Theoretically, credit should be used for one thing: to make more money. (not less)
However, instead of using it to buy or construct a machine to triple what you can produce in an hour, the average person is using it to delay having to work that hour at all, in exchange for having to work an hour and six minutes sometime later.
At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.
i.e., credit can buy time in the nearly literal sense, you can do an hour's work in half an hour because the money facilitates it, meaning you can now make more money. If instead of investing in work you're spending on play, then you end up with a time deficit.
or, e.g. you can buy 3 franchises in 3 months instead of 3 years (i.e. income from the 1 franchise), trading credit for time to make more money, instead of burning it. It'd have been nice had they taught me this in school.
candiddevmike · 1h ago
For a lot of folks, credit is the only way they're surviving on something close to minimum wage. Or credit was the only "safety net" they had during a rough time. Almost none of these people have the kind of collateral needed to use credit to truly transform their lives, and the government assistance for that is seriously lacking in the US (SBA loans are terrible, and you need enough money to cover your own salary until your business gets up and running).
gottorf · 58m ago
> credit is the only way they're surviving on something close to minimum wage. Or credit was the only "safety net" they had during a rough time
In my experience, the average American has no concept of saving money, and those below average even less.
It's funny to me that America gets flak from all over the world for having no social safety net; if this was actually true, you'd expect to see people put aside a bit of their income, however meager it may be, out of an expectation that they will need it. What do you see in practice? You see people dashing over to the nearest rent-to-own rims shop. (If you don't know poor people, you may not know such businesses exist.)
> Almost none of these people have the kind of collateral needed to use credit to truly transform their lives, and the government assistance for that is seriously lacking in the US
I doubt that greater availability of credit, perhaps facilitated through government subsidy, is what precludes the majority of such people from transforming their lives.
clipsy · 42m ago
> It's funny to me that America gets flak from all over the world for having no social safety net; if this was actually true, you'd expect to see people put aside a bit of their income, however meager it may be, out of an expectation that they will need it.
Congratulations, you've just discovered that human beings are not perfect rational actors.
sorcerer-mar · 20m ago
Economists hate this one weird trick!
msgodel · 14m ago
I mean I guess they get some perceived value out of the rims that makes the stability trade off worth it.
Arainach · 53m ago
When everything around suggests that the system is rigged against you and care against you, it's no surprise that many people live for the moment and try to find some small bit of pleasure or joy in the moment without planning for a future that may not come.
It's easy to say "why don't they save more?" from an upper or middle class stability, but when the price of everything keeps going up, the police are out to get you, and healthcare is just a fast track to debt that will take away any savings or assets you managed to have, what's the point?
janalsncm · 48m ago
Not sure what you mean by the “average person” here but the biggest kinds of debt are mortgages ($12T) and cc debt, student loans, and car loans (roughly 4T total).
Is your position that taking debt to buy a house is bad unless you can sell it for a profit? Is working for the mortgage lender to accomplish that not worth it?
You can avoid it by renting, but then you’re just working for the landlord, so there’s no avoiding it.
Jcampuzano2 · 40m ago
Every single thing you mentioned outside of cc debt (though arguably you should never reach for a credit card outside of using it for the points systems they provide) could be categorized as something used as a tool to make more money.
goldfishgold · 20m ago
One flaw with this reasoning is that ignores the time value of money. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar a hundred years from now, if only because we’ll all be dead a hundred years from now. From that perspective and with favorable terms it can make sense to sell the future to buy the present, if someone is willing to take that trade.
msgodel · 41m ago
I tried using one of these offering a 0% intro APR to finance an upgrade to the boat I eventually moved into (saving me 10s of thousands in rent.) They wouldn't let me do it despite having an upper 700s credit score.
It's not clear to me how they pick people to lend to.
tonyhb · 25m ago
It’s not just the credit score - the APR offered is also chosen by the retailer.
0% financing costs the retailer 8%(ish) of the total amount, which is how the lender makes their money.
So in your case, the retailer didn’t want to lose that much of their margin.
thephyber · 52m ago
You are conflating what actions would maximize the long term returns to the individual with the status quo which is that credit increases liquidity of the average family, who has most of their wealth tied up in home equity.
crazygringo · 1h ago
> Theoretically, credit should be used for one thing: to make more money.
I disagree.
You use credit to buy a car or buy a house when you don't have the cash to buy them up-front.
