Friday, 11 September 2026
11 September 2026
- In brief
- 1Buy now, pay later is a regulated loan in Britain. One estimate says the new check could turn away three in ten users.
- 2Lawmakers ask agencies to act on veterans fees
- 3Four regulators target car finance claims firms
- 4Some drivers hired four firms for one claim
- 5A debt settlement firm ordered to repay 5.4m dollars
- 6What debt settlement firms charge
- 7The free version of the same service
- 8Nobody can delete an accurate bad mark
- 9Why paying a collector to delete is not a fix
- 10Three quarters of a million child accounts unclaimed
- 11Florida is holding 4.5bn dollars nobody claimed
- 12A quarter of US retirement money is left behind
- 13US personal bankruptcies pass half a million
- 14Debt collectors are back in court in numbers
- 15A case you lose by not turning up
- 16A medical debt collector shut down
- 17Renters owe rent to a collector too
- 18The US market regulator opens the door to arbitration
- 19Shareholder suits returned ten times what enforcement did
- 20What an arbitration clause does to a group claim
- 21Britain opens eight cases on added-on fees
- 22Vets told to publish their prices
- 23A 12,000 pound bill and five minutes to decide
- 24Ticketmaster raised other fees when one was banned
- 25A parking operator investigated over forecourt tickets
- 26The FTC warned 200 dealers and the fees continued
- 27A tax refund can be taken to pay an old debt
- 28Debt written off can arrive as taxable income
- 29The US tax office has ten years to collect
- 30What a levy actually allows
- 31Britain freezes interest during a repayment plan
- 32Britain reviews second mortgages on the same house
- 33What a bank will lend is not what you can afford
- 34The US regulator's own case file on pay later
- 35Older shoppers say they use it for timing
11 Sept · Money · In brief
Money · Friday, 11 September 2026
Money, in brief
35 stories · 42 sources
Swipe up for the day in brief ↑Scroll down for the day in brief ↓
What is moving · 1 of 4
Rules arriving on products that had none
Britain started regulating buy now, pay later on 15 July 2026
What is moving · 2 of 4
Paid help for free rights
Britain's financial regulator says its car finance scheme is free
What is moving · 3 of 4
Debt reaching the courts
US personal bankruptcies passed half a million last year, up nearly 50 percent in three years
What is moving · 4 of 4
US protections being unwound
the US market regulator cleared the way for companies to require private arbitration instead of court
Part of the day's signal
One pressure seen across the day runs through Money too.
35 stories
- 1Buy now, pay later is a regulated loan in Britain. One estimate says the new check could turn away three in ten users.
- 2Lawmakers ask agencies to act on veterans fees
- 3Four regulators target car finance claims firms
- 4Some drivers hired four firms for one claim
- 5A debt settlement firm ordered to repay 5.4m dollars
9 sources
Money, in brief
- 1Buy Now Pay Later
- 8Congress calls for a crackdown on companies charging disabled vets
- 9Regulators launch joint taskforce to crack down on poor practice in motor finance claims
- 12Best Debt Settlement Companies of 2026: Compare Fees and Savings
- 21More Americans are going bankrupt. What does that mean?
- 22Debt Collectors Chase More Consumers in Court
- 27Mandatory Dis-Agreements: The Commission's Policy of Quietly Shutting the Door on Investors
- 30Eight firms under investigation in crackdown on additional online fees
- 31UK vets face crackdown over fees as pet owners left in the dark on bills
Buy now, pay later is a regulated loan in Britain. One estimate says the new check could turn away three in ten users.
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Since 15 July 2026, a company that lets a British shopper split a purchase into instalments counts as a lender and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Britain's financial regulator.
the regulator's own count when it confirmed the rules
Who is involved
The Financial Conduct Authority
Britain's financial regulator; it took charge of buy now, pay later on 15 July 2026 and now authorises the lenders [1][2]
Who is involved
Klarna, Clearpay and PayPal
the three firms that dominate the British market; they need authorisation, or a place on a temporary permission register, to keep lending [1][3]
Why it matters
Watch the share of applications refused: Fair4All Finance says up to 30 percent, and the regulator has said only that some regular users may find access harder.
Why it works on people
Nothing at a buy now, pay later checkout charges interest, so it does not feel like borrowing until a payment is missed and the late fee arrives.
Who gains
The largest buy now, pay later lenders
A law firm partner told the Guardian that firms already authorised can absorb the new compliance costs, while smaller ones may consolidate or leave.
Who pays
Buy now, pay later users with thin credit records
Fair4All Finance estimates up to 30 percent could be refused under the new checks, and says nearly half of those have never missed a payment.
Who pays
Shoppers spending under 100 pounds
The new refund right against the lender starts at 100 pounds, and Experian puts the average purchase at about 60 pounds.
Nobody knows yet
How many people Britain's new affordability checks actually refuse.
Fair4All Finance says up to 30 percent of current users; the regulator says only that some regular users may find access harder. Neither has published a count since the rules started on 15 July 2026.
Nobody knows yet
Where the people who are refused go instead.
Fair4All Finance named illegal money lenders as a risk and put no number on it, and nobody is tracking what a declined applicant does next.
Good news
Since 15 July 2026, someone in Britain who splits a purchase into instalments can take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service without paying. On purchases over 100 pounds they can also claim the money back from the lender if the shop never delivers.
Part of a signal
Rules written after the thing was already on sale
Seen in 4 of the 12 beats
Also seen in Cyber, Tech and Food.
The whole signal →The short version
That's the story in short.
The whole story has 12 more parts.
or swipe up for the next storyor scroll on for the next story ↓
The whole story, in 12 parts ↓
Part 1 of 12 · Who else is involved
Fair4All Finance
a not-for-profit set up through a UK government department to widen access to finance; it warns the checks will shut out people who have never missed a payment [3]
Part 1 of 12 · Who else is involved
The Financial Ombudsman Service
the free British body that settles disputes between customers and financial firms; these borrowers can now bring it their complaints [1][3]
Part 2 of 12
Parliament gave the regulator that power for the first time this year.
Part 2 of 12
Before the rules started, this kind of credit carried none of the protections attached to a credit card or a personal loan.
Part 3 of 12
Lenders must now check that a person can afford to repay before each agreement, even a small one, and must hand over set information before anyone signs.
Part 4 of 12
If a payment is missed, the lender has to make contact and explain what happens next, rather than passing the person straight to a debt collector.
