A Critique of the ABA's Study on Credit Card Regulation

First, this article addresses the ABA Study's claim that credit card pricing is risk-based, benefitting creditworthy consumers with lower costs of credit and subprime consumers with greater access to credit. This article demonstrates that credit card pricing is only marginally risk-based and that consumer benefits are illusory. To the extent that credit card interest rates have declined over the past two decades, it is attributable to issuers' decreased cost of funds. Increased subprime access to credit cards relates to issuers' ability to pass off risk through securitization, and increased credit card access is hardly a boon absent ability to repay debts.

Second, this article shows that contrary to the ABA Study's claims, credit card debt now supplements, rather than replaces other forms of consumer debt. And third, the article takes issue with the ABA Study's assertion that there is no basis for credit card regulation. Instead, seven of the eight standard independent reasons for government regulation apply squarely to credit cards, making regulatory intervention in the credit card market a question of how, not whether.