Cache22

I agree that there is always going to be complaints no matter how it is handled, but look at the bright side, in most cases it makes forums like this more interesting! I think most of it boils down to differing views on how money and markets should function. I personally don't see a cost-effective need for Home Depot to verify my income for a potentially low-margin appliance purchase, whether that is the extra cost of collecting paperwork or the extra cost to them to get even more data from a CRA for a questionable guess about my income. The credit report is already designed to estimate my ability to pay, if they think I have a 30% chance of not paying, I'll either get a high APR or shown the door. If they think I have a 5% chance of not paying, I'll get better financing. But the point is for this amount of credit income really doesn't matter. If I had a higher income, I wouldn't be applying for credit in the first place. If I had very little or no income, either my credit report would already reflect that my history is very limited, or that I manage my limited cash flow well enough to reliably pay it back. (And my limit would be set appropriately) Either way it's part of the risk model already. For larger amounts of credit, it makes sense to get proof from the borrower, and this is already done without the need for blanket guidelines that try to apply to all situations. Overall, I fail to see how this is going to save more money than it costs. While leveraged debt is among the core causes of the mess we are in now, the high default rates on credit cards are an effect. Many of the newer defaults are people with that have typically had better income and scores than the usual risk group factored into expected losses. How many of the accounts currently being paid late or charged off would have easily passed a thorough income verification at the time they were opened? The point is, this demographic didn't quit paying because they suddenly realized they lied about their income on their credit card applications, they quit paying because their mortgage went up, or they lost their job, or their house, etc. Income verification can't account for those things. And to specifically address various complaints from pathological complainers like myself: "Models invade privacy" I already wish I could have less of my information available to third parties, even at the loss of available/potential credit. It should be up to me how much privacy I am willing to give up to obtain credit. (And don't forget the complaint that Models are highly inaccurate, I say this as someone that always recalculates my exact income when applying for new credit, but would also likely get offered more credit based on a third party guess than what I provide myself.) "verification? none of their damn business" It is none of the CRAs business. It is none of ChoiceTrust's business. I don't want even more junk mail targeted to my income class (well in my case it would likely result in them saving the postage because I couldn't afford what they are selling ). But if the issuer granting credit wants to independently verify my income as a condition of a contract, then it is my decision to do so or walk away, depending on the need, use, and scope of the credit. "self-reported? imagined income inclusive" I have zero sympathy for anyone complaining because something makes it more difficult to falsify or misrepresent information. See, I only complain 2/3 of the time!

Note: In my earlier comments I had misunderstood the requirements, it isn't as bad as I originally thought as it doesn't require them to "strictly verify" income. That will teach me to not read from the source, thanks for the links to the PDFs. But I still don't like it! Back to my response ... Most of the comments I have read are not afraid of being honest with creditors, but don't like the idea of the CRA's and other data collection firms having additional influence on decisions for something that should be handled by the creditor. As many have said, they will be more than willing to provide verification, but don't like the idea of our good friends at EQ, EX, and TU being involved in that process. And why should they be involved? Credit ratings are based on a wide array of historic information, whereas income is easily quantified by the consumer. There is no reason this can't be handled by the bank, and be up to credit issuer to decide if strict verification is necessary depending on what they are offering. The problem however is this: The reason it is not strictly required is partly based on the inconvenience to consumers. So it won't be long before the CRA's have income estimating products and lobby to change this, since they have "solved" the problem of having a convenient way to estimate a consumer's income. The issue of privacy seems to have only been mentioned with regard to point of sale applications, and third party data mining was mentioned as an alternative to allow for more privacy on POS applications. So the intent seems to be to encourage creditors to either develop their own in-house methods or rely on a third party for income data, with "privacy" being one of the reasons they give for using a third party! That , for most of what I have read, is what the "usual nonsensical comments" are concerned about. If I want credit, and the creditor requires me to verify income, I will. But I don't want a system that is likely to end up creating more hassle and coerced revenue to the CRA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder Now that explains A LOT! And, maybe the glares I got from other attendees of the 2008 State Convention as a delegate weren't of scorn and disgust at my being there (as my schizophrenic paranoia suggested), but simply concern over my condition!

This ^^^ That is a much more concise way of what I was attempting to say.

