Banks are keeping credit card rates high even after the CFPB rule they blamed for high APRs was killed
Last year, banks quickly raised interest rates to record levels and added new monthly fees on credit cards when a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule threatened a key revenue source for the industry.
Now, they're far more reluctant to reverse those steps, even after bank trade groups succeeded in killing the CFPB rule in federal court last month.
Synchrony and Bread Financial, two of the biggest players in the business of issuing branded credit cards for the likes of Amazon , Lowe's and Wayfair , are keeping the higher rates in place, executives said in recent conference calls.
"We feel pretty comfortable that the rule has been vacated," Synchrony CEO Brian Doubles said on April 22. "With that said, we don't currently have plans to roll anything back in terms of the changes that we made."
His counterpart at Bread, CEO Ralph Andretta, echoed that sentiment, "At this point, we're not intending to roll back those changes, and we've talked to the partners about that."
The CEOs celebrated the end of a proposed CFPB regulation that was meant to limit what Americans would pay in credit card late fees, an effort that the industry called a misguided and unlawful example of regulatory overreach. Under previous Director Rohit Chopra, the CFPB estimated that its rule would save families $10 billion annually. Instead, it inadvertently saddled borrowers with higher rates and fees for receiving paper statements as credit card companies sought to offset the expected revenue hit.
Retail cards hit a record high average interest rate of 30.5% last year, according to a Bankrate survey, and rates have stayed close to those levels this year.
"The companies have made a windfall," said David Silberman, a veteran banking attorney who lectures at Yale Law School. "They didn't think they needed this revenue before except for [the CFPB rule], and they're now keeping it, which is coming directly out of the consumer's pocket."
Synchrony and Bread both easily topped expectations for first-quarter profit, and analysts covering the companies have raised estimates for what they will earn this year, despite concerns about a looming U.S. economic slowdown.
While store cards occupy a relatively small corner of the overall credit card universe, Americans who are struggling financially are more likely to rely on them, and they are a crucial profit generator for popular American retailers.
There were more than 160 million open retail card accounts last year, the CFPB said in a report from December that highlighted risks to users of the high-interest cards.
More than half of the 100 biggest U.S. retailers offer store cards, and brands including Nordstrom and Macy's relied on them to generate roughly 8% of gross profits in recent years, the CFPB said.
Banks may be taking advantage of the fact that some users of retail cards don't have the credit profiles to qualify for general-purpose cards from JPMorgan Chase or American Express , for example, said senior Bankrate analyst Ted Rossman.
Nearly half of all retail card applications are submitted by people with subprime or no credit scores, and the card companies behind them approve applications at a higher rate than for general-purpose cards, the CFPB said.
"Companies like Bread or Synchrony, they rely a lot more on people who carry balances or who pay late fees," Rossman said.
Rates on retail cards have fallen by less than 1% on average since hitting their 2024 peak, and they are typically about 10 percentage points higher than the rates for general-purpose cards, Rossman said.
That means it's unlikely that other large players in the retail card sector, including Citigroup and Barclays , have rolled back their rate increases in the wake of the CFPB rule's demise. The most recent published APR on the Macy's card, issued by Citigroup, is 33.49%, for instance.
Citigroup and Barclays representatives declined to comment for this article.
Synchrony's CEO gave some clues as to why banks aren't eager to roll back the hikes: borrowers either didn't seem to notice the higher rates, or didn't feel like they had a choice.
Retail cards are typically advertised online or at the checkout of brick-and-mortar retailers, and often lure users with promotional discounts or rewards points.
"We didn't see a big reduction in accounts or spend related to the actions" they took last year, Doubles told analysts. "We did a lot of test and control around that."
Synchrony will discuss future possible changes to its card program with its brand partners, according to a spokeswoman for the Stamford, Connecticut-based bank. That could include bumping up promotional offers at specific retailers, Doubles said during the April conference call. Brian Doubles, Synchrony President
"Our goal remains to provide access to financial solutions that provide flexibility, utility, and meaningful value to the diverse range of customers, partners, providers, and small and midsized businesses we serve," Synchrony said in a statement.
