Another percent-based set of statistics that tells us nothing.
How many Americans were using buy-now pay-later a year ago? 10,000? 50,000? (out of 200 million). A 40% increase in market share from what? A market share of 0.0001%? Did the BNPL amount stay the same, and the market shrink (and what is the market -- on-line purchases or total grocery sales?) And there are 10% more orders, but 19% less revenue. So perhaps fewer people are paying more because of inflation, or more, how can we tell?
Perhaps written by Chat-GPT with the proviso that no actual information be provided.
> everyday BNPL orders, including groceries, accounted for barely 1% of all [BNPL] purchases in 2021.
Presumably the share for groceries alone didn't increase meaningfully in 2022, or that would have been noted for effect, so we're looking at less than 1.4% of all BNPL payments for groceries. Of course, there was also the secular increase in online grocery orders:
> This trend may be partly due to the fact that Americans are simply spending more money on groceries online. Online grocery spending grew by nearly 27% year over year to $8.4 billion in February.
Percent of purchases seems like the wrong statistic. It is likely the case that most purchases are very small, people buying a single pack of cigs at a gas station and things like that. Furthermore, people with a lot of money likely make more purchases than people with little money. The percentage of the population making such everyday BNPL purchases is the interesting statistic, and I suspect it is higher than the % of all purchases.
According to the linked CFPB survey[1], 17% used BNPL at least once (and only 3% used it six times or more), so the percentage of the population using it for everyday purchases is probably small.
Also, where to credit cards, effectively BNPL fit in? I mean, almost all my purchases are on CC, and mostly/usually paid before balance due just for the relative discount/rewards. Ironically those rewards out of tx fees, and subsequent higher pricing because of it.
>> everyday BNPL orders, including groceries, accounted for barely 1% of all purchases in 2021.
> Presumably the share for groceries alone didn't increase meaningfully in 2022, or that would have been noted for effect, so we're looking at less than 1.4% of all BNPL payments for groceries.
It could just mean that BNPL as a product was not much used a couple of years ago, no? It could just mean that these folks would merely then put their groceries on a revolving credit card (which in many ways is worse). It doesn't necessarily mean folks are shifting to riskier forms of debt?
The online grocery stat really surprises me. Relative to pre-pandemic? OK, seems high but I can buy it that a lot of people tried it and some liked it enough to keep it. But YoY from February, at a time when grocery prices have increased a fair bit, is almost hard to believe. "Grocery prices are up so lets make them go up even more for a bit of convenience."
I'm mostly not understanding it relative to early 2022. If someone wasn't using it in February 2022, why now? Yeah, partly a labor market thing. Maybe partly a more people back to offices so don't have as much free time.
My general observation is that not as much changed because of the pandemic as people thought would happen. But grocery delivery is something that does seem to have had gains. (Not sure about food delivery outside of the sort of deliveries that have long existed. And meal kits never really took off even during the pandemic.)
I have my share of problems with big tech, but none of them compare to the rotten garbage that is sectors like payday loans and BNPL. These are industries exclusively set up during rough economic times to prey on the poor.
Just think about BNPL for 3 seconds. How do they make money? By selling people shit they can't afford, waiting for them to miss payments, and charging hefty interest and fees – sometimes totaling up to as much as the product itself.
You can argue "it is legal" "they signed the contract" "they should have known better” all you like, but just like payday loans it is a social ill that we need to deal with.
Honestly even with this reasoning I still don't understand the BNPL business model. If a person can't afford it from the start how are they going to afford it once interest and fees kick in? Seems like the BNPL providers are paying for something full price, potentially charging some fees, but overall receiving less because the debtor defaults.
Obviously I'm missing here because there is no way the BNPL industry would exist without profit, but I just don't get it.
I agree strongly. It really encourages people with poor credit and/or little experience using a credit card "the right way" to finance what should be trivial purchases you either save up for firts, or just don't buy. BNPL for groceries is the ultimate borrow from tomorrow to pay for today; modern economies have taught their citizens well!
I'm by no means a BNPL advocate, but this isn't true. BNPL providers have proliferated because they offer the merchant a new avenue to win new businesses (aka get consumers who wouldn't buy to buy) and in exchange receive a heft % commission of the purchase, much higher than card interchange. They also are fighting to reposition themselves as marketplaces in their own right, and earn associated merchant marketing fees, rather than be just a button a check out.
According to the BNPL industry, fees and interest make up a small portion of their overall revenues. Whether that's wholly accurate is another story.