I would argue that the forced verification of people's credit history has actually improved access of credit in this country. And this step will enhance and finetune the process. Most people will have nothing to worry about it - there will be a few edge cases like people with unstable incomes and joint incomes (but joint applications will solve that issue easily). I do agree that having the CRAs has streamlined the process of getting credit, but at what cost? It has at the same time streamlined some forms of identity theft, caused people to pay higher rates or be denied mortgages and loans due to mistakes in their report that aren't their own, and even worse: forced us to watch commercials of singing salamanders to get our "free' credit report online! But back to seriousness, the identity theft problem ... there is always a way to take advantage of people or companies, and the same system that has made life easier for many people has ruined the lives of many others and cost them a lot of time, money, and stress to deal with it. And there will always be loopholes and forged documentation (both on the part of the lender and the borrower) to abuse any system put into place. Mortgage brokers that clearly committed fraud (under existing regulations that weren't enforced anyway) a few years ago have simply changed careers and washed their hands of it, no repercussions for most of them. I admit I typically have a more pessimistic outlook than most on how bad this type of thing turns out, but overall I think the amount of consumers that follow the rules that benefit will be a smaller number than the amount of consumers that lose access. On top of that, there are too many ways for this to be extended and used for even more purposes outside of what most people think it would be used for. As was already mentioned, this is a simple system that could be used by potential employers to screen applicants and determine salaries offered to potential new-hires ... but without the balance of the potential employee knowing what they *should* on average be offered. If you buy a car, it is easy to look up the dealer costs, etc, so when working out a price you aren't walking in blind. But for something much more significant than a car purchase, where most people are already at a disadvantage, this definitely hurts the consumer. Of course, there are countless other factors that come into play, but I fail to see how this can help me in the least. If a bank wants verification to give me a loan, I'll give it to them. If it is for a tiny line of credit, they are better of saving the extra expense (multiplied by total applicants) and basing it on the information that is already available specifically for this purpose. The don't give out millions of credit cards without already factoring in estimated losses. But to force them to take extra steps, in my opinion, does more harm than good to both the credit issuer and more importantly to the consumer. Note: I am a tree-hugging free-market atheist conservative consumer-advocate, so take what I say with with grain of salt.

For me it isn't about the creditor, but the third parties. If a creditor wants thorough verification of my income that is fine, the issue is the regulation is taking that decision away from the creditor. This is where the third party data collection companies are stepping in, creating services (in addition to the standard credit check) that the creditor can use as a sub-par substitute to real verification. If I am getting an auto loan, I don't see a problem with verifying my income with the creditor. When getting my mortgage, I promptly supplied a 4506-T so the lender could verify my income. But for more general credit card accounts, most card issuers will find it is cheaper to use third party data than it is to deal with the documentation hassle for verifying income directly. Which just adds another piece of information about you for third party data collection firms to collect and sell (to creditors, insurance companies, potential employers, etc), all with the blessing of the government. So, at least for me, the bottom line is if they want to verify my income, they just need to ask. If I say no, then they can tell me to go apply somewhere else, that is fine. In most cases for the type of credit I am applying for, I will happily provide the credit issuer what they want, but for their use alone and not for use by EQ, EX, ChoiceTrust, etc. If getting 0% 12 month financing on a $700 water heater is going to be a hassle, I will just pay it in full rather than going through the trouble of checking an extra box allowing [random store] to pull even more data on me. The key here is forced verification. This kind of thing usually ends up benefiting a few corporations and making things more difficult and costlier for everyone else.

About time. I am a big supporter of income verification. In general I agree...except... 1. Where do they get the info? If it's an "estimate" based on some sort of database it could be WAY off depending on industry. Perhaps allowing the applicant to prove otherwise (via paystubs, tax forms, etc) is an altnerative. 2. The HHI (household income) vs. Individual income question. My HHI (including DW) is four times my personal income since my wife is the primary breadwinner by far. Going off just my income, I wouldn't qualify for ANYTHING, since it would appear my DTI is already over 100%. Looking at MY credit report and MY salary won't tell them that my wife makes 103k and pays the mortgage and other stuff from her paycheck. If true it means only joint apps in my future. As far as I'm concerned, if they ask for "household" I give them household. 3. What about the self-employed or those who work mostly on commission? The same questions floated in my head when I read that. I have a full time job, plus some freelance work on the side. My wife was laid off earlier this year and is currently going back to school, but does part time work but nothing that would be "consistent" income. The old fallback of the previous year's tax numbers for reporting income would be wildly inaccurate, but estimated income month-to-month can vary as well. So considering my own estimate of my income 6-12 months out can vary quite a bit, I don't see how a third party is going to even be close to accurate. Based on the data in my report, I'm sure my income looks much higher that it really is. Like many here that use rewards cards, I pay for everything I can with them, and spread it out among different cards depending on the category, and pay them off before interest starts accruing. But this has the effect of showing lots of spending and having it paid off, but most of my income ends up being pushed through credit cards, not just discretionary spending. Most other people I know (well, outside of this forum ) use debit or cash for most items. The ones that use credit typically run up a card or make specific larger purchases and then slowly pay it off, so the actual transactions and money flow that can be estimated from the reporting data would be a fraction of their actual income. I'm sure there are algorithms to try to account for this, but I can't see it being close to accurate from one person to another. The other thing is if they based part of the income estimates on current accounts and limits, well my total available credit (via credit card accounts) is about 2.5 times my annual gross income (which isn't very high). The available credit was much higher a year ago before the cascade of CLDs and closures this past year, but even after all of that, it seems well out of proportion compared to my income. But the point is the credit data still doesn't tell a thing about my actual income. 10 years ago I was just an AU on 2 credit card accounts with fairly small limits, while currently I have over 50x as much credit but still have roughly the same income. So just comparing myself 10 years ago to myself today, any estimate is going to assume a large increase in income over 10 years, when in reality that isn't the case at all. So regardless of how well they attempt to make an estimate, the results are going to be all over the place, considering any "interpretation" of credit data applied to my own reports from 10 years ago vs today are going to look like my income has substantially increased. <rant> It makes me wonder how much the CRA's and other major data collection companies had a hand in the laws and regulations to "protect the consumer." If the issuers are required to either go through tedious verification direct from the applicant, or pay a third party to estimate the income but instantly, it is clear that for the average credit card it is cheaper to just use the third party method. So the CRA's and data collection companies now have guaranteed customers (the credit issuers) all in the name of "regulation". But I'm sure they'd be happy to sell consumer products touting "income scores" to go along with "income reports" so we can all verify the data. And if it is wrong, well I guess the only way to dispute it would be to send 4506-T forms directly to the CRA's so they can get your explicit permission to get your information from the IRS. Just another potential way to sap more money from the consumer while simultaneously charging the credit issuers more for that side of the service due to higher accuracy. </rant>