A Bread spokesperson declined to comment for this article.
Alaina Fingal, a New Orleans-based financial coach, said she often advises people who've been trapped in a debt spiral from using retail credit cards. Some have to take on side gigs, like driving for Uber Eats, to work down the balances, she said.
"They do not understand the terms, and there are a lot of promotional offers that may have deferred interest clauses that are in there," Fingal said. "It's extremely predatory."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
16 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
17 Things You Can Buy For $1 Billion In The US
It's so hard to conceptualize how much $1 billion actually is. For example, Elon Musk is so rich that spending $1 billion to him is equivalent to the average American spending only $300. That's like me buying a year's worth of Premium Netflix, meanwhile Elon could buy a year's worth for all 3.2 million people in Puerto Rico. And he'd still have money left over! You can check out the net worth of every single billionaire here. As of just a few months ago, there were 902 reported billionaires in the US alone. However, 34% of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. So, as Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes one step closer to being passed into law – in which the rich will receive massive tax cuts, yet nearly 17 million people will lose their health insurance altogether — I wanted to break down exactly what you could buy with $1 billion. Throughout the US, the average person spends $1,635 per month on rent. If you had $1 billion dollars, that would cover your rent for the next 50,968 years. Oh, wait, you wanna live in New York City instead? Well, the average rent there is $4,019 per month. Your $1 billion would still last you an impressive 20,734 years though, assuming you haven't run into greedy landlords. Your $1 billion could also buy every single person in Japan, Germany, France, Sweden, Palestine, Ghana, Spain, Poland, Australia, South Africa, and Brazil a burrito from Taco Bell. And you'd still have another 5.3 million burritos left over! Not too shabby, considering you started with over 671 million burritos. Heck, maybe you want to end poverty in general! You could totally wipe it out statewide in Alaska, Vermont, and you'd still have about $120 million to spare. Perhaps you're a sucker for all things fashion. With $1 billion, you could buy 78,740 Birkin bags. That's enough to give two bags to every single person who lives in Monaco. To be more specific, these would be the Birkin 25 in Togo leather (not pictured), which cost $12,700 each. Or maybe running is more your speed. Nike's Streakfly 2 running shoes retail for $190, but with your $1 billion you could buy 5,263,157 pairs. That's nearly enough to give every single resident of Ireland or New Zealand their own pair of shoes. Jeff Bezos just spent an estimated $50 million on his star-studded wedding in Italy. That may seem like a lot (because it is!), but to him, it's the equivalent of spending only $41.23 in comparison to the median American. After all, his total net worth $233.9 billion. If you had just $1 billion and wanted to recreate his wedding extravaganza – which included performances from Usher, among others – you could do so every single week for the next 5 months. Maybe music is your passion, and you want a private concert from Beyoncé. Two years ago, she was paid $24 million to put on a private show in Dubai, which is the most expensive private performance ever recorded. You could spend $1 billion on 41 private Beyoncé concerts and still have $16,000 left over. Or perhaps Bruno Mars is more your style. You could get 312 private concerts from him instead, which would equal one concert every month for the next 26 years. After all, Bruno's rate is about $3.2 million per private show. Are you into cars? You could buy the new Porsche 718 Boxster with your $1 billion. And then you could buy a bunch more to hand out to your closest 13,350 friends. Perhaps you live in Vatican City and want to give them to every other resident of the country. That means each person would receive 15 entire Porches. I hope they have enough space in their garage. Maybe you were disappointed in how the eighth and final season of Game of Thrones ended. Each of those episodes cost $15 million to make, so you could redo all six of them annnnnyyyyy way you'd like 11 times and still have some change left over. And maybe then you'll actually be able to get it right! The average hospital bill for delivering a baby in the US (without complications) is $19,000. With your $1 billion, you could front the bill for 52,631 new kids. That's only three thousand people less than the entire population of Greenland. Lord knows we need as many Mamma Mia! movies as possible. The first one had a budget of $52 million, so you could spend your $1 billion to create 19 new films and still have $12 million left over for Meryl Streep's signing bonus. The average in-state college student spends $9,750 per year on tuition at a public university. Your $1 billion could pay off all four years of school for well over 25,000 students. Let's say