In sum, they would indeed exist. Its more a question of how large and profitable they would be.
> According to the BNPL industry, fees and interest make up a small portion of their overall revenues. Whether that's wholly accurate is another story.
It may also be irrelevant; I'm more interested in their forward-looking forecasts than their current revenue sources.
> if everyone paid their balances in full and on time, credit card companies would still survive.
That goes against my understanding. Do you have a source for that?
I'm pretty sure credit cards make their money off of interest. It's not from the interchange fees from people who pay their balance each month, as those often go straight back to consumers through rewards programs, and just administration costs generally. The card I use most has no annual fee but 2% cash back on everything.
Cashback is not really a thing around me (Switzerland) and other rewards are just practical jokes - like overpriced black socks subscriptions offered slightly less overpriced. Yet credit cards thrive.
Yes, but American Express is very much an outlier and always has been. It's also why many shops don't accept Amex, because it charges higher transaction fees.
If BNPL was the same as credit cards, then why not just use credit cards?
BNPL often ignores credit check or specifically targets groups that credit cards would deem too risky.
For me this doubles the problem with the BNPL space: not only are the predatory, but I have serious concerns about their own risk management.
I knew of a start up that was experimenting with running their own BNPL service with zero credit checks. The users that were being targeted had a 30+% default rate (because other users had credit cards) but the upper bound of interest that could be charged was around 25%... the company seriously didn't understand why they weren't able to make profit on this product. But hey, revenue did grow which is all VCs cared about so it worked for them.
Different customer base. These loans are generally more expensive and sold to people who can't qualify for credit cards. So yes, same business model but with the "Predatory" knob turned up.
AFAIK the interest rates on credit cards are nowhere near that of even regulated payday loans. The lack of interest on most cards if you repay in full each month can also make them a useful buffer if you have short term liquidity problems, ironically the problem that payday loan companies claim to solve.
Payday loan companies as they operate now belong in the class of companies that should simply be destroyed. Put betting shops in there as well.
Is there some real material different between BNPL and a regular credit line? People often seem up in arms about BNPL, and I'm not clear on what is uniquely insidious about it. Are the rates more predatory than a credit card, for instance?
BNPL doesn't make much sense if you have access to typical quality credit lines. The x% cash back on groceries, plus a month of interest on deferred payment, is probably a better deal than the extra duration on the credit line you might get from BBPL.
The major difference between some BNPL apps and credit cards is that the apps don't require a credit check. So, y'know, there's a certain segment of the market they are targeting.
I think the ethics are fairly mixed -- access to capital is important and capital is expensive to some people for a really good reason. Of course there are fairness issues and predatory lenders, but there's a balance between the two concerns.
But the risk modeling for CCs and BNPL are quite different. I expect there to be a BNPL blow-up at some point.
> The major difference between some BNPL apps and credit cards is that the apps don't require a credit check.
But why would they extend a one-off unsecured line of credit without a check of creditworthiness? It’s not like they can repo the groceries if you don’t pay.
The offers I see are always 0% over 4 months. Napkin math for my credit card (22% APR) is 7.3% for that duration. I'm sure I did that wrong but I literally never carry a balance.
The way this makes money is that they charge the merchant, and the hook for the merchant is that they are opening up their target demographics to include people that cannot otherwise afford the product. In that sense, I think BNPL competes with Layaway rather than with creditcards. More broadly, it's kind of a known factor that the middle class is shrinking and BNPL helps keep consumerism accessible to people that would otherwise be downgrading their lifestyle.
The risk is that if you do not manage your finances very well you can get tricked into thinking you can afford things that you cannot and end up underwater to payments. It's like R-A-C but they won't send the sheriff to repossess your sofa.
This. It doesn't seem materially different from a credit card: if you pay within a certain window, no interest charges. It's just that BNPL is associated with being unable to afford it at the moment.
And, not surprisingly, comedians used to make exactly that joke! When fast food chains like McDonald's started accepting credit cards, they would joke that if you pay with one, it's like you're saying you can't afford the meal all at once.
* advertised as "no interest unlike credit cards" ("free") but if you are struggling, you will get hit with fees
* less strict credit checks, so more struggling people can get it
* attracts struggling people because if your credit is good and you are paying off, you will get much better deal with CCs in terms of cash back, miles, etc - nothing like that here
* merchants actively promoting bnpl to entice struggling people to buy things they can't afford (merchants typically don't promote one-click-pay with specific credit cards)
all these add up to heavily incentivizing broke people to become even more broke, more so than credit cards
I think the difference is their target market. Credit card companies usually target people who they think can make payments without too much stress.