It's not so you can use them to make money, it's so you can use them to enjoy life.
> At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.
Only if you go too far. The point is to buy things knowing what they'll cost monthly and for how long, and to budget those as part of your monthly expenses. As long as you can always handle those, you will never run out of hours available and it's not a house of cards. Nothing collapses. You pay off your car; you pay off your mortgage.
You seem to be treating this as something black-and-white when it's not. It's an incredibly useful tool when used with budgeting. Not "to make more money" but to have a better life for you and your family for when it matters the most. Nobody wants to wait until the kids have graduated from college to be able to buy their first house.
And even with credit cards -- yes you generally want to be paying them off in full monthly. But if you want to take a vacation a couple months before you could otherwise fully pay for it, it's really nice to have that convenience too. Not to mention covering some expenses for a few months if you lose your job. They're a tool to be used responsibly.
Jcampuzano2 · 44m ago
If you're using credit to buy a car, most people do so in order to get to and from their place of work for the majority of their driving time. In that way, using credit to buy a car still fits into their theoretical model. For example I know plenty of people who completely got rid of their cars when remote work became more common, or at the very least consolidated to smaller cars or to less cars for a family.
Similar thinking for a house. A lot of people when buying a house go into it with the assumption that it is an appreciating asset that will gain value over time. Yes there are other factors of course like wanting to live closer to schools or in the suburbs/good areas, etc. But regardless this is commonly to facilitate a life that lends itself to you continuing to be able to make money comfortably.
Regarding vacations, no financial expert recommends using a card without the intention of not paying for it. If your plan is to book the vacation on credit for anything other than the benefits of your credit card points systems you might as well not use it at all. And all recommend not using credit cards and instead an emergency fund if you lose your job.
crazygringo · 8m ago
No. You can rent and you can take the bus. Or rent and buy a crazy cheap old used car.
A house and a decent car are not primarily about making money. They're about your quality of life.
> And all recommend not using credit cards and instead an emergency fund if you lose your job.
And if you already used your emergency fund on, say, a medical emergency...?
bitmasher9 · 39m ago
Let’s say you finance $40,000 in auto debt over 5 years. With a low interest rate of 6% paying $6,300 in interest. That’s over 15% of the amount borrowed! Many people have lager rates over longer periods.
Now consider what would happen if you invested that $6,300 for 30 years instead of spent it on interest. You’re losing out on tens of thousands of dollars in total lifetime wealth.
When you borrow money to “enjoy life” it can quickly end up costing 2x what it would if you spent the money outright, even if you borrowed at low rates.
scarface_74 · 35m ago
Well seeing that you need a car to go to work to have money to invest in the first place…
And before you say “buy an old beater”, then you have to contend with an unreliable car that may cause you to be late to work and get fired. It’s also much easier and cheaper to get a car loan for a newish car than to borrow money to fix a car.
bitmasher9 · 28m ago
Im just encouraging people to do the math, and to consider borrowing smaller amounts of money over shorter periods of time.
gottorf · 56m ago
> They're a tool to be used responsibly.
I used to hate to take the position that government should save people from themselves, but I've moderated a lot on it. Some people clearly cannot use credit responsibly.
hotstickyballs · 51m ago
Both transportation and shelter are important to earn money
Neywiny · 1h ago
I think that's a bit disingenuous. It's not always delaying work. There's only so much time and there are some people who cannot afford to live with the time in the day, the skillset they have, and the market conditions (both income and expenses). Your tone and word choice shows you don't understand the problem at all.
If somebody can BNPL or otherwise credit lifesaving medicine (such as the many people in the USA who die from inability to afford healthcare), that's not play money because they don't want to work.
PostOnce · 1h ago
Obviously there are edge cases. Debt can be a form of insurance for the individual.
However, I stood in line behind someone who financed a bowl of noodles with afterpay, and it got me thinking. Those are the folks I'm talking about.
janalsncm · 46m ago
It’s not an edge case. The vast majority of debt is mortgages and student loans. Things that people pretty much need, unless you happen to have the upfront cash.
Neywiny · 1h ago
Sure, but could that not be an edge case? I'd imagine most people aren't sharing the sadder parts of their life. Or, is it possible they spent the rest of their money on everything more important? Could be argued they should cook at home but still.
etchalon · 1h ago
So you're using a single person you stood behind in a line for a massive generalization but calling one of the largest sources of consumer debt in the US an edge-case?