you wanted to give away all of your money to charity at the rate of $1 per second. It'll take you just over 16 minutes to give away $1,000. If you kept going, it'll take you just over 11.5 days to give away $1 million. But, hey, you're a billionaire, so it'll take you over 31.7 years to give away all $1 billion. Let's say you're feeling generous and want to order breakfast, lunch, and dinner from the McDonald's Dollar Menu for every single person who lives in Rhode Island. You'd be able to feed everyone (over 1 million people!) for the next 299 days. Finally, the average yearly salary in the US is projected to be about $68,000 this year. Elon Musk makes that much money every 2 minutes and 59 seconds. If the average salary never changed, you'd have to work for the next 14,705 years to earn $1 billion. If Elon wanted another billion dollars, he'd simply have to work 30 days, 9 hours, 54 minutes, and 49 seconds. By that point, the average US citizen would have only made $5,667. Billionaires shouldn't exist!!!!! Bye!!!!!
Time Magazine
20 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What the Budget Bill Means for Our National Debt
Now that the budget bill has passed Congress, we can see clear projections for how it will impact deficits, government debt, and debt service expenses. In brief, the bill is expected to lead to spending of about $7 trillion a year with inflows of about $5 trillion a year. So the national debt, which is now about 6x of the money taken in, 100% of GDP, and about $230,000 per American family, will rise over ten years to about 7.5x the money taken in, 130% of GDP, and $425,000 per family. That will increase interest and principal payments on the debt from about $10 trillion ($1 trillion in interest, $9 trillion in principal) to about $18 trillion (of which $2 trillion is interest payments). This will lead to either a big squeezing out (and cutting off) of spending and/or unimaginable tax increases or a lot of printing and devaluing of money and pushing interest rates to unattractively low levels. This printing and devaluing is not good for those holding bonds as a storehold of wealth, and what's bad for bonds and U.S. credit markets is bad for everyone because the U.S. Treasury markets are the backbone of all capital markets—which are the backbones of our economic and social conditions. Unless this path is soon rectified to bring the budget deficit from roughly 7% of GDP to about 3% by making adjustments to spending, taxes, and interest rates, big, painful disruptions will likely occur. To explain why I believe this, I should describe where I'm coming from. Over my 50 years of experience as a global macro investor, I have developed and written down principles to help me anticipate events so that I can successfully bet on them. These principles are based on an understanding of the mechanics that drive changes in economies and markets. The most important principles for understanding big deficits and government debts like the ones the U.S. (and many other developed nations) are experiencing today are: In summary, when there is too much debt, interest and currency rates tend to be driven down. Is that good or bad for economic conditions? The answer: It's both. It depends on one's position. Lowering real interest rates and real currency exchange rates is beneficial over the short term because it is stimulative and tends to lift asset prices while it is detrimental over the intermediate and long term. This is because it gives holders of these assets lower real returns (because of the currency devaluation and the lower yield. And also because it produces higher inflation rates and leads to greater debt. In any case, it certainly doesn't avoid the painful consequences of overspending and getting deeper into debt. When interest rates fall, borrower-debtors benefit because debt service costs are reduced, making it cheaper to borrow and buy things, which raises investment asset prices and stimulates growth. That's why, over the short term, most everyone is happy with lower interest rates. But at the same time, lowering interest rates to undesirably low levels is detrimental to lenders and creditors. Reducing interest rates (most importantly real interest rates), including central banks pushing bond yields down, raises the prices of bonds and most other assets, which leads to lower future returns. For example, when interest rates went to negative levels, bond prices went up. It also leads to more debt, which creates bigger debt problems down the road. So, lender-creditors get less return on their debt assets, and more debt is created. Lower real interest rates also tend to lower the real value of the currency because it lowers the currency/credit yield relative to other countries' alternatives. Still, lowering currency rates is the preferred and most common way for government policy makers to deal with too much debt for two reasons. First, lower currency exchange rates make countries' goods and services less expensive relative to those from countries that have rising currencies, so they stimulate economic activity and raise asset prices (particularly in nominal terms). And second, they make it easier