NEW YORK (AP) — More shoppers than ever are on track to use ‘buy now, pay later’ plans this holiday season, as the ability to spread out payments looks attractive at a time when Americans still feel the lingering effect of inflation and already have record-high credit card debt. The data firm Adobe Analytics predicts shoppers will spend 11.4% more this holiday season using buy now, pay later than they did a year ago. The company forecasts shoppers will purchase $18.5 billion worth of goods using the third-party services for the period Nov. 1 to Dec. 31, with $993 million worth of purchases on Cyber Monday alone. Buy now, pay later can be particularly appealing to consumers who have low credit scores or no credit history, such as younger shoppers, because most of the companies providing the service run only soft credit checks and don’t report the loans and payment histories to the credit bureaus, unlike credit card companies. This holiday season, buy now, pay later users can also feel more confident if a transaction goes awry. In May, the CFPB said buy now, pay later company must adhere to other regulations that govern traditional credit, such as providing ways to demand refunds and dispute transactions. To use a buy now, pay later plan, consumers typically sign up with bank account information or a debit or credit card, and agree to pay for purchases in monthly installments, typically over eight weeks or more. The loans are marketed as requiring no or low interest, or only conditional fees, such as for late payment. Klarna, Afterpay and Affirm are three of the biggest buy now, pay later companies. But consumer advocates warn that shoppers who sign up for the payment plans using a credit card can be hit with more interest and fees. That's because individuals open themselves up to interest on the credit card payment, if it's carried month to month, on top of any late fees, interest, or penalties from the buy now, pay later loan itself. Experts advise against using a credit card to pay for these plans for this reason. Consumer watchdogs also say the plans lead consumers to overextend themselves because, for example, not paying full price up front leaves, in the shopper’s mind at least, more money for smaller purchases . They also caution consumers to keep careful track of using multiple buy now, pay later services, as the automatic payments can add up, and there is no central reporting, such as with a credit card statement. “Buy now, pay later can be an innovative tool for purchases you’re going to make anyway,” said Mark Elliott, chief customer officer at financial services company LendingClub. “The challenge is that it does fuel overspending.” For merchants, that’s part of the appeal. Retailers have found that customers are more likely to have bigger cart sizes or to convert from browsing to checking out when buy now, pay later is offered. One report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York cited research that found customers spend 20% more when buy now, pay later is available. “The reality is that the increased cost-of-living and inflation have put more people in a situation where they’re already relying on revolving credit,” Elliott said. “The psychographics of ‘buy now, pay later’ may be different — people don’t think of it as debt — but it is.” If a consumer misses a payment, they can face fees, interest, or the possibility of being locked out of using the services in the future. Emily Childers, consumer financial expert for personal-finance technology company Credit Karma, said that internal data shows member credit card balances are up more than 50% for Gen Z and millennial members since March 2022, when the Fed started raising interest rates. “Young people are entering this holiday season already in the red,” she said. “And, based on what we’re seeing in the data, they’re continuing to bury their heads in the sand and spend.” The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship as soon as he gets into office to make good on campaign promises aiming to restrict immigration and redefining what it means to be American. But any efforts to halt the policy would face steep legal hurdles. Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the United States automatically becomes an American citizen. It's been in place for decades and applies to children born to someone in the country illegally or in the U.S. on a tourist or student visa who plans to return to their home country. It's not the practice of every country, and Trump and his supporters have argued that the system is being abused and that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen. But others say this is a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it would be extremely difficult to overturn and even if it's possible, it's a bad idea. Here's a look at birthright citizenship, what Trump has said about it and the prospects for ending it: During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Trump said he “absolutely” planned to halt birthright citizenship once in office. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” he said. Trump and other opponents of birthright citizenship have argued that it creates an incentive for people to come to the U.S. illegally or take part in “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women enter the U.S. specifically to give birth so their children can have citizenship before returning to their home countries. “Simply crossing the border and having a child should not entitle anyone to citizenship,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for NumbersUSA, which argues for reducing immigration. The organization supports changes that would require at least one parent to be a permanent legal resident or a U.S. citizen for their children to automatically get citizenship. Others have argued that ending birthright citizenship would profoundly damage the country. “One of our big benefits is that people born here are citizens, are not an illegal underclass. There’s better assimilation and integration of immigrants and their children because of birthright citizenship,” said Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the pro-immigration Cato Institute. