RBC Economics published a detailed analysis this week on how US consumers are absorbing the Iran war energy shock. The short answer: they’re spending out of savings, not cutting other purchases. The longer answer matters a lot for consumer lenders — because the savings buffer is already thin, lower-income households have almost none left, and the clock on sustainability is running.
RBC Economics published its US Week Ahead analysis on April 17, authored by Head of US Economics Mike Reid and Senior US Economist Carrie Freestone. The analysis focuses on what March retail sales data — due this week — is likely to show, and more importantly, what the underlying consumer behavior behind the numbers actually means. For consumer lenders, this is one of the more precise economic analyses of the energy shock’s impact on household finances published so far.
RBC projects March headline retail sales rose approximately 1.4% relative to February. That sounds like consumer strength. It is not. The entire headline gain is explained by two things: gasoline prices spiked 26% in March (and retail sales report nominal spending, so higher prices mechanically boost the dollar figure), and light motor vehicle sales posted another strong month. Strip out both autos and gasoline and RBC estimates retail spending rose just 0.2% month-over-month. The retail control group — the measure that feeds directly into GDP — is also expected to come in at 0.2%, reflecting softer discretionary goods spending after last year’s pre-tariff front-running in categories like clothing and sporting goods.
The lesson for anyone reading the March retail sales headline: it will be cited as evidence that consumers are holding up. What it actually measures is that gas was expensive and people bought cars. The underlying consumption picture is considerably more subdued.
RBC’s analysis draws on 30 years of historical data to answer a specific question: when gasoline prices spike, do consumers cut other spending or draw down savings? The answer, consistently, is that they draw down savings. The correlation between oil price changes and personal savings is stronger than the correlation between oil prices and consumption excluding gasoline. In other words, consumers maintain their non-gas spending and absorb the fuel cost shock by saving less.
This behavioral pattern has held through prior energy shocks — the 2008 oil spike, the 2011–2012 run-up, the post-Ukraine invasion surge in 2022. In each case, the headline consumption numbers held up while the savings rate compressed. The consumer looked resilient in the data while quietly becoming financially more fragile.
RBC modeled two oil price scenarios for 2026. At $100 per barrel — roughly the recent peak after the Strait of Hormuz blockade — the energy shock represents approximately $150 billion in additional nominal gasoline spending annually (each $10/barrel increase in WTI translates to roughly a 30-cent increase at the pump). That scenario would reduce the personal savings rate by approximately 0.7 percentage points, bringing it to 3.3% — the lowest level since 2022, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine coincided with the post-pandemic spending boom. At $75 per barrel — closer to where oil has pulled back following ceasefire news — the savings rate falls by 0.3 percentage points. RBC expects the actual outcome to land somewhere between the two scenarios.
This is the section of the RBC analysis that matters most for consumer lenders, and it is stated precisely: “The savings rate is reflective of all consumers on aggregate, with higher earners — who have notably higher savings rates — skewing the savings rate higher. Lower income households will have fewer savings to draw down and are expected to rely increasingly on credit in the face of higher gasoline prices.”
The personal savings rate is a mean. Like any mean calculated over a highly skewed distribution, it is dominated by the high end. High-income households carry savings rates that can be 15–20% of income or more. Low-income households run at savings rates near zero in normal times — and negative in stress periods. When RBC projects the savings rate falling from 4.0% to 3.3%, that movement is largely happening at the top of the income distribution. For households in the bottom two income quintiles, there is no savings buffer to draw down. The adjustment mechanism is different: it is credit.
RBC explicitly flags what this means: lower-income consumers who “are already showing signs of stress (for example, higher rates of delinquency) and are now starting to feel the pinch of tariff passthrough” will increasingly rely on credit cards and revolving credit to absorb the gas price shock. This is not a forecast — it is a description of what is already happening, with the energy shock adding an additional layer on top of existing stress.
RBC’s conclusion is precise: “While consumers can likely manage a $100/barrel scenario in the short run, if prices settle materially higher for an extended period of time, this could become problematic.”
This is the critical variable for consumer lenders. The behavioral pattern — draw down savings rather than cut spending — is sustainable for a few months at most for middle-income households, and is already unsustainable for lower-income households who have no meaningful savings. The relevant question is not whether March retail sales look strong (they will). The question is what happens in month three, four, and five of elevated energy prices if the ceasefire with Iran proves fragile and oil stays above $80.
Oil has pulled back from its $110+ peak following ceasefire developments, but RBC notes that prices above $80 per barrel still represent a meaningful departure from earlier-year expectations. The “rockets and feathers” dynamic — where energy prices spike instantly and decline slowly — means that even a ceasefire that holds does not quickly reverse the household budget damage already done in March and April.
The retail sales headline this week will be cited as evidence of consumer resilience. Treat it as a lagging indicator, not a leading one. A 1.4% gain driven entirely by expensive gasoline and car purchases tells you nothing useful about the household balance sheet. Watch the retail control group figure (expected +0.2%) and the savings rate when it is reported with the PCE data on April 26. The savings rate is the signal; the headline is noise.
Lower-income borrowers have already moved from savings drawdown to credit drawdown. This is not a future risk — RBC describes it as a current condition. The LendingTree survey data, the Beige Book district reports, the Wells Fargo earnings call language about a “bifurcated” consumer — all describe the same phenomenon. For any lender with meaningful near-prime or subprime card and installment exposure, delinquency data from Q2 onward will confirm what the macro data already shows. The question is whether your reserve assumptions reflect it.
Duration is now the most important variable in your macro scenario planning. A two-month energy shock at $100 oil is manageable in aggregate terms — the RBC analysis supports that view. A five-month or six-month energy shock at $80+ oil is a different problem entirely. The ceasefire announced April 7 is a two-week pause, not a resolution. Monitor oil prices and Strait of Hormuz traffic weekly. The moment you see sustained disruption resuming, the savings buffer math deteriorates rapidly — and the credit stress it masks becomes visible in your data 60 to 90 days later.
The Lending Pulse delivers weekly intelligence for consumer lending executives — macro signals, regulatory updates, earnings decoded, and company moves. Start your free month — no credit card required.
Start free month →