BNPL companies target people who are unlikely to afford the purchase and they will be in far worse position afterwards. Since these are high risk loans, so they come with even higher interest rates and fees too.
Some, not all, BNPL lenders can get predatory with interest and fees if you don't pay the entire balance in 4 payments. For instance, Affirm strikes deals with retail partners that determine the interest rate (if any) on longer payment plans, which can go up to 30% APR vs. a 25% APR mean credit card rate for 650-700 credit scores. That variability also isn't always transparent to the buyer, who might not expect any interest if they used Affirm with another business that didn't require it. Zip, which is compatible with any payment that accepts Visa, charges a flat $1 payment fee per transaction and then a variable late-payment fee that depends on your state. Since more than a third of BNPL users in 2021 missed at least one payment - more than half of those under 40 did, and age demos make up a majority of BNPL users - these fees and rates are lucrative to the lenders.[1]
BNPL lenders don't tend to check a buyer's credit, and those that do don't pull a full report, so it's more accessible than a credit card. But successful payments to a BNPL also don't get reported up to credit agencies, and missed payments can be (at least a third and up to three-quarters of those who missed a payment took a subsequent credit score hit), so paying down a BNPL plan exposes the buyer's credit score to risks with no potential benefit. Since the lack of credit check makes BNPLs attractive to demographics with poor credit scores - young, poor, and underbanked - even responsible usage of BNPLs do nothing to improve those scores.[1][2]
Like with many low- or no-friction payment tools, BNPLs can facilitate overspending by people who already have poor credit, and the consequences of doing so can be dire to the overspender with few or no consequences to the BNPL lender. Planning a BNPL purchase isn't a problem, but point-of-sale BNPL options and BNPL instruments in debit-card form factors make debt an impulse buy in ways that credit cards can't do in some jurisdictions because they face regulations that BNPL lenders don't (yet[3]). People under the most pressure are buying necessities with BNPL and paying the BNPL debt down with credit card debt, a sort of worst-of-all-worlds scenario.[2]
BNPL usage has only increased with inflation and spread to necessities, which in the long run benefits only BNPL lenders. BNPL users are juggling a mean BNPL balance of $665.[2]
Another thing that raises hackles about BNPL lenders is how often they promote their services as a social good by pointing out how they avoid the predatory practices of credit cards. As for-profit institutions this can ring as dissonant to people who've experienced stress from debt, because it can suggest that providing low-friction debt to people who can't afford higher-friction debt is a moral imperative. The cringe of it expands when such platitudes are in the company's report to shareholders about its financial successes.[4]
And on top of everything, the business model for BNPLs existed only with low/near-zero interest rates. Their value as businesses is evaporating as they face actually having to pay for the money that the lenders themselves are borrowing to fund BNPL transactions.[5]
On the topic of being able to afford food, Pizza Pizza in Canada sent a flyer to my door about "Fixed Rate Pizza."
The entire thing is a tongue-in-cheek take on "we won't change the price of our pizza for a year" but they make it sound like a mortgage. You can even go online and get pre-approval for your pizza.[1]
To me, this smells of some marketing people thinking they're really really clever. It's fairly well-executed. But just completely tone deaf. Some people are losing their homes. They're trying to feed their children[2]. This is not the time to goof about the absolute fucking dystopic idea of food mortgages.
[2] My wife volunteers at our kids public school's snack program (Canadian schools generally don't provide lunches). The school has a very wide range of income levels, so you get everything from kids who ignore the snacks (fruit, veggies, sometimes cereal bars), to kids who are sent to school with an empty container to bring food home. Luckily there are some really good social systems in place to try to remove this responsibility from a child, but it's soul crushing to see. This footnote is tangential but I'm having a very raw moment of anger, sadness, and hope.
The webpage linked above includes "How do I apply?" and "get pre-approved." There's even a graphic of a home with a balloon when talking about inflation and literally mentioning mortgage rates.
Perhaps I'm feeling sensitive to this and it is a funny joke. Naturally the audience can decide for themselves. =)
For some reason the narrative seems to be that BNPL is bad for you, but I would argue they are objectively better than credit cards. Or in the worst case as bad as credit cards. The fees on BNPL tends to be capped in most cases while you could carry cc debt for infinite amount of time at high interest rates with no cap on how much you pay.