Neat.
ProAm · 33m ago
This is so wildly qrong I dont know how to start. Im assuming this person is not in America, where a lot of the population (unfortunately) uses these practices to buy things that are needed/non-essential) its a shell game the creditors were willing to pay. But now its a lot so its going to affect credit (which is should have to start).
ajsnigrutin · 1h ago
This is all true if you have enough for the basics and are looking above the minimum survival costs.
Just to make the money you are making now, you need some stuff, be it a phone or a car, home AC, oven or even a washing machine at home (you can't go to work hungry in dirty clothes).
If you don't have the money to pay with cash, you'll be buying that oven/stove with whatever delayed/monthly payment option is available.
Yes, if you're buying franchises you can do the "make more money" calculations, but if your kids are going to be hungry soon, you often have no choice.
Jcampuzano2 · 38m ago
You are literally describing using credit as a tool to make more money, just some in a slightly more indirect way, thus you are not in disagreement.
scarface_74 · 38m ago
And this has nothing to do with buy now pay later since you aren’t charged interest
UltraSane · 1h ago
I'm currently living off of investment gains from high interest consumer loans.
ocdtrekkie · 1h ago
I think my understanding has come to the fact that loans and interest can smooth out your financial situation: When I was single especially I had a lot of savings building, I was making interest and making money. Then when I had a kid, I end up paying that interest back, because expenses for a kid are way above what I can healthily operate in this economy, and I needed more financial products to cover that. But that's also not forever: As soon as a kid's in school and you aren't sending an entire paycheck a month to the daycare, you can establish a upward financial pattern again.
It'd be nice if kids were an affordable choice for anyone expect Elon Musk, but you know, here we are. \o/
seatac76 · 1h ago
It probably makes sense to do so. Not that I condone the FICO hustle. But small loans can add up quickly and delinquencies need to be measured for financial market stability.
quitit · 42m ago
Yes it's a bit odd that the article poses the question if this will help or harm credit seekers. The point of the system is to provide transparency.
What does need to happen however is that these inputs are properly weighted such that those using FICO can make appropriate decisions. Similar to credit cards, numerous BNPL-purchases do not necessarily indicate that the debtor is in financial trouble. They could merely be using the services for the other conveniences they offer. Whereas seeking numerous loans is usually a negative metric.
kurthr · 1h ago
If you're paying for your food delivery on an installment plan, you're probably going to have a blow up.
What's interesting here is that normally BNPL only does a soft check.
I wonder if this is going to change.
Equally, I find it weird that companies can ding your credit for not paying but have no obligation to report on-time payments. It should be both or none.
jppope · 2h ago
thats interesting. I was always wondering what the hustle was, guess that was it- it was outside of the credit system
loeg · 1h ago
The hustle is mostly just getting merchants to eat bigger discounts in hope of selling more volume. Instead of eating ~3% interchange on a credit card, merchants eat ~6% subsidizing short-term BNPL loans.
NewJazz · 1h ago
It already shows up when mortgage lenders do their checks, AIUI.
janalsncm · 43m ago
What is the functional difference between BNPL and credit cards that can explain why it’s become popular? A credit card is literally “buy now pay later” so is it just the ease of onboarding?
Tadpole9181 · 20m ago
BNPL is 0% interest over N months. A credit card is 20% APY over the total balance over minimum payment. And it's offered by my CC providers.
For some larger purchases on a 12 month plan, leaving the money in savings loses me 1.5% cash back but gains me around 3% interest (after accounting for the depleting principle).
It would be stupid not to do it sometimes. I don't really get the financer's benefit. Though maybe it's because I do pay it, and if I didn't there would be 200% APY or something.
scarface_74 · 33m ago
Fixed payment schedule and no interest being charged.
SoftTalker · 22m ago
For most of them, interest accrues from the date of purchased but is not charged if you pay on time. If you don’t, you owe all the back interest from day one.
Tadpole9181 · 19m ago
Ah, that's the scam. Yet another poor tax, then? The rich get interest on money they already spent, the poor get an illusion of safety followed by even more destitution?
bediger4000 · 21m ago
FICO scores are a joke. They hint at what they use to calculate them, but the algorithms are kept secret. Fair Isaac can't reveal the algorithms, otherwise they'd get gamed. Incentives to keep bad info and wrong info in dossiers are strong, too. If allowed, Fair Isaac would put rumors and other bullshit on n your file, and never take it out.
candiddevmike · 1h ago
It would be interesting if BNPL money was reported/tracked by the Fed...
firesteelrain · 2h ago
Credit scores will tank further
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 · 1h ago
Why?