Part 5 of 12
Shoppers can now take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the free British body that settles arguments between customers and financial firms.
Part 6 of 12
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act now applies to these purchases.
Part 6 of 12
If the shop never delivers, the buyer can claim the money from the lender as well as from the shop.
Part 7 of 12
That right starts at 100 pounds, and the credit reference agency Experian puts the average buy now, pay later purchase at about 60 pounds.
Part 7 of 12
So most purchases sit below it.
Part 8 of 12
Eleven million people in Britain use the product, on the regulator's count.
Part 8 of 12
The market went from 60m pounds in 2017 to more than 13bn pounds in 2024, and use rose from 14 percent to 25 percent of UK adults in a single year.
Part 9 of 12
Fair4All Finance, a not-for-profit body set up through a UK government department to widen access to finance, says up to 30 percent of current users could be refused under the new checks.
Part 9 of 12
It says nearly half of those have never missed a payment.
Part 10 of 12
Two gaps remain.
Part 10 of 12
Agreements signed before 15 July 2026 are not covered, and the rules only bite when the lender and the shop are separate businesses.
Part 11 of 12
The regulator says it does not want to reduce access to credit, and that firms can tailor how hard they check depending on the product and the customer.
Part 12 of 12
Kept to the schedule, the product charges no interest and no fees.
Part 12 of 12
Miss a payment and late fees follow, and in some cases a mark on a credit file.
5 sources
Buy now, pay later is a regulated loan in Britain. One estimate says the new check could turn away three in ten users.
The full story
Buy now, pay later is a regulated loan in Britain. One estimate says the new check could turn away three in ten users.
Since 15 July 2026, a company that lets a British shopper split a purchase into instalments counts as a lender and is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Britain's financial regulator.
Parliament gave the regulator that power for the first time this year. Before the rules started, this kind of credit carried none of the protections attached to a credit card or a personal loan.
Lenders must now check that a person can afford to repay before each agreement, even a small one, and must hand over set information before anyone signs.
If a payment is missed, the lender has to make contact and explain what happens next, rather than passing the person straight to a debt collector.
Shoppers can now take a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the free British body that settles arguments between customers and financial firms.
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act now applies to these purchases. If the shop never delivers, the buyer can claim the money from the lender as well as from the shop.
That right starts at 100 pounds, and the credit reference agency Experian puts the average buy now, pay later purchase at about 60 pounds. So most purchases sit below it.
Eleven million people in Britain use the product, on the regulator's count. The market went from 60m pounds in 2017 to more than 13bn pounds in 2024, and use rose from 14 percent to 25 percent of UK adults in a single year.
Fair4All Finance, a not-for-profit body set up through a UK government department to widen access to finance, says up to 30 percent of current users could be refused under the new checks. It says nearly half of those have never missed a payment.
Two gaps remain. Agreements signed before 15 July 2026 are not covered, and the rules only bite when the lender and the shop are separate businesses.
The regulator says it does not want to reduce access to credit, and that firms can tailor how hard they check depending on the product and the customer.
Kept to the schedule, the product charges no interest and no fees. Miss a payment and late fees follow, and in some cases a mark on a credit file.
Why it matters. Watch the share of applications refused: Fair4All Finance says up to 30 percent, and the regulator has said only that some regular users may find access harder.
Lawmakers ask agencies to act on veterans fees
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Forty-three members of the US Congress asked three federal agencies to act against companies that charge veterans for help with disability benefit claims. Accredited representatives do that work free.
Erik Jensen, 67, who served 30 years in the US Navy, paid Trajector Medical 12,000 dollars.
The letter followed an NPR investigation and calls the firms claim sharks, saying they charge illegal fees and use a gap in federal law to escape accountability.
It was signed by 42 Democrats and one Republican.
Why it matters
The money comes out of a disability payment meant to compensate an injury. Every dollar of fee is a dollar the benefit was supposed to deliver.
How it works
Somebody charges a fee for the form you could have sent yourself
How it works
Money you are owed still has to be found and claimed, and a business will do that for you and keep part of it.
How it works · step 1 of 5
A rule or a scheme gives people money they are owed
How it works · step 2 of 5
Claiming it costs nothing, but you have to know it exists
How it works · step 3 of 5
Nobody is paid to tell you, so most of it is never claimed
How it works · step 4 of 5
A company buys adverts, finds the claimants and files for them
How it works · step 5 of 5
It keeps a share, so the payment arrives smaller than the rule intended
The twist
The claim itself is free to make. The adverts telling people the claim exists are paid for by the firms that charge to make it.
Seen the same day
the same step: accredited representatives do the claim free, and a company charged one retired sailor 12,000 dollars to do it instead
Seen the same day
the regulator says outright that its scheme is free and nobody needs a firm, and the taskforce's first target is the advertising that says otherwise
Seen the same day
the paid version promises a result the law forbids, and the free dispute route covers every case where anything can actually be done
Seen the same day
the finder that worked for Kae Tapscott was free and run by a charity, and he only looked because a social worker mentioned it
The catch
Plenty of people would never file at all. A firm that takes a quarter of something beats nothing, and some claims really are too tangled to do alone.
The whole
Nobody here is behaving strangely. A regulator writes a scheme and has no advertising budget.
The whole
A company buys the adverts, files the forms and keeps a share.
The whole
We are all sitting somewhere in an arrangement like that, able to see our own part of it and not much else.
What's really going on
In the United States, 43 members of Congress asked three agencies to act against companies charging veterans for disability claim help that accredited representatives give free.
Who gains
Trajector Medical
It charged Erik Jensen, a retired US Navy sailor, 12,000 dollars for help with a disability claim that accredited representatives provide free.
Nobody knows yet
How many US veterans paid for help that was free.
The letter from 43 members of Congress says the industry makes millions from veterans and gives no total, and the firms are unaccredited so nobody registers them.
1 source
Lawmakers ask agencies to act on veterans fees
The full story
Lawmakers ask agencies to act on veterans fees
Forty-three members of the US Congress asked three federal agencies to act against companies that charge veterans for help with disability benefit claims. Accredited representatives do that work free. Erik Jensen, 67, who served 30 years in the US Navy, paid Trajector Medical 12,000 dollars. The letter followed an NPR investigation and calls the firms claim sharks, saying they charge illegal fees and use a gap in federal law to escape accountability. It was signed by 42 Democrats and one Republican.
