Bank leaders warn proposed 10% credit‑card rate cap would tighten credit and dent issuer revenue

A high‑profile proposal to limit credit‑card interest to 10% has drawn direct pushback from major industry figures who say the policy risks curbing consumer access to revolving credit and damaging lender economics. American Express’s CEO warned that sharply lower permitted rates would prompt issuers to reduce the number of cards issued and shrink individual credit lines, a change that would ripple into small business lending and broader consumer activity. JPMorgan’s chief executive signaled similar concerns, arguing that a binding cap at that level would be severe enough to remove access from a large swath of cardholders. Market analysts from a major independent research firm flagged the revenue loss for card businesses as a potentially material negative, while also noting prior regulatory attempts at rate ceilings face practical enforcement hurdles. The debate landed alongside American Express’s most recent results, where the company reported double‑digit sales growth and provided mid‑single‑digit guidance for the coming year, underscoring the contrast between ongoing profitability and the threat a rate cap could pose to future margins. Stock performance has reflected investor attention to issuer economics, with share movements reacting to both earnings strength and policy risk. The proposal raises distributional questions: borrowers with weaker credit scores would likely see the largest reduction in available credit, transferring risk into cash‑constrained household budgets or alternative lenders. From a macro angle, reduced revolving credit availability can depress consumer spending and slow small business cash flow, particularly for firms that routinely rely on card‑based receivables. Enforcement complexity remains a central obstacle; past experiences with interest limits show lenders, regulators, and markets can find ways to reprice or redesign products around constraints. If enacted, banks could compensate through fees, tighter underwriting, or reduced rewards programs, altering the competitive landscape among issuers and card processors. Policymakers must weigh the political appeal of lower headline rates against the operational and economic consequences for credit supply and financial stability. Observers should monitor legislative traction, supervisory guidance, and market responses from issuers and investors to assess how policy talk might translate into real‑world credit conditions.