Matt Levine's column interesting as always. I'd like to point to one bit in particular, which is applying optionality to bank decisions to extend credit. (Optionality is one of those great financial lenses which you can apply to *so* many things fruitfully.)https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1220402323811422208 …
-
-
Many businesses have been burnt when the macro environment changes from widespread availability of credit to non-availability quickly, including sophisticated financial firms. (Reluctance of the repo markets to offer capacity as widely Tuesday as Monday contributed to the GFC.)
Show this thread -
You can mitigate this, as a consumer of credit (B2C or B2B) by having multiple independent funding sources and, of course, by keeping a cash buffer around.
Show this thread -
Historically it was operationally difficult for banks to adjust credit lines, but that better adoption of technology (data sources about credit risk, data science applied to your transactions and bank's proprietary data, overall better IT posture) allows this to be *fast*.
Show this thread -
This makes the process more efficient and less risky for lenders, which at the margin should counsel them to offer higher limits to more marginal customers than they'd otherwise be comfortable with. But those limits "mean less" than many people might assume they do.
Show this thread -
Example: there is one particular US bank that I've used in a personal capacity for a very long time. I'm a pretty good credit risk. Back in I think 2012, when I was also a pretty good credit risk, they were uncomfortable giving me any more than
$X of total exposure.Show this thread -
That is likely downstream of "Well, we're not *really* taking on 4X of risk from you. You barely even saturated the
$X for most of your years with us. If your financial circumstances change extraordinarily rapidly and you go crazy with charging things, we'd derisk *in seconds.*Show this thread -
So why do banks offer you "more credit than you need"? I mean, to make money, but the mechanisms are more interesting than that. One is to protect their share of wallet.
Show this thread -
Banks broadly do not believe they have material edges in underwriting consumers: if you are a) a very good credit risk and b) use a lot of credit, banks perceive that it is highly likely all of their competitors will believe the same two things about you, particularly over time.
Show this thread -
(An interesting market opportunity for banks is specializing in people whose circumstances are specialized such that the technology which enables the last tweet, such as credit reports and FICO scoring, does not correctly bucket them as low-risk but where they still borrow lots.)
Show this thread -
So if banks think "Well, if we don't extend credit at the margin our competitors certainly will", whereas previously they might be OK losing the opportunity for your business to protect their risk profile, these days they want you to *know* you have headroom on your card.
Show this thread -
"I don't want to lose a single business trip worth of expenses to Amex just because they were worried about going over and MOST PARTICULARLY I do not want Amex to get their transactions *next month, too* because of an opportunity to change habits or stored cards."
Show this thread -
That is also downstream of the increasing computerization of user spending behavior: previously, the jargon was literally "We want to be 'top of wallet'; the card our customer habitually reaches for first." The expectation is all other cards are a short distance away in wallet.
Show this thread -
When your business runs transactions monthly on AWS or you personally have a card installed on Apple Pay, though, the difference between "top of wallet" and the next card is *gigantic*. Your "next card" isn't on the system charging you money and probably isn't on *you* either!
Show this thread -
You'll note that "Ahah, they are trying to trick you into spending more than you can afford" is a very different narrative from "Ahah, they are hoping you concentrate more of your transactions on them this month, pay back quickly, and come back for more next month."
Show this thread -
There exists a heterogeneity of strategies and a wide distribution in customer behavior. Some banks (and some products at a particular bank) might be caricatured as being more of the first, and some more of the second. And some are both, for different people.
Show this thread -
Financially unsophisticated people, including very smart financially unsophisticated people, often believe "Banks can't make any money from you if you are a responsible user of credit. They want you to get in over your head." This is false as stated.
Show this thread -
Banks sell financial services. Sometimes the pricing is a little opaque to the end user, because it is subsidized by someone else. If you consume a lot of financial services, and banks are eagerly courting your business, it is *probably not* because they're bad at math.
Show this thread -
A concrete example: which of the following two customers is more lucrative? A: Spends $10k. This strains them; they can pay back the minimums, but it will take them years to pay off, at a 15% APR the whole while. B: Spends $10k monthly. Never pays a cent in interest.
Show this thread -
Answer: depends *almost entirely* on what it cost the bank to acquire and keep B's business, because B is *printing money* via interchange. A contributes about ~$1.3k of revenue per year (plus $200~$300 in month 1). B contributes about $2.5~$3k annually.
Show this thread -
(Should insert a *plausibly* before "contributes" because there are actually a lot of different interchange rates the issuer could be receiving depending on product, jurisdiction, card brand, regulation, etc, and I should clarify "I'm being very handwavy on math here.")
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.