Slashdot Mirror
Saying "Wasted" On Facebook Can Affect Your Credit Score (ajc.com)
JustAnotherOldGuy writes: According to a recent report by the Financial Times (paywalled), some of the top credit rating companies are now using people's social media accounts to assess their ability to repay debt. "If you look at how many times a person says 'wasted' in their profile, it has some value in predicting whether they're going to repay their debt," Will Lansing, chief executive at credit rating company FICO, told the Financial Times. "It's not much, but it's more than zero." According to the Financial Times, both FICO and TransUnion have had to find "alternative ways" to assess people who don't have a traditional credit profile — including people who haven't borrowed enough to give creditors an idea of what kind of risk they pose.
Its possible to come up with algorithms that are statistically valid, but discriminatory. For example, in the US African Americans are on average lower income than whites,so it it is likely that average they are less able to repay debts. Anything that correlates with race might statistically be valid, but is racist and if done explicitly would violate all sorts of laws. How do you prove that you are not using proxies for race, or other protected classes in an analysis like this.
Systems that analyze the behavior of friends have a similar problem: people from disadvantaged cultures will have a more difficult time receiving loans, getting jobs etc, not because of what they personally did, but because of what people of their culture did. This is the basis of racism.
if you don't have a facebook account?
I used to do phone support for Capital One credit card and they determined that if the first transaction you make with your card is cash, it's likely you will max the card and not pay it back.
What happens is you get your new card, you go to the ATM, get declined, phone in then CS tells you it's for 'security reasons' to 'protect you from fraud' then asked you to fax in 3 or 4 pieces of ID to 'verify yourself'. After that, they tell you the information was illegible and that they can't reinstate your card.
I can understand them declining people who are a likely risk but literally telling them a bold faced lie is what kind of surprised me. They used to refer to Capital One as "Cap One" for short, I'm not sure if they caught how appropriate "Capone" was to describe the way they do business.
"Lansing said FICO is working with credit card companies to use several different methods for deciding what size loans people can handle, and using non-traditional sources like social media allows them to collect information on people who don't have an in-depth credit history. According to the FT, both FICO and TransUnion have had to find alternative ways to assess people who don't have a traditional credit profile -- including people who haven't borrowed enough to give creditors an idea of what kind of risk they pose."
So this has a nonzero effect on your credit score, but for anyone with a legitimate history (aka any credit card or loan ever) the effect will be so small that it would be considered negligible. What the hell do you people want? If I was an employer looking up peoples names on Facebook, like is common these days, and found out that the person was posting pictures of getting high/drunk on a regular basis or posting really horrible comments, I'd refuse to hire them too. The same applies to credit cards. Some random person with no references walks into my bank and says, "Hey give me $1000, I'm good for it". What should my response be, seriously?
"Can you prove in any way that I can depend on you to pay me back?"
If you don't want to be judged by your social profile, make it private or don't fucking post it in the first place.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
I too have 800+ credit scores, very good savings, and a paid-off home. Therein lies the problem. I don't have any debt any more, and while I use credit cards for nearly everything, I never carry a balance beyond the payment due dates. I've been retired for a while and have a steady pension income that is quite adequate.
So I asked for an increase in my credit card limit, and was turned down, with the EXPLICIT statement, "You don't have enough debt." Not "your credit isn't good enough"--- they as much as said my credit was just fine.
In other words they see that in their industry I am, and will remain, what is called a "deadbeat." This does not mean a non-payer, this means someone who PAYS and doesn't carry balances, thereby denying the banks the opportunity to collect interest at extortionate interest rates.
Is there something wrong with this whole system?
A point of clarification: the credit card *never* loses money on a cardholder. Merchants have to pay the issuer for every transaction. This more than covers the issuers fixed costs.
However, consider two customers who buy exactly the same amount each month. Customer A earns the card issuer $5 in merchant processing fees, but because he pays off the amount at the end of the month there is no interest. Over the course of a year the issuer will only make $60.
Customer B also earns the issuer $5 in merchant processing fees, but only makes the minimum payment of $300 so there is an interest gain of $45. With the same credit limit and both maxing it out, customer B only manages an additional $1/month in merchant processing fees for the rest of the year, but the total take is over $556.
If customer A only earns you $60 and customer B earns you $556 -- which customer do you prefer?
Now comes the fun part. If you raise customer A's limit you will get only a marginal profit increase if they fully utilize it. If you double it from a $3000 limit to $6000 you have increased volume you only get another $60. But if you double customer B's limit then you get another $556.
And the funny thing is, people who max their card will max it out again soon after a limit increase. *And* they will usually keep making the (new, higher) monthly payments. Of course, there *is* a limit. Which is why an issuer won't double the limit, they use smaller increases instead. But getting near that limit is really good for the issuer. Not just from maximizing the minimum payment, but from fees.
Eventually, customer B will have a bad month and not make the minimum payment. Maybe they'll forget the payment, maybe a medical expense, maybe their car broke down. Whatever it was, it will be an unavoidable expense. So instead of only making $45 from accrued interest, they get another $50 from a late payment. Oh, but that bumped the card over the limit, which is another $50 fee.
For the issuer, this is a wonderful situation because they get all of the benefits of a higher monthly payment without any of the risk associated with a higher balance. If customer B gets caught up at some point then its time to increase their limit (if you haven't already speculatively done so) in order to make it easier for them to miss a payment.
Yes, numbers provided are not exact. But they are in the ball park. I used 18% APR, but I've seen cards with over 24%. I've seen low interest cards though I've never had one myself: I pay the balance off each month so I'm "high risk" for them ever seeing a profit and consequently only get offers for high interest/annual fee cards. But things will change if ever have trouble making payments....