Why it matters. The money comes out of a disability payment meant to compensate an injury. Every dollar of fee is a dollar the benefit was supposed to deliver.
Four regulators target car finance claims firms
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's financial regulator has formed a taskforce with the solicitors' regulator, the advertising watchdog and the data protection office to tackle claims-management companies and law firms working the car finance compensation scheme.
Alison Walters, the taskforce lead at the financial regulator, said the scheme is free and nobody needs a firm to use it.
The taskforce names unsolicited advertising, meritless claims and unfair exit fees as its first targets.
Why it matters
The compensation is paid to drivers who were overcharged. A share of it now leaves again as fees to firms filing a form the regulator supplies.
How it works
the regulator says outright that its scheme is free and nobody needs a firm, and the taskforce's first target is the advertising that says otherwise
The idea, in story 2: Somebody charges a fee for the form you could have sent yourself →What's really going on
Britain's financial regulator says its car finance payout scheme is free and that nobody needs a claims firm to use it, and it has built a taskforce with three other regulators because firms are signing drivers up anyway.
Who gains
Claims firms and law firms working car finance cases
They take a share of a payout from a scheme Britain's financial regulator says is free, and some drivers have signed with up to four of them at once.
Nobody knows yet
How much of the car finance compensation reaches drivers rather than claims firms.
The financial regulator has published no figure for the share taken in fees, while reporting that some claimants have up to four representatives on one claim.
2 sources
Four regulators target car finance claims firms
The full story
Four regulators target car finance claims firms
Britain's financial regulator has formed a taskforce with the solicitors' regulator, the advertising watchdog and the data protection office to tackle claims-management companies and law firms working the car finance compensation scheme. Alison Walters, the taskforce lead at the financial regulator, said the scheme is free and nobody needs a firm to use it. The taskforce names unsolicited advertising, meritless claims and unfair exit fees as its first targets.
Why it matters. The compensation is paid to drivers who were overcharged. A share of it now leaves again as fees to firms filing a form the regulator supplies.
Some drivers hired four firms for one claim
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The financial and solicitors' regulators said in a joint message that they have seen clients with up to four different representatives on the same car finance claim.
Cancelling the duplicates can trigger termination fees the regulators say could be judged excessive.
They told firms to check whether a client already has a representative before signing them up, and said adverts must not lead people into new agreements without realising.
Why it matters
A person who signs twice is not being greedy. Each firm's advert looks like the first news of the claim, and the contracts are what charge for the mistake.
Who pays
Drivers who signed with more than one claims firm
Britain's financial and solicitors' regulators say they face termination fees that could be judged excessive when they cancel the duplicates.
1 source
Some drivers hired four firms for one claim
The full story
Some drivers hired four firms for one claim
The financial and solicitors' regulators said in a joint message that they have seen clients with up to four different representatives on the same car finance claim. Cancelling the duplicates can trigger termination fees the regulators say could be judged excessive. They told firms to check whether a client already has a representative before signing them up, and said adverts must not lead people into new agreements without realising.
Why it matters. A person who signs twice is not being greedy. Each firm's advert looks like the first news of the claim, and the contracts are what charge for the mistake.
A debt settlement firm ordered to repay 5.4m dollars
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US consumer regulator asked a federal court to order DMB Financial, a Massachusetts debt settlement company operating in at least 24 states, to pay customers at least 5.4m dollars plus a penalty.
The regulator said DMB charged upfront fees before it had settled anything and hid the true cost of its service, which federal telemarketing rules forbid.
The case began with a lawsuit filed in December 2020.
Why it matters
Debt settlement is sold to people who cannot pay their bills. An upfront fee takes money from the exact pot that was meant to buy the settlement.
1 source
A debt settlement firm ordered to repay 5.4m dollars
The full story
A debt settlement firm ordered to repay 5.4m dollars
The US consumer regulator asked a federal court to order DMB Financial, a Massachusetts debt settlement company operating in at least 24 states, to pay customers at least 5.4m dollars plus a penalty. The regulator said DMB charged upfront fees before it had settled anything and hid the true cost of its service, which federal telemarketing rules forbid. The case began with a lawsuit filed in December 2020.
Why it matters. Debt settlement is sold to people who cannot pay their bills. An upfront fee takes money from the exact pot that was meant to buy the settlement.
What debt settlement firms charge
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Companies that negotiate down unsecured debts in the United States charge between 10 and 29 percent of the debt a customer enrols, on NerdWallet's comparison of seven of the largest.
Most set a minimum debt of 7,500 or 10,000 dollars before they will take a customer.
The firms also quote typical savings of 15 to 30 percent after their own fees are deducted.
Why it matters
The fee is a share of the debt, not of the saving. Someone enrolling 20,000 dollars can owe several thousand in fees before a single creditor agrees to anything.
Who gains
US debt settlement companies
They charge 10 to 29 percent of the debt a customer enrols, taken from the money the customer is saving up to settle it.
1 source
What debt settlement firms charge
The full story
What debt settlement firms charge
Companies that negotiate down unsecured debts in the United States charge between 10 and 29 percent of the debt a customer enrols, on NerdWallet's comparison of seven of the largest. Most set a minimum debt of 7,500 or 10,000 dollars before they will take a customer. The firms also quote typical savings of 15 to 30 percent after their own fees are deducted.
Why it matters. The fee is a share of the debt, not of the saving. Someone enrolling 20,000 dollars can owe several thousand in fees before a single creditor agrees to anything.
The free version of the same service
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
A debt management plan does a similar job through a non-profit credit counselling agency in the United States.
It rolls unsecured debts such as credit cards into one monthly payment at a reduced interest rate, over three to five years.
It does not cover mortgages, car loans or student debt. NerdWallet notes it damages a credit score less than debt settlement or bankruptcy does.
Why it matters
Two routes out of the same debt sit side by side, and the one with a sales team is the one most people meet first.
The full story
The free version of the same service
A debt management plan does a similar job through a non-profit credit counselling agency in the United States. It rolls unsecured debts such as credit cards into one monthly payment at a reduced interest rate, over three to five years. It does not cover mortgages, car loans or student debt. NerdWallet notes it damages a credit score less than debt settlement or bankruptcy does.
Why it matters. Two routes out of the same debt sit side by side, and the one with a sales team is the one most people meet first.
