We were early in calling out the structural problems facing any card issuer willing to underwrite a co-brand built around rewards on rent payments. The partner economics were thin, the consumer behavior assumptions were fragile, and the rental market itself was too fragmented to support a clean, scalable model. A spreadsheet can make almost any co-brand look workable. The harder question is whether customers will behave the way the model requires.
The U.S. rental market is unusually uneven. At one end are institutional owners with hundreds of thousands of units; at the other are small landlords renting a basement apartment or a single property. That fragmentation matters. It makes alignment across acceptance, servicing, economics, and loyalty far more complicated than in traditional co-brand categories such as airlines, hotels, or large retailers.
The Wells Fargo Fiasco
The WSJ reported in June 2024 on the troubled Wells Fargo-Bilt card, where the economics deteriorated as customers used the product differently than expected. Rather than generating sufficient non-rent spend and revolving balances to cover rewards costs, many cardholders focused on the most valuable feature: paying rent and earning points. Cross-sell expectations for other banking products also proved too optimistic, leaving household revenue well below the assumptions that had supported the partnership.
Wells Fargo ultimately ended the relationship, leaving Bilt to find a new issuing path. It was not the first high-profile co-brand breakup. Goldman Sachs and Apple, Walmart and Synchrony, and Walmart and Capital One all illustrate the same lesson: when incentives, economics, and operating expectations drift apart, even prominent partnerships can unravel.
Bilt 2.0
In March 2026, PaymentsJournal examined Bilt’s attempt to relaunch the card through a new structure. Instead of relying on a top-tier issuer such as Wells Fargo, Bilt turned to Cardless as the technology platform and aligned the program with a smaller fintech banking model. At the time, we noted that customer service, communication, and operational resilience would need to improve materially for the new version to earn consumer trust.
The latest reports suggest those concerns were well placed. The WSJ reports that some cardholders received mistaken collections notices tied to phantom balances, adding credit-reporting damage to earlier billing, payment, and customer service complaints. For a product built around helping consumers manage major housing payments and build financial standing, these are not minor execution issues. They strike at the heart of the value proposition.
Back to Square One—or Is There a Bilt 3.0?
Bilt 2.0 is not yet proving that the model works.
The co-brand opportunity in housing remains intriguing, but the category lacks the durable economics of Citi’s American Airlines portfolio or the brand power of the Amex Delta franchise. Bilt now needs to rethink not just its issuer strategy, but the operating model behind the card.
Until the company can align rewards, servicing, credit reporting, customer communication, and issuer economics, the bigger question remains unresolved: can the rental sector produce a sustainable co-brand card, or is Bilt simply exposing why the model is so hard to make work?