to pay off debt in a way that is more painful for foreigners holding the debt assets than for the countries' own citizens. That is because the alternative way of handling debt problems requires tighter money and credit, which keeps real interest rates higher, constricting spending and typically leading to painful service cuts and/or tax increases and tougher lending conditions that citizens don't like. In contrast, as I will explain below, lower currency rates are a 'hidden' way of paying debts because most people don't realize that their wealth is decreasing. A lower currency rate also typically raises the price of foreign assets when measured in the depreciated currency. For example, if the dollar devalues by 20% percent, foreign holders of dollar-denominated debt will be repaid with money that is worth 20% less (i.e., they will have currency losses of 20%). What is harmful but less apparent is that those with the weaker currency have less buying and borrowing power—less buying power because their currency goes less far and less borrowing power because buyers don't want debt assets (i.e., promises to receive money) when they believe the value of the money the debt is denominated in is going down. The reason most people in the country whose currency is being devalued (e.g., Americans dealing in dollars) don't see their buying power and wealth decline is because they measure the value of their assets in their own currency, which gives the illusion that their assets are going up even though what's actually happening is that the currency is going down. For example, if the dollar falls by 20%, U.S. investors won't directly see that they lost 20% in their buying power of foreign goods and services if they focus only on the fact that the US assets they own have gone up in dollars. The fact that most people have this distorted perspective is what makes these ways of dealing with having too much debt 'hidden' and more politically acceptable than the alternatives. However, for foreign holders of U.S. dollar-denominated debt, it will be obvious and painful, and they will increasingly hedge (sell) the currency that the debt is in and/or sell out of the debts, leading to more weakness in the currency and/or the debt. What does all this mean for the economy and politics? History shows that big debts that can't be supported with hard money lead to big easings of money and credit, which lead to big declines in both real interest rates and the real currency rates. The most recent time this happened was the stagflationary period from 1971 until 1981, and it caused big shifts in wealth, financial markets, economies, and political circumstances. Based on the existing sizes of debts and deficits (not only in the U.S., but also in most fiat-currency countries), the potential for similar very big shifts exists in the years ahead. It's also worth noting that the way people look at the value of money has changed a lot over the years. When money existed as paper notes that were claims on gold (let's call this gold-backed money, which was the case before Nixon de-linked the dollar from gold in 1971), people viewed the value of paper money as rising and falling. Its value almost always fell, and the only question was whether it fell faster than the interest rates one received when holding currency in a debt instrument. Now that the world has gotten used to viewing prices through the lens of fiat/paper money (which is what we've had since 1971), people have the reverse view—they view the prices of things as going up, not the value of money going down. Because prices of things in gold-backed money and the quantity of gold-backed money have historically been more stable than prices of things in fiat/paper money and the quantity of fiat/paper money, I believe that it's more accurate to view prices in gold-backed money. Apparently, central banks have a similar perspective because gold has become the second largest reserve asset they own after dollars and ahead of euros and yen, partly for these reasons and partly because gold is at less risk of being confiscated. At times when debt and budget issues are very large, it's good to have hard money, which for many centuries across the world, has been gold. Much more recently, some cryptocurrencies have been viewed as hard currencies. So how much hard money/gold should one have? While I'm not trying to give you advice on specific investments, when thinking about what amount of gold relative to bonds I want to have, I think of their relative supplies and demands and the relative costs and returns of holding them. I also know that gold and bonds diversify each other, so I think about how much of each I should have for good risk control, and I know that a gold holding of roughly 15% can be an effective diversifier in that it produces a better return/risk ratio for the portfolio. Inflation-linked bonds do the same, so it is worth considering adding both to a typical portfolio. I am sharing this perspective with you rather than telling you what I think the markets will do or suggesting exactly how much of each asset you should have because my goal is to 'teach you how to fish rather than give you fish.'