Nobody can delete an accurate bad mark
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US consumer regulator states plainly that no company can legally remove information from a credit report that is current, accurate and negative, and says anyone claiming otherwise is probably running a credit repair scam.
Most negative entries drop off after seven years on their own. People can dispute errors, duplicates and entries caused by identity theft, and the credit reporting companies must remove those.
Why it matters
The paid service is selling a result the law does not allow it to produce. The free dispute process handles the cases where anything can be done.
How it works
the paid version promises a result the law forbids, and the free dispute route covers every case where anything can actually be done
The idea, in story 2: Somebody charges a fee for the form you could have sent yourself →3 sources
Nobody can delete an accurate bad mark
The full story
Nobody can delete an accurate bad mark
The US consumer regulator states plainly that no company can legally remove information from a credit report that is current, accurate and negative, and says anyone claiming otherwise is probably running a credit repair scam. Most negative entries drop off after seven years on their own. People can dispute errors, duplicates and entries caused by identity theft, and the credit reporting companies must remove those.
Why it matters. The paid service is selling a result the law does not allow it to produce. The free dispute process handles the cases where anything can be done.
Why paying a collector to delete is not a fix
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Pay for delete is an arrangement where someone pays a US debt collector and the collector wipes the collection account from their credit reports.
NerdWallet reports that such deals are rare.
Anyone who reports to the credit bureaus must report accurately and completely, though a collector may choose not to report at all, which NerdWallet calls a grey area.
A deal also covers only the collection account, not the late payments the original lender reported, and those stay for seven years.
Why it matters
It is a payment for an outcome the payer cannot enforce, made at the moment they have the least room to argue.
1 source
Why paying a collector to delete is not a fix
The full story
Why paying a collector to delete is not a fix
Pay for delete is an arrangement where someone pays a US debt collector and the collector wipes the collection account from their credit reports. NerdWallet reports that such deals are rare. Anyone who reports to the credit bureaus must report accurately and completely, though a collector may choose not to report at all, which NerdWallet calls a grey area. A deal also covers only the collection account, not the late payments the original lender reported, and those stay for seven years.
Why it matters. It is a payment for an outcome the payer cannot enforce, made at the moment they have the least room to argue.
Three quarters of a million child accounts unclaimed
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Child Trust Funds were opened by the UK government for every child born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011, usually starting with a voucher worth 250 pounds, or 500 pounds for low-income families.
More than 750,000 accessible accounts have never been claimed, holding more than 2,000 pounds each on average.
Kae Tapscott, 18, from Tredegar in Wales, found 4,000 pounds he had never heard of, using a free finder run by the Share Foundation.
Why it matters
Kae said he assumed the UK government would just send it. Nobody's job was to tell him, and the accounts sit with whichever provider holds them until someone asks.
How it works
the finder that worked for Kae Tapscott was free and run by a charity, and he only looked because a social worker mentioned it
The idea, in story 2: Somebody charges a fee for the form you could have sent yourself →Nobody knows yet
Why more than 750,000 Child Trust Funds are still unclaimed.
The Share Foundation points to young people never having been told the accounts exist. Nobody has counted how many were told and did nothing.
Good news
Kae Tapscott, who is 18 and lives in Tredegar in Wales, found 4,000 pounds in a Child Trust Fund he had never heard of. He found it with a free search run by the Share Foundation, a charity.
1 source
Three quarters of a million child accounts unclaimed
The full story
Three quarters of a million child accounts unclaimed
Child Trust Funds were opened by the UK government for every child born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011, usually starting with a voucher worth 250 pounds, or 500 pounds for low-income families. More than 750,000 accessible accounts have never been claimed, holding more than 2,000 pounds each on average. Kae Tapscott, 18, from Tredegar in Wales, found 4,000 pounds he had never heard of, using a free finder run by the Share Foundation.
Why it matters. Kae said he assumed the UK government would just send it. Nobody's job was to tell him, and the accounts sit with whichever provider holds them until someone asks.
Florida is holding 4.5bn dollars nobody claimed
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Florida returned more than 847m dollars of unclaimed money to owners between July 2025 and July 2026, and still held more than 4.5bn dollars across over 13 million accounts at its last count in March 2026.
The state's own portal says one in five Floridians has money waiting.
A law signed on 26 June 2026 adds certified-mail notices for property worth 1,000 dollars or more, and requires anything over 10 dollars to appear on the searchable site.
It does not return the money automatically.
Why it matters
The new law improves the notice and leaves the work where it was. The owner still has to search, prove who they are and file.
Who gains
US states holding unclaimed property
Florida still holds more than 4.5bn dollars across over 13 million accounts, and its new law adds notices rather than automatic return.
Nobody knows yet
How much of Florida's 4.5bn dollars will ever go back.
The state returned 847m dollars in a year against more than 4.5bn outstanding, and its new law adds notices without returning anything automatically.
Good news
Florida returned more than 847 million dollars of unclaimed money to its owners between July 2025 and July 2026. A law signed on 26 June now makes the state post a certified-mail notice for anything worth 1,000 dollars or more.
1 source
Florida is holding 4.5bn dollars nobody claimed
The full story
Florida is holding 4.5bn dollars nobody claimed
Florida returned more than 847m dollars of unclaimed money to owners between July 2025 and July 2026, and still held more than 4.5bn dollars across over 13 million accounts at its last count in March 2026. The state's own portal says one in five Floridians has money waiting. A law signed on 26 June 2026 adds certified-mail notices for property worth 1,000 dollars or more, and requires anything over 10 dollars to appear on the searchable site. It does not return the money automatically.
Why it matters. The new law improves the notice and leaves the work where it was. The owner still has to search, prove who they are and file.
A quarter of US retirement money is left behind
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
About 25 percent of the money in American 401(k) workplace pension pots is left with former employers or forgotten by its owners.
That is from a survey by Capitalize, a firm that helps people find and combine old accounts. That works out at roughly 2.1 trillion dollars.
Accounts get stranded when someone changes job, moves house or dies without the plan being told.
Why it matters
This is retirement saving that was already paid for and already taxed. It is separated from its owner by an address change, not by a loss.
The full story
A quarter of US retirement money is left behind
About 25 percent of the money in American 401(k) workplace pension pots is left with former employers or forgotten by its owners. That is from a survey by Capitalize, a firm that helps people find and combine old accounts. That works out at roughly 2.1 trillion dollars. Accounts get stranded when someone changes job, moves house or dies without the plan being told.