"The industry has long believed that consumers using BNPL responsibly should result in positive credit scores, as the majority of users are paying back in full and on time."
steveBK123 · 1h ago
Because "most people pay back fully on time" is not the metric.
The real question is what are the delinquency and default rates for BNPL as compared to other forms of consumer credit.
Given the previous understanding that it didn't hit your FICO, the retailer subsidy as a sales lead, and the types of products people were financing.. one might assume worse..
firesteelrain · 54m ago
Because it’s shadow debt and it will show the person as overleveraged with a bunch of Affirm loans
UltraSane · 1h ago
If customers make every payment their score should improve.
dh2022 · 1h ago
What is the benefit for a consumer to use this type of loan and then pay it back on time versus using a credit card and then paying the card back on time?
To me this seems like a new product that would target a different consumer than the one that makes payments on time. But I would like if someone challenges this view. Thanks!
loeg · 58m ago
> What is the benefit for a consumer to use this type of loan and then pay it back on time versus using a credit card and then paying the card back on time?
Slightly longer repayment time frames. (Multiple months instead of just one.)
firesteelrain · 52m ago
It’s like layaway. Also you didn’t really need credit before to get them.
Tadpole9181 · 16m ago
A CC gives 1% cash back. Your bank's savings give 4% interest. BNPL doesn't earn the cash back, but over a long term you make more in interest for some purchases.
For small puchases with short repayment periods? Not a clue.
UltraSane · 16m ago
Lower interest because the seller pays the interest
firesteelrain · 50m ago
Not if it shows a bunch of Affirm loans. You could look overleveraged for say getting a mortgage
bitmasher9 · 24m ago
1. Maybe they are over leveraged, let a bank to decide with all the data.
2. BNPL often has short durations (3 months) so it’s not a long term problem for people with BNPL if they pay it all back.
charcircuit · 26m ago
Are people taking out a large number of large Affirm loans though?
bediger4000 · 16m ago
We don't really know that. The algorithm is secret.
ecshafer · 1h ago
This would probably only affect the people with the worst credit scores I imagine. I just don't see a ton of 800+ credit score people deciding to spend 5 payments of $20 for a pair of $80 shoes.
sodality2 · 1h ago
I always thought it was interesting that the BNPL loans’ interest is subsidized by the retailer, which pay the premium in order to improve the chance of a sale (hoping to hone in on those who can’t afford it now and make it back on that extra spend). Which means high credit score, wealthy spenders could put everything they can on BNPL plans and profit the (minuscule) interest over time, but if you can do that on big purchases, maybe it’ll add up. Same way credit cards work, if you have the cash flow and always pay them off in full, you can make a few bucks in a HYSA for the 40 ish days before the statement.
I can see a future where a BNPL loan is not offered if the signals the checkout page collects indicates wealth, since they don’t have an issue of cash flow stopping a purchase. Imagine a loan that has a credit score maximum, not a minimum.
benmanns · 1h ago
I’m not sure. I’m sophisticated enough to use BNPL and set aside the funds in a HYSA, but I never have as you miss out on: credit card rewards, credit card purchase protection, credit card extended warranties, credit card chargeback infrastructure. Additionally, I’ve seen BNPL offers where the first payment is in 2 weeks compared to 30-50 days for credit cards depending on when your statement closes and how soon you have to pay, so the extra interest is less than you might think. It could make sense for very large purchases, but then, that’s also where credit card features can really come in handy.
BrawnyBadger53 · 1h ago
Discriminating wealthy customers increases the risk profile of the loans which is already questionably high. Retailers are used to paying extra for credit card transactions anyways. BNPL really is just meant to compete with credit cards by splitting the runway across more months for the loan. Equally predatory business model but credit cards are able to offer the same interest amortization that you can do with bnpl through the rewards programs. They're effectively the same.