If you get offered BNPL with no interest or extra fees, isn't it a no-brainer to take it, even when you could afford to just pay the whole cost up front?
Not sure about the US but in the UK it's now supposed to show up on your credit report.
You also need to be the type of person that keeps on top of your finances. The main trap for inexperienced/impulsive people is getting locked into paying for more than they can afford. Without BNPL they might look at their balance and decide not to buy the item. BNPL introduces a different type of calculation where you now "it's only $5/mo", and need the experience to consider "how many more $5/mo payments do I have".
The other problem is people with a volatile monthly income. They might be fine paying $50/month for a few months but due to their industry or changes in their financial situation they're now stuck with a commitment they can't afford and otherwise wouldn't have had without BNPL.
You are missing out on credit card rewards. You don't get the consumer protections (disputes, extended warranties and more) offered by credit cards. It doesn't help build your credit history. And even if you think you can make all payments on time, if you happen to miss a single one then you are going to be hit by like 30% interest and other fees.
Do we have data on what products are being financed? Online grocery orders can include a variety of things, not all of which we’d conventionally call groceries. It's problematic if BNPL is financing daily meals; another if it's a luxurious dinner or pots and pans.
With the current inflation figures, it might actually be a smart move. If the interest charged on the loan is less than inflation, then it makes sense for the consumer to borrow. The company makes a nominal profit on the loan but a net loss in terms of buying power; similar mistake made by SVB; tomorrow-money is not worth the same as today-money.
Since 2008, the Fed has been paying interest on deposits using newly issued currency. That free money will keep entering the economy and cause inflation. The higher they raise the rates, the more free money will enter the economy.
> With the current inflation figures, it might actually be a smart move. If the interest charged on the loan is less than inflation, then it makes sense for the consumer to borrow.
This isn't some mastermind long term plan to gain a few cents over years.
It just means more and more people can't afford basic necessities, it's the case pretty much everywhere in the west, food banks are busier than ever this alone is a clear signal.
This comment is pretty much Peak HN. The article is about people who are, in general, financially not well off and likely living paycheck to paycheck:
> People who use BNPL for purchases tend to be more financially distressed than nonusers, according to a March report by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They’re also more likely to be an active user of other credit products such as payday loans and credit cards, the report added.
HN comment: "This is a smart way to hedge interest rates vs. inflation risk in their portfolios!"
> Since 2008, the Fed has been paying interest on deposits using newly issued currency. That free money will keep entering the economy and cause inflation. The higher they raise the rates, the more free money will enter the economy.
This idea is an example of Neo-Fisherism.[1] It's not really a mainstream view, but Erdogan's central bank has been trying it out (cutting rates to ease inflation).[2] It hasn't exactly worked as he expected.[3]
> “While a pay-in-four plan doesn’t usually charge interest, longer-term BNPL plans may charge an annual percentage rate up to 30%,” an article in Nerdwallet noted in 2022. “Fees, like for late or rescheduled payments, range from $1 to $10 and are sometimes capped at 25% of the purchase value, depending on the company.”
So I guess if you pay in a four-month-installment on time, it could make sense, but that seems like a super risky gamble.
I was surprised to learn that essentially all lenders offer a fixed 8% interest rate... When annual inflation is at least 10% in my country and reserve bank interest rates are on the rise. If it was a variable interest rate, that would present some risk. But it's not even the case. It's literally a fixed 8% annual rate over 5 years (by which point the loan will have been fully paid). So assuming that I can keep my income in line with inflation, it ends up becoming easier to repay my loan as inflation progresses.
It's not quite the same situation for people with real estate mortgages as their rate is variable (or fixed only for a couple of years; so not really fixed when you consider that the loan is 20 to 30 years...) and their repayments increase along with the reserve bank interest rates. My repayments are constant and my debt is being inflated away as we speak.
I bought a basic/small, but good quality car as I think it will hold its value well due to its focus on utility and fuel (cost) efficiency.
If you have the $10 for lunch, you can either pay in cash, or put it into your buy now pay later slush fund and pay on time. There's no fiscal risk, only behavioral risk.
Ally Bank currently offers 4% apy interest on a Money Market Savings, maybe you can find similar from a better bank. 4% apy over the term isn't much, but it's certainly fiscally better than paying cash today.
I really don't think this is down to people who could otherwise afford their groceries deliberately making a savvy financial decision to counter inflation. It'll unfortunately just be folks who need (say) $100 but don't have it on hand when they need to go grocery shopping
This would only be viable if it's a longer-term loan, these are equivalent to payday loans - you'll get fucked over hard if you fail to make the payments in time.