Why it matters. This is retirement saving that was already paid for and already taxed. It is separated from its owner by an address change, not by a loss.
US personal bankruptcies pass half a million
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
More than half a million personal bankruptcies were filed in the United States last year, a jump of nearly 50 percent in three years, on figures from the Administrative Office of the US Courts.
Filings at the end of March were up almost 12 percent on a year earlier. The level is still below where it sat before the pandemic.
Sasha Indarte, a finance professor at the Wharton School, said it shows people having a harder time meeting what they owe.
Why it matters
Bankruptcy is the last door, and more people are walking through it. The first step is proving to a court that the debts cannot be paid.
Nobody knows yet
Whether US personal bankruptcies keep climbing.
Filings rose nearly 50 percent in three years and were up almost 12 percent year on year at the end of March, yet the level is still below where it was before the pandemic.
1 source
US personal bankruptcies pass half a million
The full story
US personal bankruptcies pass half a million
More than half a million personal bankruptcies were filed in the United States last year, a jump of nearly 50 percent in three years, on figures from the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Filings at the end of March were up almost 12 percent on a year earlier. The level is still below where it sat before the pandemic. Sasha Indarte, a finance professor at the Wharton School, said it shows people having a harder time meeting what they owe.
Why it matters. Bankruptcy is the last door, and more people are walking through it. The first step is proving to a court that the debts cannot be paid.
Debt collectors are back in court in numbers
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Lawsuits filed by debt collectors over unpaid credit card bills and other balances have reached their highest level in years, on a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a US research organisation.
In several states and metropolitan areas, filings in 2025 ran above where they were before the pandemic, continuing a rise that started the year before.
Why it matters
A lawsuit is how a debt stops being a letter and becomes something a court can enforce against wages or a bank account.
The full story
Debt collectors are back in court in numbers
Lawsuits filed by debt collectors over unpaid credit card bills and other balances have reached their highest level in years, on a report from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a US research organisation. In several states and metropolitan areas, filings in 2025 ran above where they were before the pandemic, continuing a rise that started the year before.
Why it matters. A lawsuit is how a debt stops being a letter and becomes something a court can enforce against wages or a bank account.
A case you lose by not turning up
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
A default judgment is what a US court issues when someone sued, usually by a debt collector, does not respond.
The judge decides without hearing their side, and the person suing wins. A defendant generally has 20 to 30 days to answer a court summons.
Once the judgment is entered, the collector can move to collection powers such as taking money from wages.
Why it matters
The rise in filings above matters most here. Whether the debt was correct is never tested if nobody answers the letter.
The full story
A case you lose by not turning up
A default judgment is what a US court issues when someone sued, usually by a debt collector, does not respond. The judge decides without hearing their side, and the person suing wins. A defendant generally has 20 to 30 days to answer a court summons. Once the judgment is entered, the collector can move to collection powers such as taking money from wages.
Why it matters. The rise in filings above matters most here. Whether the debt was correct is never tested if nobody answers the letter.
A medical debt collector shut down
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US consumer regulator ordered Commonwealth Financial Systems, a medical debt collector based in Dickson City, Pennsylvania, to stop operating and pay a 95,000 dollar penalty.
The regulator said the firm kept trying to collect medical debts after customers disputed them, without checking whether the debts were real, and failed to tell credit reporting companies the entries were disputed.
That breaches two US laws on fair collection and credit reporting.
Why it matters
One in five US households reports overdue medical debt in collections, so the practice reaches a wide group.
Who pays
People with medical debt in collections
One in five US households reports overdue medical debt in collections, and one collector was shut down for chasing bills after customers had disputed them.
2 sources
A medical debt collector shut down
The full story
A medical debt collector shut down
The US consumer regulator ordered Commonwealth Financial Systems, a medical debt collector based in Dickson City, Pennsylvania, to stop operating and pay a 95,000 dollar penalty. The regulator said the firm kept trying to collect medical debts after customers disputed them, without checking whether the debts were real, and failed to tell credit reporting companies the entries were disputed. That breaches two US laws on fair collection and credit reporting.
Why it matters. One in five US households reports overdue medical debt in collections, so the practice reaches a wide group.
Renters owe rent to a collector too
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US consumer regulator says that when a landlord or a utility company hands unpaid rent or bills to someone else to collect, that person is a debt collector under federal law.
That covers a law firm acting for the landlord as much as a collection agency.
The same rules apply: no harassment, and no false or misleading statements to get the money.
Why it matters
Rent arrears feel like a private argument with a landlord, and the moment they are sold or referred, a different set of rules starts applying to both sides.
The full story
Renters owe rent to a collector too
The US consumer regulator says that when a landlord or a utility company hands unpaid rent or bills to someone else to collect, that person is a debt collector under federal law. That covers a law firm acting for the landlord as much as a collection agency. The same rules apply: no harassment, and no false or misleading statements to get the money.
Why it matters. Rent arrears feel like a private argument with a landlord, and the moment they are sold or referred, a different set of rules starts applying to both sides.
The US market regulator opens the door to arbitration
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a policy statement letting companies going public require shareholders to settle disputes in private arbitration instead of court, and changed its own rules so nobody can challenge those findings.
Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw dissented, saying the statement identifies no problem and never discusses what the change will do in practice.
She argued that the cost of individual arbitration means most small shareholders will simply not bring a claim.
Why it matters
Arbitration is a private hearing with a paid decision-maker instead of a public court.
Why it matters
Which venue a dispute lands in is decided years before anyone knows what the dispute will be.
1 source
The US market regulator opens the door to arbitration
The full story
The US market regulator opens the door to arbitration
The US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a policy statement letting companies going public require shareholders to settle disputes in private arbitration instead of court, and changed its own rules so nobody can challenge those findings. Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw dissented, saying the statement identifies no problem and never discusses what the change will do in practice. She argued that the cost of individual arbitration means most small shareholders will simply not bring a claim.
Why it matters. Arbitration is a private hearing with a paid decision-maker instead of a public court. Which venue a dispute lands in is decided years before anyone knows what the dispute will be.
Shareholder suits returned ten times what enforcement did
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Securities class actions brought by shareholders returned about 3.7bn dollars to harmed investors in 2024, against roughly 345m dollars returned by US market regulator enforcement over a similar period, on figures in Commissioner Crenshaw's statement.
The regulator separately reported 456 enforcement actions in the year to 30 September 2025, with monetary relief ordered totalling 17.9bn dollars.
Ordered and returned are different counts, and the 17.9bn figure is not money in investors' hands.
Why it matters
The gap explains why the venue matters. If group lawsuits shrink, the route that actually pays money back shrinks with them.
Who gains
US companies facing shareholder suits
The market regulator's policy statement lets them require private arbitration, and group claims are the route that returned about 3.7bn dollars to investors in 2024.
Who pays
Small US shareholders
Crenshaw says the cost of arbitration means most will not bring a claim at all, and enforcement returned about 345m dollars to investors against 3.7bn from class actions.
Nobody knows yet
What mandatory arbitration will cost small US shareholders.
Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw says the policy statement never discussed the practical consequences, and the two figures in circulation measure different things: 345m dollars returned to investors by enforcement, and 17.9bn dollars of monetary relief ordered in the year to September 2025.
2 sources
Shareholder suits returned ten times what enforcement did
The full story
Shareholder suits returned ten times what enforcement did
Securities class actions brought by shareholders returned about 3.7bn dollars to harmed investors in 2024, against roughly 345m dollars returned by US market regulator enforcement over a similar period, on figures in Commissioner Crenshaw's statement. The regulator separately reported 456 enforcement actions in the year to 30 September 2025, with monetary relief ordered totalling 17.9bn dollars. Ordered and returned are different counts, and the 17.9bn figure is not money in investors' hands.
Why it matters. The gap explains why the venue matters. If group lawsuits shrink, the route that actually pays money back shrinks with them.
What an arbitration clause does to a group claim
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Arbitration clauses appear in contracts for everything from bank accounts to private student loans in the United States, and affect tens of millions of people.
Either side can use one to stop a lawsuit reaching court, and the clauses usually also bar group claims inside arbitration.
The US consumer regulator, setting out a proposal to ban that second part, said the result is that however many people are harmed by the same conduct, each must sue alone, and few do.
Why it matters
For a 30-dollar loss, suing alone costs more than the loss. Banning group claims does not reduce the harm, it reduces the number of claims.
1 source
What an arbitration clause does to a group claim
The full story
What an arbitration clause does to a group claim
Arbitration clauses appear in contracts for everything from bank accounts to private student loans in the United States, and affect tens of millions of people. Either side can use one to stop a lawsuit reaching court, and the clauses usually also bar group claims inside arbitration. The US consumer regulator, setting out a proposal to ban that second part, said the result is that however many people are harmed by the same conduct, each must sue alone, and few do.
Why it matters. For a 30-dollar loss, suing alone costs more than the loss. Banning group claims does not reduce the harm, it reduces the number of claims.
Britain opens eight cases on added-on fees
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's Competition and Markets Authority opened investigations into eight companies over online pricing: the ticket resellers StubHub and Viagogo, AA Driving School and BSM Driving School, the gym chain Gold's Gym, and the retailers Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Marks Electrical.
It named drip pricing, where fees appear later in a purchase, and pressure selling. These were the first cases brought under the watchdog's new consumer protection powers.
Why it matters
Drip pricing works on the order of events. The total arrives after the point where a shopper has stopped comparing.
1 source
Britain opens eight cases on added-on fees
The full story
Britain opens eight cases on added-on fees
Britain's Competition and Markets Authority opened investigations into eight companies over online pricing: the ticket resellers StubHub and Viagogo, AA Driving School and BSM Driving School, the gym chain Gold's Gym, and the retailers Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Marks Electrical. It named drip pricing, where fees appear later in a purchase, and pressure selling. These were the first cases brought under the watchdog's new consumer protection powers.
Why it matters. Drip pricing works on the order of events. The total arrives after the point where a shopper has stopped comparing.
Vets told to publish their prices
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's competition watchdog has ordered vet practices to publish price lists, provide a written estimate before any treatment expected to cost 500 pounds or more, and say when a practice belongs to a large chain.
Written prescription fees will be capped at 21 pounds for the first medicine and 12.50 pounds for each extra one.
Pet owners spent more than 6.7bn pounds on veterinary and other services in 2024, about 390 pounds for every pet-owning household. Chain practices should show standard price lists before Christmas.
Why it matters
Martin Coleman, who chaired the inquiry, said owners are left in the dark about who owns their practice and what treatment costs, while facing bills in the thousands.
1 source
Vets told to publish their prices
The full story
Vets told to publish their prices
Britain's competition watchdog has ordered vet practices to publish price lists, provide a written estimate before any treatment expected to cost 500 pounds or more, and say when a practice belongs to a large chain. Written prescription fees will be capped at 21 pounds for the first medicine and 12.50 pounds for each extra one. Pet owners spent more than 6.7bn pounds on veterinary and other services in 2024, about 390 pounds for every pet-owning household. Chain practices should show standard price lists before Christmas.
Why it matters. Martin Coleman, who chaired the inquiry, said owners are left in the dark about who owns their practice and what treatment costs, while facing bills in the thousands.
A 12,000 pound bill and five minutes to decide
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Nicole Hawley, 26, was given two choices by an emergency vet after her dog Ernie inhaled a grass seed that became infected: put him down, or pay about 12,000 pounds for surgery.
She was between pet insurance policies, so she and her partner took out a loan and spent money saved for their wedding.
Veterinary prices rose 63 percent over seven years, nearly twice the rate of inflation, the competition watchdog's Martin Coleman told BBC Radio 4.
Why it matters
The price arrives at the one moment nobody shops around. That is why the remedy the watchdog reached for was publishing prices in advance.
Who pays
Pet owners in Britain
Veterinary prices rose 63 percent over seven years, nearly twice inflation, and owners spent more than 6.7bn pounds in 2024 before any price list was required.
2 sources
A 12,000 pound bill and five minutes to decide
The full story
A 12,000 pound bill and five minutes to decide
Nicole Hawley, 26, was given two choices by an emergency vet after her dog Ernie inhaled a grass seed that became infected: put him down, or pay about 12,000 pounds for surgery. She was between pet insurance policies, so she and her partner took out a loan and spent money saved for their wedding. Veterinary prices rose 63 percent over seven years, nearly twice the rate of inflation, the competition watchdog's Martin Coleman told BBC Radio 4.
Why it matters. The price arrives at the one moment nobody shops around. That is why the remedy the watchdog reached for was publishing prices in advance.