CPLX · 1h ago
This is a theory, but it flies directly in the face of reality which is that nearly every retailer on the planet would prefer more wealthy customers.
sodality2 · 20m ago
Eh, in the same way a lot of retailers offer student discounts, they want to meet everyone at their maximum spending limit to capture more of the demand curve. It doesn’t have to be one or the other; not offering BNPL loans to wealthy customers aren’t likely to tangibly affect sales of that group.
p1necone · 1h ago
Shifting a cost forward a couple months interest free is a great deal for people who are financially responsible, especially if you have some other loan (like a mortgage) that you could be paying off more of instead.
It's no different to the practice of using a credit card for everything and then paying off in full a month later because the credit card interest is lower (often zero if you pay off within a month) than the mortgage interest.
dehrmann · 32m ago
I briefly looked into this, but I wasn't convinced the juice was worth the squeeze. My cash is automatically getting ~4%, but there's too much fine print to make sure the BNPL rate really is 0%, I'm sacrificing 2% cash back, and missing one payment makes the whole endeavor negative ROI.
mNovak · 53m ago
In the case of a 0% grace period sure I agree, but otherwise in no world is credit card interest cheaper than a mortgage over the same time period.
p1necone · 26m ago
You're right, I was misremembering - it's just the 0% interest when you pay off the full balance every month that makes this worth doing.
loeg · 1h ago
Plenty of people with good credit use BNPL loans; they are offered on much higher cost items than $80.
firesteelrain · 51m ago
A lot of young people where Affirm-ing their DoorDash etc. even though they had the money
Spivak · 1h ago
Except it's 4 payments of $20. The whole selling point is that they're zero interest. It's CC float without the CC.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 · 1h ago
That would depend on the fees and interest, no?
kurthr · 1h ago
I have so much extra money just laying around that I take unnecessary risks and add complexity to my financial life for kicks and giggles.
etchalon · 1h ago
A lot of BNPL loans are offered at 0% for X payments. Usually 6 months, sometimes 12 months on larger purchases.
Given current interest rates, I take that deal WHENEVER it's offered.
However, instead of using it to buy or construct a machine to triple what you can produce in an hour, the average person is using it to delay having to work that hour at all, in exchange for having to work an hour and six minutes sometime later.
At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.
i.e., credit can buy time in the nearly literal sense, you can do an hour's work in half an hour because the money facilitates it, meaning you can now make more money. If instead of investing in work you're spending on play, then you end up with a time deficit.
or, e.g. you can buy 3 franchises in 3 months instead of 3 years (i.e. income from the 1 franchise), trading credit for time to make more money, instead of burning it. It'd have been nice had they taught me this in school.
In my experience, the average American has no concept of saving money, and those below average even less.
It's funny to me that America gets flak from all over the world for having no social safety net; if this was actually true, you'd expect to see people put aside a bit of their income, however meager it may be, out of an expectation that they will need it. What do you see in practice? You see people dashing over to the nearest rent-to-own rims shop. (If you don't know poor people, you may not know such businesses exist.)
> Almost none of these people have the kind of collateral needed to use credit to truly transform their lives, and the government assistance for that is seriously lacking in the US
I doubt that greater availability of credit, perhaps facilitated through government subsidy, is what precludes the majority of such people from transforming their lives.
Congratulations, you've just discovered that human beings are not perfect rational actors.
It's easy to say "why don't they save more?" from an upper or middle class stability, but when the price of everything keeps going up, the police are out to get you, and healthcare is just a fast track to debt that will take away any savings or assets you managed to have, what's the point?
Is your position that taking debt to buy a house is bad unless you can sell it for a profit? Is working for the mortgage lender to accomplish that not worth it?
You can avoid it by renting, but then you’re just working for the landlord, so there’s no avoiding it.
It's not clear to me how they pick people to lend to.
0% financing costs the retailer 8%(ish) of the total amount, which is how the lender makes their money.
So in your case, the retailer didn’t want to lose that much of their margin.
I disagree.
You use credit to buy a car or buy a house when you don't have the cash to buy them up-front.
It's not so you can use them to make money, it's so you can use them to enjoy life.
> At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.
Only if you go too far. The point is to buy things knowing what they'll cost monthly and for how long, and to budget those as part of your monthly expenses. As long as you can always handle those, you will never run out of hours available and it's not a house of cards. Nothing collapses. You pay off your car; you pay off your mortgage.
You seem to be treating this as something black-and-white when it's not. It's an incredibly useful tool when used with budgeting. Not "to make more money" but to have a better life for you and your family for when it matters the most. Nobody wants to wait until the kids have graduated from college to be able to buy their first house.
