3 ms·

They're pretty handy just as a form of payment. I've never once carried a balance and never paid a cent of interest to a credit card company, but I use credit

They're pretty handy just as a form of payment. I've never once carried a balance and never paid a cent of interest to a credit card company, but I use credit cards for basically all of my spending. I get back ~$1000/year in rewards, plus all the convenience of having plastic whenever I want to spend, recurring billing, dispute resolution, fraud prevention, etc. I'd argue that this suggests another hypothesis that the article only partially considered: high interest rates are a cross-subsidy to attract the 40% of credit card users who never carry a balance, and the 40% of credit card users who never carry a balance are a marketing expense to normalize credit card use and make the 60% who do think it's completely acceptable to spend without a thought. I get literally thousands of benefits from the credit card company, and I don't pay a cent. That money has to be coming from somewhere, and I'd bet that it's coming from the 60% of consumers who pay usurious interest rates.

drdec 2y ago
> That money has to be coming from somewhere If you read the whole article, you would learn that it is actually coming from you, via the merchant. Which means you are likely paying higher prices. Now you pay the higher prices either way for the most part, so you may as well enjoy the kickback^W rewards.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  I'm aware of merchant transaction fees, but they're insufficient as an explanation. Just run the numbers. Say that a hypothetical consumer spends $10K/year. The person who carries that as a balance will pay $2700 at 27% interest, plus $300 from the 3% transaction fee, for a total of $3000, and they might get $200 as cashback. The person who doesn't carry a balance will pay $300 and get $200 as cashback. It's pretty doubtful that all the other services a credit card company provides - fraud detection, chargebacks, billing, recurring payments - cost < $100/year. Maybe if you never submit a chargeback and your card never gets stolen, but at best we're looking at them breaking even on their non-balance-carrying customers and making all their profits off the customers that carry a balance. When you're providing a service to one group at or below cost and making all your profits off another group or another service, that's the definition of a cross-subsidy, even if you do get a token amount of revenue off the first group.
  - drdec 2y ago
    > I'm aware of merchant transaction fees, but they're insufficient as an explanation. Just run the numbers. I don't have to run the numbers, because I read the article where they did the actual research with real numbers, not your back of the envelope estimating, and they came to the opposite conclusion: | This leads to our second hypothesis: High interest rates are necessary to recoup the high cost of rewards. However, our analysis shows this is not the case. Rewards expenses are more than fully covered by banks’ interchange income—fees collected from merchants based on purchase volume. On average, interchange income amounts to 1.82 percent of purchase volume, while rewards expenses are 1.57 percent.
  - telotortium 2y ago
    Chargebacks in particular are eaten by the merchant, not the credit card company, unless the merchant puts in the effort to show that the chargeback is incorrect or fraudulent.

drdec 2y ago

> That money has to be coming from somewhere If you read the whole article, you would learn that it is actually coming from you, via the merchant. Which means you are likely paying higher prices. Now you pay the higher prices either way for the most part, so you may as well enjoy the kickback^W rewards.

nostrademons 2y ago
I'm aware of merchant transaction fees, but they're insufficient as an explanation. Just run the numbers. Say that a hypothetical consumer spends $10K/year. The person who carries that as a balance will pay $2700 at 27% interest, plus $300 from the 3% transaction fee, for a total of $3000, and they might get $200 as cashback. The person who doesn't carry a balance will pay $300 and get $200 as cashback. It's pretty doubtful that all the other services a credit card company provides - fraud detection, chargebacks, billing, recurring payments - cost < $100/year. Maybe if you never submit a chargeback and your card never gets stolen, but at best we're looking at them breaking even on their non-balance-carrying customers and making all their profits off the customers that carry a balance. When you're providing a service to one group at or below cost and making all your profits off another group or another service, that's the definition of a cross-subsidy, even if you do get a token amount of revenue off the first group.
- drdec 2y ago
  > I'm aware of merchant transaction fees, but they're insufficient as an explanation. Just run the numbers. I don't have to run the numbers, because I read the article where they did the actual research with real numbers, not your back of the envelope estimating, and they came to the opposite conclusion: | This leads to our second hypothesis: High interest rates are necessary to recoup the high cost of rewards. However, our analysis shows this is not the case. Rewards expenses are more than fully covered by banks’ interchange income—fees collected from merchants based on purchase volume. On average, interchange income amounts to 1.82 percent of purchase volume, while rewards expenses are 1.57 percent.
- telotortium 2y ago
  Chargebacks in particular are eaten by the merchant, not the credit card company, unless the merchant puts in the effort to show that the chargeback is incorrect or fraudulent.