It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Dear Leader has no legal authority to impose his will on the banks. My guess is that they will just ignore the high-decibel bloviations. Of course the CEO's would run the risk of having their mortgage papers and building permits sifted by the DOJ.CFO Jeremy Barnum hinted Tuesday the industry could fight President Donald Trump’s demand for credit card price controls, saying “everything’s on the table.”
“If you wind up with weakly supported directives to radically change our business that aren’t justified, you have to assume that everything’s on the table,” Barnum said in a call with reporters following JPMorgan’s fourth-quarter earnings report. “We owe that to shareholders.”
/snip
“Our belief is that actions like this will have the exact opposite consequence to what the administration wants for consumers,” Barnum said. “Instead of lowering the price of credit, we’ll simply reduce the supply of credit, and that will be bad for everyone: consumers, the wider economy, and yes, at the margin, for us.”
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
Isn’t he over-stepped his authority ? That is reserved for the CEOs of the banks. Banks in the public markets answer to the shareholders and board of director. For sure they do not answer to the President.
Interest rates charged by credit cards are regulated. But by states, not by federal law. In 1980, Citibank moved its credit card division to South Dakota to take advantage of its lenient regulations. And the rest is history. https://www.sdnewswatch.org/giga-fact-brief-sd-credit-card-companies-citi-wells-fargo/
See also: https://www.bankrate.com/credit-cards/zero-interest/does-law-cap-credit-card-interest-rates/
Congress has the power to step in and impose federal limits on rates. But does Congress have the capability to pass any legislation these days?
5-day performance.
FBP -0.43%
BLX: +1.16%
gop voters will need to feel they personally benefited from trump somewhere, rather than just entertainment (grievance+retribution).
its also clear how the banking lobby, like any lobby, will make an attempt to 'convince' trump to lose interest in the topic.
if banks fail on trump,they will just cut loose bad credit low income...and much MAGA included.
I try to use cash or my debit card to avoid the 3% credit card transaction fee that now seems ubiquitous in many restaurants and retailers today.
Putting a cap on Credit Card Rates...Who is this harming?
The CC companies will tell you that lower rates on Credit cards will harm poor people...hmm.
Here's Warren's Advice (not Elizabeth): buffett-advises-against-using-credit
My guess about why the fee is 3% is that Visa limits surcharges to 3% (MC limit AFAIK is 4%). It's difficult for a merchant to add a different surcharge based on the card used. But merchants are now allowed to decline cards for which the merchant is charged a higher fee.
https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/visa-reduces-its-merchant-surcharge-cap-3-effective-april-15-2023-merchants
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/13/visa-mastercard-legal-settlement-what-you-need-to-know.html
For restaurants, Chase Freedom cards are currently offering 5% back (rotating categories by calendar quarter). BofA Premium Rewards ($95 annual fee) offers 3% - 3.5% back (w/$50K+ or $100K+ invested w/Merrill), Wells Fargo Autograph cards offer 3% back, Capital One Savor offers 3% back, AAA Travel Advantage card offers 3% back.
Note that BofA may be changing its cash back policies soon: https://upgradedpoints.com/news/bank-of-america-bofa-rewards-changes-2026/
Banks are going to get their pound and a half of flesh one way or another. When squeezed in one area they often resort to making free accounts harder to get, or eliminating them completely, thus harming lower income people, possibly debanking them. Regulations need to be more comprehensive to protect those at greatest risk.
Banks are going to get their pound and a half of flesh one way or another. When squeezed in one area they often resort to making free accounts harder to get, or eliminating them completely, thus harming lower income people, possibly debanking them. Regulations need to be more comprehensive to protect those at greatest risk
Great Point!