The Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) of 2009 restricted several risk management practices of credit card issuers. Using a quasi-experimental design with credit bureau data on consumer lending, we find evidence consistent with the hypothesis that the act's restrictions on risk management practices contributed to a large decline in bank card holding by higher risk, nonprime consumers but had little effect on prime consumers. Looking at consumer finance loans, historically a source of credit for higher risk consumers, we find greater reliance on such loans by nonprime consumers in states with high consumer finance rate ceilings following the CARD Act than by nonprime consumers in states with low rate ceilings or by prime consumers. That nonprime consumers in states with high consumer finance rate ceilings relied more heavily on consumer finance loans suggests that consumer finance loans were a substitute for subprime credit cards for risky consumers when rate ceilings permit such loans to be profitable. Consumer finance loans would not be available to many higher risk, nonprime consumers in low rate states because such loans would be unprofitable, and prime consumers would not need consumer finance loans because other less expensive types of credit would generally be available to them.

This paper tests for the existence of discrimination in consumer lending by finance companies in Texas before the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The data used permit conclusions about discrimination in the market, not just in the behavior of a small number of creditors. The tests suggest that lenders did not discriminate against factors now protected by ECOA. These companies may have discriminated against single borrowers of both sexes and against widows but not married women or divorced borrowers. The results support the view that consumer credit markets as a whole were not characterized by widespread systematic discrimination.

This paper provides further evidence on the distributional impact of interest rate ceilings on the small saver. Cross‐section data from the 1977 Consumer Credit Survey was used to estimate the implicit losses imposed on different income classes by government regulations. Our findings generally support earlier studies which found the implicit burden to be regressive among income classes. However, the degree of regressivity showed a marked decrease since 1970. These results may be explained by portfolio adjustments of households and financial innovations in response to deposit rate ceilings and accelerating inflation during the 1970s.