And even with credit cards -- yes you generally want to be paying them off in full monthly. But if you want to take a vacation a couple months before you could otherwise fully pay for it, it's really nice to have that convenience too. Not to mention covering some expenses for a few months if you lose your job. They're a tool to be used responsibly.
Similar thinking for a house. A lot of people when buying a house go into it with the assumption that it is an appreciating asset that will gain value over time. Yes there are other factors of course like wanting to live closer to schools or in the suburbs/good areas, etc. But regardless this is commonly to facilitate a life that lends itself to you continuing to be able to make money comfortably.
Regarding vacations, no financial expert recommends using a card without the intention of not paying for it. If your plan is to book the vacation on credit for anything other than the benefits of your credit card points systems you might as well not use it at all. And all recommend not using credit cards and instead an emergency fund if you lose your job.
A house and a decent car are not primarily about making money. They're about your quality of life.
> And all recommend not using credit cards and instead an emergency fund if you lose your job.
And if you already used your emergency fund on, say, a medical emergency...?
Now consider what would happen if you invested that $6,300 for 30 years instead of spent it on interest. You’re losing out on tens of thousands of dollars in total lifetime wealth.
When you borrow money to “enjoy life” it can quickly end up costing 2x what it would if you spent the money outright, even if you borrowed at low rates.
And before you say “buy an old beater”, then you have to contend with an unreliable car that may cause you to be late to work and get fired. It’s also much easier and cheaper to get a car loan for a newish car than to borrow money to fix a car.
I used to hate to take the position that government should save people from themselves, but I've moderated a lot on it. Some people clearly cannot use credit responsibly.
If somebody can BNPL or otherwise credit lifesaving medicine (such as the many people in the USA who die from inability to afford healthcare), that's not play money because they don't want to work.
However, I stood in line behind someone who financed a bowl of noodles with afterpay, and it got me thinking. Those are the folks I'm talking about.
Neat.
Just to make the money you are making now, you need some stuff, be it a phone or a car, home AC, oven or even a washing machine at home (you can't go to work hungry in dirty clothes).
If you don't have the money to pay with cash, you'll be buying that oven/stove with whatever delayed/monthly payment option is available.
Yes, if you're buying franchises you can do the "make more money" calculations, but if your kids are going to be hungry soon, you often have no choice.
It'd be nice if kids were an affordable choice for anyone expect Elon Musk, but you know, here we are. \o/
What does need to happen however is that these inputs are properly weighted such that those using FICO can make appropriate decisions. Similar to credit cards, numerous BNPL-purchases do not necessarily indicate that the debtor is in financial trouble. They could merely be using the services for the other conveniences they offer. Whereas seeking numerous loans is usually a negative metric.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/business/doordash-klarna-...
I wonder if this is going to change.
Equally, I find it weird that companies can ding your credit for not paying but have no obligation to report on-time payments. It should be both or none.
For some larger purchases on a 12 month plan, leaving the money in savings loses me 1.5% cash back but gains me around 3% interest (after accounting for the depleting principle).
It would be stupid not to do it sometimes. I don't really get the financer's benefit. Though maybe it's because I do pay it, and if I didn't there would be 200% APY or something.
"The industry has long believed that consumers using BNPL responsibly should result in positive credit scores, as the majority of users are paying back in full and on time."
The real question is what are the delinquency and default rates for BNPL as compared to other forms of consumer credit.
Given the previous understanding that it didn't hit your FICO, the retailer subsidy as a sales lead, and the types of products people were financing.. one might assume worse..
To me this seems like a new product that would target a different consumer than the one that makes payments on time. But I would like if someone challenges this view. Thanks!
Slightly longer repayment time frames. (Multiple months instead of just one.)
For small puchases with short repayment periods? Not a clue.
2. BNPL often has short durations (3 months) so it’s not a long term problem for people with BNPL if they pay it all back.
I can see a future where a BNPL loan is not offered if the signals the checkout page collects indicates wealth, since they don’t have an issue of cash flow stopping a purchase. Imagine a loan that has a credit score maximum, not a minimum.
It's no different to the practice of using a credit card for everything and then paying off in full a month later because the credit card interest is lower (often zero if you pay off within a month) than the mortgage interest.
Given current interest rates, I take that deal WHENEVER it's offered.