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that 5.5 million children under age 18 lived with at least one parent in the country illegally in 2019, representing 7% of the U.S. child population. The vast majority of those children were U.S. citizens. The nonpartisan think tank said during Trump’s campaign for president in 2015 that the number of people in the country illegally would “balloon” if birthright citizenship were repealed, creating “a self-perpetuating class that would be excluded from social membership for generations.” In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress ratified the 14th Amendment in July 1868. That amendment assured citizenship for all, including Black people. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the 14th Amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But the 14th Amendment didn't always translate to everyone being afforded birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn't until 1924 that Congress finally granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. A key case in the history of birthright citizenship came in 1898, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the states. The federal government had tried to deny him reentry into the county after a trip abroad on grounds he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act. But some have argued that the 1898 case clearly applied to children born of parents who are both legal immigrants to America but that it's less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status or, for example, who come for a short-term like a tourist visa. “That is the leading case on this. In fact, it’s the only case on this,” said Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports immigration restrictions. “It’s a lot more of an open legal question than most people think.” Some proponents of immigration restrictions have argued the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment allows the U.S. to deny citizenship to babies born to those in the country illegally. Trump himself used that language in his 2023 announcement that he would aim to end birthright citizenship if reelected. Trump wasn't clear in his Sunday interview how he aims to end birthright citizenship. Asked how he could get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.” Pressed further on whether he'd use an executive order, Trump said “if we can, through executive action." He gave a lot more details in a 2023 post on his campaign website . In it, he said he would issue an executive order the first day of his presidency, making it clear that federal agencies “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.” Trump wrote that the executive order would make clear that children of people in the U.S. illegally “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.” This would almost certainly end up in litigation. Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute said the law is clear that birthright citizenship can’t be ended by executive order but that Trump may be inclined to take a shot anyway through the courts. “I don’t take his statements very seriously. He has been saying things like this for almost a decade," Nowrasteh said. "He didn’t do anything to further this agenda when he was president before. The law and judges are near uniformly opposed to his legal theory that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are not citizens." Trump could steer Congress to pass a law to end birthright citizenship but would still face a legal challenge that it violates the Constitution. Associated Press reporter Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

‘Buy now, pay later’ is more popular than ever. It can cost more than you think

GH Research PLC ( NASDAQ:GHRS – Get Free Report )’s stock price was up 2% during trading on Thursday . The stock traded as high as $9.40 and last traded at $9.28. Approximately 58,324 shares were traded during trading, a decline of 26% from the average daily volume of 79,324 shares. The stock had previously closed at $9.10. Analysts Set New Price Targets A number of equities analysts have recently commented on GHRS shares. HC Wainwright restated a “buy” rating and issued a $40.00 price objective on shares of GH Research in a report on Wednesday, November 20th. Canaccord Genuity Group cut their price target on shares of GH Research from $31.00 to $28.00 and set a “buy” rating on the stock in a report on Monday, November 18th. Finally, JMP Securities reiterated a “market outperform” rating and set a $39.00 price objective on shares of GH Research in a research note on Wednesday, September 4th. Get Our Latest Research Report on GHRS GH Research Stock Down 3.8 % GH Research ( NASDAQ:GHRS – Get Free Report ) last released its quarterly earnings results on Tuesday, September 3rd. The company reported ($0.20) EPS for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of ($0.23) by $0.03. As a group, equities research analysts expect that GH Research PLC will post -0.79 EPS for the current fiscal year. Institutional Investors Weigh In On GH Research An institutional investor recently raised its position in GH Research stock. RA Capital Management L.P. increased its stake in GH Research PLC ( NASDAQ:GHRS – Free Report ) by 1.3% in the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The fund owned 6,686,689 shares of the company’s stock after buying an additional 85,000 shares during the period. RA Capital Management L.P. owned about 12.85% of GH Research worth $44,734,000 at the end of the most recent reporting period. 56.90% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. GH Research Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) GH Research PLC, together with its subsidiary GH Research Ireland Limited, engages in developing various therapies to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders. It is involved in the development of 5-Methoxy-N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT) therapies for the treatment of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Featured Articles Receive News & Ratings for GH Research Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for GH Research and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .