JoeGambler Because getting into BNPL is not a do-or-die matter...

JoeGambler

Because getting into BNPL is not a do-or-die matter for CCP, it will look at the demographic of users as a spectrum, and if it follows the Wallet Wizard, precedent, reject 80% of applicants.

With its vast body of information, it CCP can automate much of the screening, particularly screening for the no-brainer applications that constitute the top 20% of the quality spectrum. Just as Wallet Wizard avoids small loans (SACCs) CCP is, IMO, likely to aim at the bigger items, not the buy on whim trade.

When I was a new arrival in Australia, I soon found a high-paying job, but I had no assets. When I needed a major item like a lawnmower, which in those days probably cost the equivalent of two weeks pay, I would wait until payday, and then cough up a third of the cost, with the next two payments a month apart. It did not take long for me to develop a good reputation as a debt payer, and I could borrow very easily. It is this type of debtor that CCP can select better than some BNPL players.

As I think we all agree, the BNPL matter for CCP is more aq matter of intellectual interest than a buy-sell-hold consideration for shareholders, or perspective ones. The North American market for PDLs and unsecured loans is so vast that CCP need not bust its gut looking to BNPL funds-deployment opportunities.

I am not going to comment on the matter of merchants being allowed, or disallowed, to charge extra for BNPL purchases, but to me it seems odd that Afterpay and the like can contract merchants not to apply a surcharge. I am surprised such agreements are considered to be legal. Anyhow a Google search on "surcharge BNPL" will throw up a plethora of articles on the subject - for one, https://www.copyright link/companie...-to-remove-no-surcharge-rules-20211022-p592bc