JP Morgan is saying that it would not be profitable to issue credit cards with a 10% rate cap. What do you think happens when a business finds an activity is no longer profitable? Easy: they stop doing it.
So what would happen is that only people with the best credit scores (those who might actually get unsecured credit at under 10% and don't pay credit card interest anyways) would have access to credit cards. That hurts JPM, who loses a profitable business line, but it also hurts anybody who want
Re: (Score:2)
Credit cards are a very competitive, liquid market. If someone, anyone could make money on a avg rate of 10% it would already happen and people would flock to that bank.
Re: (Score:3)
There are low interest credit cards that exist, but people don't flock to them because the people who qualify for those cards typically don't carry a balance anyways because they have access to cheaper credit like home equity loans. I don't even know or care what my credit card interest rate is because I never pay it.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are actually paying 20%+ interest on credit cards who get their accounts closed will simply go to the lenders of last resort: payday lenders with even higher interest rates. Close down the payday lenders and they go to organized crime and we are back to Fat Tony breaking kneecaps for repayment.
Or, preferably, they're all members of the "own-nothing-and-like-it" club that's all the rage lately, and they can file Chapter 7 en masse without losing much. That's pretty much what I'd do if I had no assets and a huge pile of credit card debt, had been making all my payments on time, and they say "oops, your account's closed, too bad."
Looks to me like this isn't really a thing that's intended to work, more of a thin bribe to the voters. "We're trying to help you, but the Deep State and Big Banks are fi
Re: (Score:2)
If there was really a 10% interest rate cap on credit cards, I'd imagine that most people with lower credit scores who have a high risk of default would just have their accounts frozen. Allowing them to increase their balances would be considered to be too risky for the banks issuing the credit.
I guess that you could argue that you are doing those people a favor by limiting their additional debt, but they probably aren't going to see it that way when their card gets declined at a restaurant or hotel while t
Re: (Score:2)
Why are the credit card rates set to what they are? If someone claiming there is collusion or other illegal price-fixing activity, then I wholeheartedly agree that should be investigated and swiftly remedied. Absent any such claim there seems to be a competitive market for credit cards, 100's (1000's ?) of banks issue cards, and they all determine the rate at which they think they can make a business. While I agree that avg CC interest rates are very high at around 22%, that seems to be the consensus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's so obviously good and so supported he should be able to make the case and pass a law which even if the companies didn't like it would be clear cut and predictable for businesses and consumers moving forward.
I mean his party controls both chambers why can't this be done legislatively?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a terrible negotiator and barely even acknowledges Congress exists, I mean he puts Mike Johnson through a humiliation ritual every week [youtube.com] and the GOP just takes it. That's the part the Founders did not expect, both Houses having zero self respect for their positions and roles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think they should be aware that in all of the elections where Trump's name isn't on the ballot candidates he endorses and the Republican's in general do pretty terribly. His endorsements have a pretty sparse success rate and that makes sense, he barely does any groundwork, he doesn't actually care about the party. They're just cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, People were fine when other politicians on both sides of the aisle proposed this.
Maybe they shouldn't have helped (Score:3)
elect a master of chaos. As for 'only Congress can enact such a measure', this Congress is mostly sycophants.
Re: (Score:2)
elect a master of chaos. As for 'only Congress can enact such a measure', this Congress is mostly sycophants.
Well... about half anyway for sure. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the leopard won't eat my face they said while writing campaign donation checks.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the filibuster, that means that absolutely nothing changes. So, no, Trump does not have control over congress. Neither side has the power to change anything. For better or worse, that's the way it is.
There was one really telling case recently that shows that congresscritters, even the republican ones, still have
Re: (Score:2)
God, I despise modern politics! (Score:4, Interesting)
All the comments so far here are utterly ignoring the whole discussion point; would a 10% cap on credit card interest rates be a good or a bad thing? All the Trump haters can say is, "End the tariffs!" instead. The two literally have nothing to do with each other! I'm not a fan of the tariff situation either, but most of what I buy is relatively unaffected by it, to be honest. My groceries are almost all sourced here in America. (Might get the occasional package of tomatoes from Canada or Mexico, but prices are where they've generally been for the same ones grown in the USA.) Even things like 3D printer filament haven't really been a big deal. They may have tariffs on the Asian imported stuff but those companies seem to have found ways to keep selling me 10 packs of PETG or PLA for as little as $89 or so including shipping, on various sales. It's probably more of an issue if you want to buy certain makes/models of vehicles or what-not, but again, it's just not impacting me heavily in daily life.
Credit cards with exorbitant interest rates are just a tax/punishment on the financially struggling. Everyone else pays their card(s) off in full to avoid all the interest charges anyway. If a Democrat suggested this same proposal Trump just did? Slashdot would be all buzzing at how great a move it was.
Pfft....
Re: (Score:2)
If a Democrat suggested this same proposal Trump just did? Slashdot would be all buzzing at how great a move it was.
No we wouldn't - we'd be having pretty much the same discussion, just without the additional complications that invariably get pulled into a topic when Trump is involved.
Re:God, I despise modern politics! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? One comment about tariffs and suddenly "all the Trump haters can say is End the Tariffs!" This is simply bad policy, and it doesn't matter who is proposing it.
I will summarize what I posted above: This is a price control. Basic econ as well as experience from anywhere it has been tried will tell you what happens when there are price controls: when the mandated price is below the profitable price, businesses simply stop engaging in that business. The result of a 10% cap isn't that people only pay 10% on
B.S. my guy .... (Score:3)
You're essentially claiming credit card issuers would go under if interest rates were "only" 10%? Laughable! Look at how much they earn on card processing fees alone before stating that with a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what I'm claiming at all. They wouldn't "go under." They would simply refuse to service the business of unprofitable customers (those with questionable credit who are the ones actually paying those 20%+ rates).
Only about half of credit card holders carry a balance from month to month. The half who carry no balance are profitable even though they don't pay interest because they tend to spend more (because they tend to be more affluent), which the issuer makes up for in fees charged to the vend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes I do. Maybe not in some of our own lifetimes ... but I think there was absolutely more of a concern for at least trying to do what was best for the common man. Once upon a time, America had a strong middle class and businesses still valued experience -- rewarding employees for sticking around until retirement. History has always been full of big mistakes or oversights. But I'm old enough to recall life back in the 1980's, and despite the insanity of everyone living in constant fear that "they migh
Re: (Score:2)
Even things like 3D printer filament haven't really been a big deal.
That's because they are not being tariffed. Despite inflation and alleged tariffs, prices on filament have not gone up significantly — certainly they have increased less than inflation. I've been shopping on AliExpress since before the tariffs were even announced, and I'm still shopping there. The prices have not gone up. "Additional charges" have gone up maybe by 5% of prices, and more importantly remain under 10%. Zero of my packages have been held while I send payment for customs fees.
Trump's alleg
One-year cap ... (Score:5, Informative)
The proposed one-year cap, which Trump has said he wants implemented starting January 20 ...
Just in time for the mid-term elections. Is this suppose to help consumers or him and, by extension, Republicans? /cynical
This sounds like what Bernie Sanders and AOC (and others) proposed back in March 2025, but that would be a law, taking effect over a few years and would (probably) be permanent, not a (desperate) whim by fiat trying to pump up short-term election numbers.
More spaghetti against the wall to check if he's cooked. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% Everything good he does for the consumer always has an expiration. Everything good he does for corporate America is permanent.
I hadn't thought of it like that, but ya - nice. I'll add that both always seem to revolve around some benefit for him.
Guess Mel Brooks as Louis XVI in History of the World, Part I [wikipedia.org] was right, "It's good to be the King."
High interest rates are counter productive. (Score:2)
I understand the banks' and credit-card issuers' rational for high interest rates, other than profit; they charge higher interest rates on those they think are at a higher risk of default so they can get income sooner. But... making those people pay more also makes it more likely they won't be able to pay, or will take a *much* longer time to pay things off (increasing the interest paid). If they want to keep this scheme, issuers should consider changing their interest policies, perhaps lower initial rat
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will pay multiples in interest compared to the actual purchase. But lenders set rates by averaging over many similarly-situated borrowers. The person who ends up paying twice the purchase price in interest is effectively paying for the person who never made a payment and declared bankruptcy.
Credit cards are a competitive business, and you can find credit cards that offer lower rates than others. But you may need a certain credit score to qualify for those lower rates and may give up cashback or
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the banks' and credit-card issuers' rational for high interest rates, other than profit; they charge higher interest rates on those they think are at a higher risk of default so they can get income sooner. But... making those people pay more also makes it more likely they won't be able to pay, or will take a *much* longer time to pay things off (increasing the interest paid).
What do you think the odds are that the trillion-dollar, highly-competitive banking industry hasn't studied this to the nth degree, and doesn't know exactly what the effect of increasing or decreasing the interest rate by a tenth of a percent would be on their market share, customer population, payment flows, bankruptcies, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the odds are that the trillion-dollar, highly-competitive banking industry hasn't studied this to the nth degree, and doesn't know exactly what the effect of increasing or decreasing the interest rate by a tenth of a percent would be on their market share, customer population, payment flows, bankruptcies, etc.?
I get all that, but, obviously, they're going to optimize (rig) things for their maximum benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the odds are that the trillion-dollar, highly-competitive banking industry hasn't studied this to the nth degree, and doesn't know exactly what the effect of increasing or decreasing the interest rate by a tenth of a percent would be on their market share, customer population, payment flows, bankruptcies, etc.?
I get all that, but, obviously, they're going to optimize (rig) things for their maximum benefit.
Sure, but this is a highly-competitive market, with pretty low switching costs. In that sort of environment, providers squeeze their profit margins as far as they reasonably can, because it's better to make 10% less per customer but have twice as many customers.
"Terrible for consumers"... (Score:2)
Really? I remember when credit card rates went up from 18% or so to 25%, which *used* to be only for college students, and others with their first credit card.
Meanwhile, my credit union credit card is still just under 10%. I have heard that the mafia only charges 30%.
So, tell us, scumbag, exactly how cutting YOUR FUCKING ROI wold be bad for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because the bank's cost of capital also went up in tandem with interest rates. Mortgages also went from almost 2% to over 8%. The increase in credit card interest rates just followed interest rates up as a whole. Blame the Federal Reserve for higher interest rates, but they did it in an attempt to control inflation.
It's more than "Cutting your ROI". A 10% rate cap would make the credit card business a net money loser for all but the highest credits score borrowers. They would simply leave the busines
Re: (Score:2)
Some banks issuing the credit make up to 50% of their revenue on this interest (43-56%). JP Morgan is afraid of losing this revenue stream, as are all banks. But the media manipulates people into thinking this predatory practice is a necessity helping those financially troubled masses. The glass-steagall act should never have been repealed. Not that it directly dealt with interest rates on credit cards. Banks need to be regulated. They caused the Arm A loan meltdown by the repeal, they caused the great
Re: (Score:2)
Some banks issuing the credit make up to 50% of their revenue on this interest (43-56%). JP Morgan is afraid of losing this revenue stream, as are all banks.
Then the solution is not to cap the interest rate, but to cap the profit margins.
Note that the concept already exists e.g. in some insurance regulations, with various degrees of success depending on how many loopholes they keep open and how good the enforcement is.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure a company cannot have their profit margin mandated in the United States. That is unconstitutional. Usury laws have precedent from 1545 with Henry the VIII's usury act which was 10%. Prior secular concerns kept people from charging this interest at the religious level.
Re: (Score:3)
the ACA made the insurance world somewhat regulatable in that it became mandatory. Credit cards and banking are not forced on us by law.
Re: (Score:2)
the ACA made the insurance world somewhat regulatable in that it became mandatory. Credit cards and banking are not forced on us by law.
Neither is an utility technically, but they are effectively considered a necessity for a normal life. I'd argue banking services have also effectively become a necessity for a normal life for most people.
The Supreme Court upheld profit caps for utilities. I agree the case is much weaker for banking or Credit Cards, but it's not non-existent.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure a company cannot have their profit margin mandated in the United States. That is unconstitutional.
Rate-of-return limits and similar constructs are not new in the US, although they typically apply in particular circumstances with high public interest, e.g. utilities or insurance. The Supreme Court upheld them in many occasions.
As example, the Affordable Care Act limits profits of medical insurance at an 80/20 Medical Loss Ratio, which means only a capped 20% of the premiums can be used to cover administrative costs and profits, the remaining 80% needs to be used to pay for medical claims.
For a credit car
Re: (Score:2)
But the media manipulates people into thinking this predatory practice is a necessity helping those financially troubled masses.
And what do you think those financially-troubled masses will do when they lose access to credit card debt? Suddenly become financially responsible? Or hit the payday loan place charging 400% interest?
That's the plan right? (Score:2)
Make it very appealing to amass lots of debt now, for a short time; then jack up the rates after you have them by the short hairs.
It's very close to the drug dealer business model: the first hit is free, after that you pay full price.
Both methods fuck the customer, and consolidate wealth in the hands of a a few.
At least, that's what appears to be going on with my perspective looking in from outside the USA.
Not on customers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My little to none knowledge on economy is probably gonna prohibit me from speaking on that part... but I can't imagine how it backfires on the consumers. Other than the fact that people pay less interests and can pay off more quickly, making the monthly payment smaller, they spend more I guess. Can anybody think of any other reason?
The interest is only in part profits for the creditor: it also covers the risk of the debtor defaulting. Not all debtors will pay back the money and the creditor will not always be able to recoup the money lent e.g. through repossession. This means as a creditor without interest you would end up losing money and go out of business. This means the higher the risk, the higher the interest rate.
Basically if you are considered a very bad debtor, a creditor might be still be willing to lend you money at a very h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't unreliable debtors also be qualified for credit but just a lot lower limit?
That would also happen. Think of the interest rate as how much risk the creditor is willing to work with: lower the interest and the creditor will have to become more selective, lowering limits and denying more debtors than before.
If the CC interest has always been capped at 10%, what would have been my chances to build enough credit to buy that home?
That's difficult to say, maybe you would have been denied credit and you would have had to find a different solution. Said that, there are other options to provide affordable credit but they typical require state intervention to cover the risk outside of free-market economics.
Take
Re: (Score:2)
but if the interest rate is capped lower, the creditor would just refuse to lend you money outright
This part caught my attention; maybe the administration is trying to trigger this by design. They want this refusal so that the high risk people won't be spending the money they cannot repay. Sounds brutal but I think it might just work. Without having a credit card beyond $1K, they can't spend their life away and focus on earning more instead. In this case, the 1 year timeline makes sense. When someone is forced not to spend on the cc for a year, it should get them into the habit.
Oh FFS (Score:2)
Could he not come up with a more convincing argument?
Could he not come up with something that appears to be less blatant of a lie?
Strange analyst point (Score:2)
Wall Street analysts remain skeptical the proposal will survive, noting that only Congress can enact such a measure.
It's not like that's stopped this administration from anything else. Congress is too busy doing ........ you know, I really don't know wtf they're actually doing these days. Sure as hell doesn't feel like they're passing any actual legislation.
Trump midterm desperation (Score:2)
He wants to do something popularist (ditto talking about tarriff handouts to the poor) to boost his flagging support.
I wonder how many people who voted for a MAGA agenda, thinking this meant bringing back the golden age of America, bring back the outsourced jobs, affordability, no more foreign wars, etc, are still on board?
I wonder what Trump will call this new country when he's done with it? Kingdom of Trump? Trumpistan?
10% cap (Score:2)
Won't somebody think of the yacht salesmen? (Score:2)
Steel henhouse doors bad for chickens says fox.
Hello Congress? Are you still there? (Score:2)
It's easy to blame bad stuff on "Congress" because the blame is spread out, no one really pays attention to "How a Bill Becomes a Law" anymore.
For me it is insane that that all of this crap is coming out of the Executive Orders, various subterfuge, and outright defying existing laws and court orders. It is very telling to me that the Congress, who could easily put together tariff legislation, easily debate the taking of Venezuela oil, easily write laws to reduce govt headcount, write laws to kill USAID,
my preference: (Score:2)
Is this yet another warped business model? (Score:2)
Why would stocks go down if consumer credit rates get cut? Maybe it's because low corporate credit rates is being subsidized by high consumer credit rates in the same way that low drug prices outside the US are being subsidized by high prices for US consumers. What is only barely starting to be talked about is why the cost of doing business is much higher than it used to be. More than likely there are too many parasitic elements to overhead particularly those things that cost you money but you can't poin
This is what will happen (Score:2)
Where is the real material risk? (Score:2)
Agreeing with other sentiment, I also suspect credit card companies, and their interests (no pun intended) would activate in other sectors to "make us all pay for the loss" -- which would infer harm to consumers. Otherwise, JP Morgan is full of sh*t, IMHO.
Consumers have been victimized by the credit card industry for decades. We're all sick of it.
insider trading? (Score:3)
Maybe the whole point of the tweet was to have an immediate and predictable impact on bank stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)