Time Magazine
25 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Hakeem Jeffries Breaks Record For Longest House Speech
At 4:53 a.m. on Thursday, Hakeem Jeffries took his place at the lectern on the House floor, bound by no time limit, and began reading letters from constituents in Republican districts who have expressed fear of President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill becoming law. "People will die. Tens of thousands, perhaps year after year after year, as a result of the Republican assault on the healthcare of the American people," the House Minority Leader said. "I'm sad. I never thought I would be on the House floor saying this is a crime scene." Eight hours and thirty-three minutes later, Jeffries broke the record for the longest continuous speech in House history, using his unlimited speaking privileges under the House's 'magic minute' rule for party leaders to delay a final vote on Republicans' signature legislation that would enact Trump's domestic agenda. House Republicans were on track to pass the legislation on Thursday after Speaker Mike Johnson and the President worked overnight to persuade skeptical GOP holdouts to drop their opposition to the bill. Jeffries' speech was a last ditch attempt for Democrats to frame Trump's legislation in the starkest terms for the public ahead of Thursday's expected vote, potentially previewing the Democrats' message going into the 2026 midterms. 'This is not a 'Big, Beautiful Bill,'' he said. 'It is one big, ugly betrayal of working-class Americans.' The measure would broadly fund many of Trump's biggest campaign promises: extending his 2017 tax cuts that critics say confer their greatest benefits on the wealthy; eliminating taxes on tips and overtime; and providing roughly $170 billion for immigration and border-related operations. To offset some of those costs, the bill also includes deep spending cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance, which the Trump Administration has tried to sell to the public by arguing that many of the people who would lose health insurance under the measure are undocumented immigrants. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that the bill would increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion and leave about 12 million people without insurance by 2034. Jeffries' speech surpassed the previous record of eight hours and 32 minutes set in 2021 by then-Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, who similarly used the floor to delay a vote on a $2 trillion Democratic bill to strengthen the social safety net and fight climate change. It also comes roughly three months after Democratic Senator Cory Booker broke an upper chamber record by speaking for more than 25 hours in a sharp rebuke of the Trump Administration, the most viral public challenge to Trump's agenda since his return to the White House. For Democrats, the speech served as a rallying cry against Trump's legislation and as a broader indictment of his second-term priorities and the Republican majority's alignment with them. Jeffries laced his speech with personal anecdotes and stories from the public: people who rely on Medicaid, small business owners facing higher premiums, and the father of three Marines—an undocumented landscaper—beaten by Border Patrol agents in California. 'How can you prepare to celebrate legislation that will undermine the quality of life of everyday Americans?' Jeffries said to House Republicans who were preparing to vote in favor of the bill. 'Shame on this institution if this bill passes. We are better than this, America,' Jeffries said in his closing, as Democrats in the chamber behind him chanted in unison: 'shame, shame, shame.' Democrats would need four Republicans to break ranks in order to sink the legislation, which by Thursday afternoon did not appear likely. Still, some Democrats urged their supporters to call their Republican representatives and urge them to vote against Trump's bill. 'Keep making calls!' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X in all-caps. 'Hit the phones to save Medicaid!' Republicans mostly rolled their eyes at the last-minute action by Democrats. 'Keep going, Hakeem—the longer you speak, the more unified Republicans become,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana posted on X. 'The Big Beautiful Bill WILL be on President Trump's desk July 4th.'