A quick way to get full WSJ articles is to click through Google News to get there: Just paste the article title into google search and the story you are looking for should be right at the top, and that link should get you to the full article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=L...mp;oq=&aqi=

Had to look these up, haven't used them since getting CLDs to $1000 each (from $15k & $10k): AmEx Blue: 15.24% AmEx Clear: 10.24% And thanks for starting this thread, in the process I realized my Clear card is only a few hundred in spending away from the 2500 point reward redemption mark ... will have to pay some bills to hit the mark to get my rewards, then file it away again.

When convenient for you, I am definitely interested in this info. I'm not sure if I need Breeze to change my status or not to get a PM ... I don't have many posts but I have had a login for quite a few years. And my kneecaps made me promise to be quiet, they have enough trouble as I'm getting older and said if I wasn't quiet, they'd go after my elbows! Thanks!

I am looking for advice on how to proceed with an old debt. The debt is for $156 and is currently listed as a charge off. After finally tracking down the CA that is handling the account, I sent a request for deletion on the terms that I pay the full amount due. The letter I received in response doesn't mention anything from my original letter, but says "Credit history will be updated to paid in full" when they receive my payment, and also they included copies of the credit card statements from the account in question. First off, would simply paying this to be done with it hurt me more than it helps at this point? The last payment I had made was in February of 2001 before it became delinquent. Next question I have regarding this ... After examining the copies of the statements they included, I noticed some things that are quite strange. The statement dated 6/7/2001 states clearly that my credit card privileges have been revoked, however for the next two months, a monthly charge for internet service continued to appear in addition to late fees, and also caused the card to exceed the credit limit (290 limit), causing additional overlimit fees. If the account is already suspended, how come further charges were allowed? (I apologize that my post is getting much longer than expected, please bear with me! ) The last payment I made to this account posted on 2/15/01, here is a summary of the account's activity, along with the messages included with the statements: (Dates listed are the statement closing dates) 03/08/01 Balance: 24.96 04/06/01 Purchases: 126.60 Late Fee: 25.00 Finance Charge: 1.50 Balance: 178.06 05/07/01 Purchases: 9.95 (4/17) Late Fee: 25.00 Finance Charge: 2.41 Balance: 215.42 Your account is now 60 days past due, even though the card is secured by your deposit, you must still make your payments on time. 06/07/01 Purchases: 9.95 (5/17) Late Fee: 25.00 Finance Charge: 3.04 Balance: 253.41 Your credit card privileges have been revoked. Return your card(s) cut in half. You are still responsible for making your payments. 07/09/01 Purchases: 9.95 (6/17) Late Fee: 25.00 Finance Charge: 3.67 Balance: 292.03 Your savings account is forfeited. You are responsible for any remaining balance still due on your account. 08/08/01 Purchases: 9.95 (7/17) Overlimit Fee: 25.00 Late Fee: 25.00 Finance Charge: 4.32 Balance: 356.30 Your savings account is forfeited. You are responsible for any remaining balance still due on your account. 08/09/01 Credit Adjustment-Savings: 200.00- Charge Off Account-Principals: 150.86- Charge Off Account *Finance Charges*: 5.44- The other strange thing is the way the charge off amounts were listed, where did they get 5.44 for the charge off listed for finance charges? This whole thing has me confused ... so any assistance would be greatly appreciated to help me figure out the best way to deal with this.