= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

How Sanders' Bank Plan Would Kill Credit Availability for the Poor

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders' victory in the New Hampshire primary will undoubtedly provide fresh momentum for his campaign against Hillary Clinton, but is also likely to subject many of his proposals to a harsher spotlight as his credibility as a candidate grows.

One idea that has escaped scrutiny to date is an ambitious plan to cap interest rates on credit cards and all consumer loans at 15%.

"In 1980, Congress passed legislation to require credit unions to cap interest rates on their loans at no more than 15%," Sanders said in a speech last month. "And that law has worked well. Unlike big banks, credit unions did not receive a huge bailout from the taxpayers of this country. It is time to extend this cap to every lender in America."

Like many of Sanders' other proposals, it is appealingly simple, casting big banks as the bad guys who "need to stop acting like loan sharks and start acting like responsible lenders."

Yet also like many of Sanders' other ideas, it betrays a startling ignorance about how the credit system actually works and what the impact of such a cap would be on low-income consumers and those with poor credit histories. They would almost certainly be denied credit as a result or forced to go to unregulated lenders for help. Here's how:

The entire premise of Sanders' proposal is deeply flawed

Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act in 1980, which raised the cap on interest rates that federal credit unions can charge from 12% to 15%. But despite Sanders claim that the law has "worked well" since then, credit unions have never — at any point — actually had to live under that cap. That's because the law also gave the National Credit Union Administration the power to raise the cap due to market conditions.

As a result, the NCUA has set the rate well above 15% since the law's enactment. Between 1981 and 1987, it was set at 21%. Since then, it's been at 18%. Sanders is effectively promoting a 15% cap that doesn't actually exist.

It's not clear who would benefit in the short term.

Sanders' proposal appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Despite a small hike in the federal funds rate last year, interest rates for all types of consumer loans — credit cards included — remain at historically low levels.

The average credit card interest rate on Tuesday for prime cards was 9.02% for credit unions and 10.77% for banks, according to Informa Services Research Rates. For reward cards, it was 10.39% for credit unions and 14.35% for banks.

A search of Google shows a wide variety of card rates, many of which start with a 0% interest rate for an introductory period and then rise as high as 23% depending on different factors. Still, even for those with poor credit scores below 660, several issuers advertise rates at or below 15%, although those often come with annual premiums and other fees attached.

But overall, it's not clear that high interest rates on credit cards are a problem, especially when compared to, say, the level of student loan debt, which Sanders (to his credit) has also criticized. Under President Obama in 2009, Congress already passed a law, the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which is widely credited by consumer groups and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with rooting out many abuses in the credit card market.

So it's difficult to understand why Sanders is suggesting a cap on credit card interest rates is necessary now or even what he specifically sees as a problem. (The Sanders campaign did not return requests for comment.)

The one area where consumer groups and others have been warning about excessively high interest rates are on payday and other short-term, small-dollar loans, where annual percentage rates can shoot above 300% depending on the terms. Yet even if that were the case — and there's no sign Sanders was specifically referring to such loans — a 15% cap would be ludicrously low.

Credit unions' current cap on such loans is 28%, according to rules set by the NCUA. Consumer groups are lobbying the CFPB to set a national 36% cap, a level at which many lenders would likely only break even. No one is seriously contemplating a 15% cap, because it would mean no one would offer such loans.

"For mainstream financial institutions to try to offer an alternative to a payday loan, they can't do that at under 15%," said Bill Hampel, the chief policy officer for the Credit Union National Association.

If Sanders plan were enacted, it could wreak havoc on low-income people in the long term.

As hard as it is to find someone Sanders' plan would help, it's relatively easy to foresee a situation in which it would hurt precisely the people Sanders is trying to protect.

The history of price caps is a long and unsuccessful one because they almost always result in the same thing—the loss of credit availability, particularly for those who are low income or who have poor credit histories. It's easy to understand why: Lenders need to make their money back.

"If 10 people borrow $10 and nine out of 10 repay, the other nine repaying have to make up the $10 that the 10th person doesn't repay," said Nessa Feddis, senior vice president at the American Bankers Association. "If you are limiting revenue so it doesn't cover the costs of default, the lender has to be more strict about the people they are lending to. The rich and people with a lot of credit history may be able to get credit, but people with low income or poor credit histories will struggle."