It's worth noting that since we've been in a near-zero interest rate environment for a long time, servicing $80k of debt was comparatively very easy, especially when car makers dealers were desperate to keep selling more and more cars even if the loans were going to be hot garbage. So it's very possible that these people managed to drive off the lot with that car without putting barely anything out-of-pocket.
a lot of times those $80k pickup trucks are used by contractors that can write off the expense but still don't make enough to feed their kids and cover the mortgage. I know a few folks that do this. Their truck is a complete write off because they're contractors for construction or trade-labor. Sometimes its even company provided for the larger builders.
I don't dispute those stats, but it's not just construction workers. Every trademan I've used in the last 20 years has shown up in an F-150 or bigger. Normally to transport their tools in the box or bed. Most folks I know that have a truck of this size, that's the reason. You can't fit a pressure washer in a civic.
I do recognize that a lot of folks buy it because the false sense of safety or for "rolling coal and sticking it to hippies".
Even for tradespeople, the truck is at least as much cultural norms as it is practical. You can easily fit a pressure washer or 4-6 2x10s in a small modern hatchback. A proper bed with a liner is obviously more durable, but not necessary.
For a better anecdote, my father is a contractor and a few years back started actively avoiding his F-450 for day to day work because it's such an expensive pain to operate. Instead he got a smart car and drives that to the site most days, complete with table saw and other tools. Again, not saying that every every tradesperson can work like this, but just think of how much easier parking would be if half the people on site weren't driving F-series trucks.
Own a decent sized boat or 5th wheel camper? Probably gonna tow it with an F-150.
Do lawn or woodworking projects? Probably gonna haul materials in an F-150.
When I purchased my last vehicle, I had several considerations in mind, but the reason I didn't purchase a truck was that the gas mileage on those vehicles is typically not great AND it would cost me less month-to-month to simply rent a truck from U-Haul or Home Depot on the days that I needed it.
I pay almost $500 a month for the right to drive a 2019 SUV that cost $19K when adding up monthly payment and insurance. There are far too many people on the streets paying over $1K a month simply for the right to be mobile in a recent-model truck.
I do own a boat and I totally agree that many are paying over $1k because “it’s a truck!”.
I don’t own a truck. My boat wouldn’t fit on a trailer towed by a 150 anyway. I just think that the core market for that model is tradesmen or apprentices. Secondary market is the fools that think it’s cool to have a 10mpg truck for just having a trucks sake.
If you own a truck and have legit towing, hauling, or other “truck” business then it makes sense to own one rather than rent one. Like you said though, if it’s just one or twice a year - go rent one.
Apologies if I was unclear, I 100% expect that every tradesperson has an F-150+ and that they are a business expense! I was intending that to be additive.
Yeah, understood, I believe we are in agreement that if you’re a welder, framer, roofer, cabinet guy, yard guy, or tile man - you’re showing up in your 150 with it wrapped and logo’ed.
If you add up all three of those (25% using for towing, 30% using for offroading, and 35% for hauling) I get something like 85% as the upper bound (unlikely, but no overlap case) of people using it for those truck purposes.
If you fall on hard times, it also often doesn't make a hell of a lot of financial sense to sell your vehicle. Doubly so if you do use it to make money. Even if you can get something cheaper, that "something cheaper" might be less reliable, which can lead to losing work—transportation unreliability is a very common element of poverty stories, frequently messing up opportunities or causing major set-backs. And it's not like you're going to get that entire $80k (new) back by selling a used truck.
Requiring or expecting that people burn through all their material resources before getting help isn't how you get people out of poverty. Such requirements are a part of America's "poverty trap" and also cause misery in the disability system.
General point taken but you can absolutely get out of that situation without losing reliability. You can get a good condition, perfectly reliable Maverick or cargo van for a fraction of that. Maybe $30k at the most, and most contractors will still have the utility they need. And right now, you won't lose much on a private buyer sale of a bigger or more heavily optioned truck.
A lot of those cargo vans are being bought to turn into van-life vans. Sure you could get an E-350 used for around $20k but you’d be competing with Mary, the trust fund YouTuber that wants to play “adventuring”.
I spent a solid year looking for a good cargo van to turn into something other than a van-life van (more a mobile hacking station… but that’s besides the point).
The reality is, one’s transportation here in America is one’s livelihood in many situations.