Ticketmaster raised other fees when one was banned
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
After US rules banned surprise fees added at the end of a transaction, Ticketmaster dropped its order processing fee, which it usually shared with the venue.
Documents obtained by the Guardian show it then raised other fees to make the money back.
In an email to the Findlay Toyota Center in Arizona, the company wrote that it had to adjust fees to offset the revenue loss.
That venue dropped a six dollar order processing fee and added two dollars to the service fee on every ticket.
Why it matters
The rule changed when a fee could be shown, not how much a ticket costs.
Why it matters
Experts told the Guardian that rolling a banned fee into another charge could itself breach the fee rules.
Nobody knows yet
What a Ticketmaster ticket costs now against a year ago.
The company dropped the order processing fee US rules banned and raised other fees to make the money back, and no before-and-after total has been published.
1 source
Ticketmaster raised other fees when one was banned
The full story
Ticketmaster raised other fees when one was banned
After US rules banned surprise fees added at the end of a transaction, Ticketmaster dropped its order processing fee, which it usually shared with the venue. Documents obtained by the Guardian show it then raised other fees to make the money back. In an email to the Findlay Toyota Center in Arizona, the company wrote that it had to adjust fees to offset the revenue loss. That venue dropped a six dollar order processing fee and added two dollars to the service fee on every ticket.
Why it matters. The rule changed when a fee could be shown, not how much a ticket costs. Experts told the Guardian that rolling a banned fee into another charge could itself breach the fee rules.
A parking operator investigated over forecourt tickets
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's competition watchdog opened an investigation into Euro Car Parks, which runs more than 3,000 sites across the UK and Ireland with more than two million cars a day, over tickets issued at petrol station forecourts.
Drivers reported charges for charging an electric car, putting air in tyres, or queueing for a pump, and said the rules were not clearly signed.
Lisa Webb of the consumer group Which? welcomed the investigation.
Why it matters
A parking charge is a private invoice, not a fine from the state, and the signs are the whole of the contract a driver is said to have agreed to.
1 source
A parking operator investigated over forecourt tickets
The full story
A parking operator investigated over forecourt tickets
Britain's competition watchdog opened an investigation into Euro Car Parks, which runs more than 3,000 sites across the UK and Ireland with more than two million cars a day, over tickets issued at petrol station forecourts. Drivers reported charges for charging an electric car, putting air in tyres, or queueing for a pump, and said the rules were not clearly signed. Lisa Webb of the consumer group Which? welcomed the investigation.
Why it matters. A parking charge is a private invoice, not a fine from the state, and the signs are the whole of the contract a driver is said to have agreed to.
The FTC warned 200 dealers and the fees continued
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US Federal Trade Commission sent a warning to more than 200 car dealerships telling them to stop advertising vehicles online with questionable discounts or thousands of dollars in hidden fees.
The Wall Street Journal reports that not all of them changed, and that buyers still meet thousands of dollars in fees they cannot easily read, while the industry works out how to adapt.
Why it matters
A warning changes what a dealer may advertise. What a buyer is shown at the desk, after choosing the car, is a separate question.
1 source
The FTC warned 200 dealers and the fees continued
The full story
The FTC warned 200 dealers and the fees continued
The US Federal Trade Commission sent a warning to more than 200 car dealerships telling them to stop advertising vehicles online with questionable discounts or thousands of dollars in hidden fees. The Wall Street Journal reports that not all of them changed, and that buyers still meet thousands of dollars in fees they cannot easily read, while the industry works out how to adapt.
Why it matters. A warning changes what a dealer may advertise. What a buyer is shown at the desk, after choosing the car, is a separate question.
A tax refund can be taken to pay an old debt
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US tax office and the Bureau of Fiscal Service can take all or part of a federal tax refund to cover an existing debt, including past-due child support and money owed to other federal agencies.
This is called a refund offset.
The Taxpayer Advocate Service, the independent office inside the tax administration, sets out how to check for a debt that would trigger one, and how to ask for the refund to be paid instead where losing it would cause hardship.
Why it matters
A refund is usually money already earned and over-withheld. It can leave before it ever arrives, and the hardship route only exists for people who know to ask before filing.
1 source
A tax refund can be taken to pay an old debt
The full story
A tax refund can be taken to pay an old debt
The US tax office and the Bureau of Fiscal Service can take all or part of a federal tax refund to cover an existing debt, including past-due child support and money owed to other federal agencies. This is called a refund offset. The Taxpayer Advocate Service, the independent office inside the tax administration, sets out how to check for a debt that would trigger one, and how to ask for the refund to be paid instead where losing it would cause hardship.
Why it matters. A refund is usually money already earned and over-withheld. It can leave before it ever arrives, and the hardship route only exists for people who know to ask before filing.
Debt written off can arrive as taxable income
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
In the United States, a debt a lender gives up on is normally treated as income to the person who owed it, and gets reported to the tax office.
The tax office says that money does not have to be included to the extent the person was insolvent, meaning their debts exceeded what they owned.
It is also excluded when the debt was discharged in a bankruptcy case. Claiming either exclusion means filing Form 982.
Why it matters
Relief and a tax bill arrive in the same envelope, and the exclusions that cancel the bill only apply if somebody files for them.
The full story
Debt written off can arrive as taxable income
In the United States, a debt a lender gives up on is normally treated as income to the person who owed it, and gets reported to the tax office. The tax office says that money does not have to be included to the extent the person was insolvent, meaning their debts exceeded what they owned. It is also excluded when the debt was discharged in a bankruptcy case. Claiming either exclusion means filing Form 982.
Why it matters. Relief and a tax bill arrive in the same envelope, and the exclusions that cancel the bill only apply if somebody files for them.
The US tax office has ten years to collect
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
A US federal tax debt carries a collection statute expiry date, generally ten years from the day the tax was assessed, after which the tax office can no longer collect it.
Certain events add time to that clock.
The date appears on a taxpayer's account transcript, and people who think it has been calculated wrongly can ask the Taxpayer Advocate Service for help.
Why it matters
The clock runs whether or not anybody looks at it, and the date is only visible to someone who knows the transcript exists.
The full story
The US tax office has ten years to collect
A US federal tax debt carries a collection statute expiry date, generally ten years from the day the tax was assessed, after which the tax office can no longer collect it. Certain events add time to that clock. The date appears on a taxpayer's account transcript, and people who think it has been calculated wrongly can ask the Taxpayer Advocate Service for help.