History has borne that out. Arkansas had a strict usury law of 10% that it set in 1874. At the time, interest rates were low enough that the usury limit didn't matter, but when rates spiked decades later, the state scrambled to raise the cap. It eventually raised it to 17%. Even the 15% credit union rate that Sanders was praising was put in place only because the previous rate of 12% had proved unworkable.

"Legislation is a blunt instrument — pricing credit is a very dynamic exercise that is dependent on a lot more factors than a number in a bill," said Ed Mills, who helped work on the CARD Act while a staffer for the House Financial Services Committee in 2009, and is now an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "There are consequences to having a hard cap, some of which can lead to shutting off credit to individuals that you want to have credit."

Even consumer groups acknowledge that setting a cap is difficult and could have unintended consequences if it's set too low.

"At an abstract level, prices impact supply and demand," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center. "The question is where is the right place to draw the line."

If Sanders' proposed interest rate cap were enacted now (a challenging task considering Republicans' resistance to such an idea), it would have a negligible impact until rates went up, and then lenders would cut people off.

"Anytime you place a cap on price or, in this case, interest rates, you ultimately limit supply," said Jill Castilla, president and chief executive officer of the $250 million-asset Citizens Bank of Edmond in Oklahoma. "As a result of limited availability, consumers may be driven to unregulated credit providers."

Indeed, that is the biggest danger of Sanders' plan. Though the Vermont Democrat clearly distrusts banks, experience has shown that consumers will turn to far less scrupulous lenders if they need money badly enough.

"If you were to set a law that would arbitrarily cut off the ability of Main Street financial institutions to make loans," Hampel said, "those borrowers are thrown at the mercy of potentially predatory lenders."


(5) Comments



Comments (5)
Bernie is well-intentioned but incorrect. Risk-based pricing *is* fair. If banks are mandated to charge the same capped rate for someone who is a poor credit risk vs. someone with a perfect credit record, one of two unintended consequences will result: Either 1) the lender will go out of business under the weight of its charged-off loans (because it made low-rate loans to a high-risk population, thus becoming a de-facto charity); or 2) in order to stay in business, the bank will tighten its credit requirements and will no longer make ANY loans to the riskier population. While Bernie’s intentions may be the best, the unintended outcome is harmful to the very population he is trying to help, because it takes viable options off the table for higher-risk consumers.
Posted by LoanOfficerOfYore | Thursday, February 11 2016 at 1:53PM ET
rblackwe and Brian K - most likely the low income families won't get or qualify for a low interest card. They may qualify for 23 percent, and then file bankruptcy when the going gets tough. The rich get richer - isn't that how it goes in America? That's why 20 people in the USA have more wealth than 60 million families combined. 20 people. Cards are unsecured, but there's no reason to charge over 20 percent interest. It would also help if bank presidents didn't make for in two hours of work, than some of their employees make in an entire year. Bernie is starting a revolution and millions of people are listening. Trump, Cruz and those clowns are doing just the opposite, with absolutely no new ideas - well, some crazy ideas I guess. This country is so out of control and out of touch with humanity, it's ridiculous. Lending, Wall Street, health care and government practices need to be overhauled. Not just changed, but changed AND enforced. The CFPB and ACA were a start in the right direction. Too many roadblocks by the REPs though. It's a shame.
Posted by usbanker61 | Wednesday, February 10 2016 at 4:33PM ET
@usbanker - are you controlling for credit risk in your analysis? The wealthy may be getting low rates because they pose a lower risk of defaulting on their debts (because they are wealthy) while the poor present a higher risk of default. This isn't to say some people aren't over/undercharged but credit decisions are forward looking, probabalistic, and imperfect.
Posted by Brian K | Wednesday, February 10 2016 at 10:51AM ET
Huh? Go search for a credit card. You will find plenty below the 15% cap Sanders suggests, even for those who are low income. Also, credit cards are unsecured, revolving debt. That's the reason interest rates are higher on it than, say, mortgages or auto lending.
Posted by rblackwe | Wednesday, February 10 2016 at 9:49AM ET
Bernie is completely correct. How is it fair to charge some customers 20-30 percent interest on their purchases? The low interest rates are given to the wealthy, while the poor are charged 20-30 percent and they have to struggle to get out of debt. What banks and credit card companies have been doing for years should be illegal.
Posted by usbanker61 | Wednesday, February 10 2016 at 9:43AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.