Indeed, although the reverse is also occurring as passenger vans are being bought for cargo conversion. It's concentrated in certain some makes/models/years just as vanlife demand is heavily concentrated elsewhere.
It's probably easier to buy a good small pickup than a big van right now, especially if trading a bigger pickup + accepting cash which would be great for someone in financial trouble.
I can't remember the last time I paid for groceries with anything other than a credit card. Or even saw someone else pay for groceries with plastic, which is hopefully CC or EBT since using debit cards at POS is kind of risky.
Because of loans and human
Psych. I'm becoming more and more convinced that easy access to loans (Buy now, pay later) is too dangerous for the social part of society, assuming we also want to protect those who abuse them from their own actions.
They seem to only marginally help those who already have money, but frequently negatively impact those who either don't have money or just make very bad financial decisions.
It's not just Americans, the BNPL industry has seem tremendous growth around the world. China reports credit card usage quadrupling and alongside that BNPL schemes, Europe is expected to see the BNPL industry hit close to $1 trillion by 2028.
I recently learned that Klarna is a Swedish company, and was founded in 2005 [0], which surprised me because I don't remember seeing it anywhere until the past ~5 years, when it started appearing as an option on nearly every checkout page.
Every single debt is underwritten individually by a originating bank. Within a few days the BNPL provider is expected to buy that debt back once the remittances to vendors have been made. The BNPL company then takes on the debt.
BNPL makes their money by charging a network fee. AFAIK AfterPay charges about 7% and this is meant to cover the debt charges from the banks and administration fees.
The bar for “responsibly” is as low as it can get. It is just spending a few minutes to set up autopay on the credit card website, and acting like your credit card is a debit card.
The downside is that widespread usage of credit cards increases prices by 2-3% and disproportionally impacts those who can't get a credit card with the same rewards. You are getting a 2-3% discount on the backs of the poor.
The amount of time people spend applying for and maintaining welfare makes up for whatever you think your tax contribution is worth. It's even at best.
Getting a 3% discount with "net 30" payment terms is great. However, you have to have the discipline to pay off the card every month. I understand why people advocate against credit cards if they don't have the discipline to not overspend.
I suspect the downside to using credit cards comes when you don’t pay (or can’t pay) the bill during the interest free period or at the end of each month.
If you are physically giving up cash, it is much easier to figure out if you have insufficient cash to make a purchase. With a credit card, it is less obvious to figure out that the balance on the card now exceeds the cash you have to pay it off. It can be done, true, but it requires a level of diligence that most people don't have.
Even people who do have that diligence can be caught out. You do the calculation, make the purchase and a week later encounter an unexpected expense like your car breaking down, or you lose your job. You may now find yourself unable to make the full repayment despite having thought about the purchase before making it.
As long as you don’t lose your income. And then your savings. And then have to decide whether to use your depleting reserves to pay mortgage/rent or buy groceries. Guess which one you put on the credit card?
If you lose your income and your savings, you've got major problems anyway.
Not paying the credit card bill has consequences, but having the option to choose whether to pay timely for expenses you already incurred offers flexibility.
If you had paid cash for your groceries the day before you got laid off, the cash is gone; if you paid on a credit card, you have an unsecured debt, but you can use your cash for other things, if need be.
That’s a reasonable perspective, but my point was that it allows someone to sprint off a cliff that they otherwise might slow down for, and all of this was in a comment thread that started with someone critiquing people in $80k trucks getting handouts.
If I just got a new phone and then lost my job what's wrong with me going to the food bank? If I just got a nice car and then had to get helicopter'd (out of network so I have to eat the full cost) for a medical emergency, what's wrong with me going to the food bank? I don't want to be in line. I don't want to be publicly seen unable to afford food.
Nothing, please just don't be the guy I saw with a brand new car literally clearing out the unattended "little food bank" stand to sell stuff on facebook marketplace (while audibly complaining about the low value of the DVDs also placed in there). Sadly when I see the new car kind of people that seems to be what they're doing.
How many Americans were using buy-now pay-later a year ago? 10,000? 50,000? (out of 200 million). A 40% increase in market share from what? A market share of 0.0001%? Did the BNPL amount stay the same, and the market shrink (and what is the market -- on-line purchases or total grocery sales?) And there are 10% more orders, but 19% less revenue. So perhaps fewer people are paying more because of inflation, or more, how can we tell?
Perhaps written by Chat-GPT with the proviso that no actual information be provided.