Why it matters. The clock runs whether or not anybody looks at it, and the date is only visible to someone who knows the transcript exists.
What a levy actually allows
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
A levy is the US tax office taking property to settle a tax debt, and it reaches further than most people expect: wages, bank accounts, vehicles, real estate and other personal property can be seized and sold.
It follows a bill headed Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to A Hearing.
A levy served on an employer or a customer is binding on them too, not just on the person who owes.
Why it matters
This is the step where a number on a letter becomes something that leaves a bank account without anyone's agreement.
The full story
What a levy actually allows
A levy is the US tax office taking property to settle a tax debt, and it reaches further than most people expect: wages, bank accounts, vehicles, real estate and other personal property can be seized and sold. It follows a bill headed Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to A Hearing. A levy served on an employer or a customer is binding on them too, not just on the person who owes.
Why it matters. This is the step where a number on a letter becomes something that leaves a bank account without anyone's agreement.
Britain freezes interest during a repayment plan
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's consumer credit rules cover a lender that has agreed a repayment arrangement with a borrower in arrears.
It must reduce, waive or cancel further interest and charges, so the debt does not grow while the borrower keeps to the plan.
The same rulebook tells firms to assess income and expenditure objectively, and lists mortgage, rent, council tax, food and utility bills as essential living costs that come first.
Why it matters
Without that rule a plan can be kept perfectly and the balance still rises, which is how people repay for years and owe more at the end.
Good news
Under Britain's credit rules, a lender that agrees a repayment plan with someone in arrears has to freeze further interest and charges, so the debt stops growing while the plan is kept.
1 source
Britain freezes interest during a repayment plan
The full story
Britain freezes interest during a repayment plan
Britain's consumer credit rules cover a lender that has agreed a repayment arrangement with a borrower in arrears. It must reduce, waive or cancel further interest and charges, so the debt does not grow while the borrower keeps to the plan. The same rulebook tells firms to assess income and expenditure objectively, and lists mortgage, rent, council tax, food and utility bills as essential living costs that come first.
Why it matters. Without that rule a plan can be kept perfectly and the balance still rises, which is how people repay for years and owe more at the end.
Britain reviews second mortgages on the same house
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Britain's financial regulator has published findings on second charge mortgages, loans taken against the value of a home on top of the existing mortgage.
They are under 4 percent of regulated mortgage sales, carry higher interest rates than a main mortgage, and are mostly used to consolidate other debts.
The regulator says borrowers therefore often already carry a lot of debt and show signs of being in a vulnerable position.
Why it matters
The loan is secured on the home. Rolling unsecured debts into it converts a credit card problem into a housing one.
1 source
Britain reviews second mortgages on the same house
The full story
Britain reviews second mortgages on the same house
Britain's financial regulator has published findings on second charge mortgages, loans taken against the value of a home on top of the existing mortgage. They are under 4 percent of regulated mortgage sales, carry higher interest rates than a main mortgage, and are mostly used to consolidate other debts. The regulator says borrowers therefore often already carry a lot of debt and show signs of being in a vulnerable position.
Why it matters. The loan is secured on the home. Rolling unsecured debts into it converts a credit card problem into a housing one.
What a bank will lend is not what you can afford
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Borrowing capacity and affordability are two different numbers, academics writing in The Conversation set out.
Borrowing capacity is what a lender is prepared to offer, worked out from income, existing debts and the lender's own stress tests.
Affordability is what the household can actually live on, based on six months or more of its real spending.
The two often do not match, and the larger of them is the one the lender quotes.
Why it matters
A mortgage approval reads like a verdict on what someone can manage. It is a calculation about the lender's risk, run on the lender's assumptions.
1 source
What a bank will lend is not what you can afford
The full story
What a bank will lend is not what you can afford
Borrowing capacity and affordability are two different numbers, academics writing in The Conversation set out. Borrowing capacity is what a lender is prepared to offer, worked out from income, existing debts and the lender's own stress tests. Affordability is what the household can actually live on, based on six months or more of its real spending. The two often do not match, and the larger of them is the one the lender quotes.
Why it matters. A mortgage approval reads like a verdict on what someone can manage. It is a calculation about the lender's risk, run on the lender's assumptions.
The US regulator's own case file on pay later
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
The US consumer regulator has ordered five buy now, pay later firms, Affirm, Afterpay, Klarna, PayPal and Zip, to hand over information on how the loans work.
It said it was concerned about people building up debt, about firms designing products to sit outside credit rules, and about the data the apps collect.
Its then director Rohit Chopra called it a new version of the old layaway plan, in which the shopper gets the product immediately and gets the debt immediately too.
Why it matters
It is the same product Britain has now brought inside its credit rules, examined by a regulator that has not.
1 source
The US regulator's own case file on pay later
The full story
The US regulator's own case file on pay later
The US consumer regulator has ordered five buy now, pay later firms, Affirm, Afterpay, Klarna, PayPal and Zip, to hand over information on how the loans work. It said it was concerned about people building up debt, about firms designing products to sit outside credit rules, and about the data the apps collect. Its then director Rohit Chopra called it a new version of the old layaway plan, in which the shopper gets the product immediately and gets the debt immediately too.
Why it matters. It is the same product Britain has now brought inside its credit rules, examined by a regulator that has not.
Older shoppers say they use it for timing
Swipe up for the story ↑Scroll down for the story ↓
Spreading payments to manage cash flow is the main reason American shoppers give for using buy now, pay later, especially older ones, on survey work Kiplinger cites from Bankrate.
One user, a 51-year-old medical retail worker in Troy, Missouri, said it seemed a straightforward way to spread out payments.
Younger shoppers were more likely to name the easy approval process as the draw.
Why it matters
The affordability check Britain has just introduced lands directly on that second reason, and on the people who gave it.
The full story
Older shoppers say they use it for timing
Spreading payments to manage cash flow is the main reason American shoppers give for using buy now, pay later, especially older ones, on survey work Kiplinger cites from Bankrate. One user, a 51-year-old medical retail worker in Troy, Missouri, said it seemed a straightforward way to spread out payments. Younger shoppers were more likely to name the easy approval process as the draw.
Why it matters. The affordability check Britain has just introduced lands directly on that second reason, and on the people who gave it.
That's the whole Money day.
35 stories, 42 sources.