No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Certainly not a risk worth taking, in my estimation.
At least, not unless they upped the price. This is not illegal, and breaks no laws. This practice only seeks to inflate Fico scores, and has nothing directly to do with Issuers, who only subscribe to the score, with many having their own or highly customized versions.
So, it's fine and ethetical for me to add my niece as an AU to jump start her history, though I wouldn't even give her the card? But, it's so horribly unethical if the same person weren't lucky enough to know anyone to be added as an AU, and purchased it from a stranger to even the playing field?
Is a 30 year thick file with an 800 score really an accurate representation of stay at home spouse with no marketable skills, more so than 45 year old professional engineer, with no credit history, who has just immigrated here with a high paying job?
This mess reminds me of CA when the State allowed domestic partnerships for work benefits, which were originally meant for the "same" gender. The courts found it unfairly discriminated those of opposing genders, and eventually allowed "domestic partnerhips" without limitations. After a while, it ceases to have meaning, like the AU scoriing, which I'm sure many issuers would just dismiss, or customize a system minimize or eliminate its relevance.
When you add an AU to an account, it is a form of vouching for the person. The intention is for the cardholder to allow charges to be made that the cardholder is ultimately responsible for. If you aren't going to give the AU the card, then you really aren't using the program as intended and are gaming the system. The analogy of "this is why we can't have nice things" is very appropriate. Everything that is legal isn't necessarily ethical.
@Open123 wrote:Certainly not a risk worth taking, in my estimation.
At least, not unless they upped the price. This is not illegal, and breaks no laws. This practice only seeks to inflate Fico scores, and has nothing directly to do with Issuers, who only subscribe to the score, with many having their own or highly customized versions.
So, it's fine and ethetical for me to add my niece as an AU to jump start her history, though I wouldn't even give her the card? But, it's so horribly unethical if the same person weren't lucky enough to know anyone to be added as an AU, and purchased it from a stranger to even the playing field?
Is a 30 year thick file with an 800 score really an accurate representation of stay at home spouse with no marketable skills, more so than 45 year old professional engineer, with no credit history, who has just immigrated here with a high paying job?
This mess reminds me of CA when the State allowed domestic partnerships for work benefits, which were originally meant for the "same" gender. The courts found it unfairly discriminated those of opposing genders, and eventually allowed "domestic partnerhips" without limitations. After a while, it ceases to have meaning, like the AU scoriing, which I'm sure many issuers would just dismiss, or customize a system minimize or eliminate its relevance.
+1
Most lenders will not hesitate to close the accounts and even blacklist if they detect such activity.
That being said, it's not illegal. If you value your account(s) with that particular bank, it's best to just avoid it.
@Open123 wrote:Certainly not a risk worth taking, in my estimation.
At least, not unless they upped the price. This is not illegal, and breaks no laws. This practice only seeks to inflate Fico scores, and has nothing directly to do with Issuers, who only subscribe to the score, with many having their own or highly customized versions.
So, it's fine and ethetical for me to add my niece as an AU to jump start her history, though I wouldn't even give her the card? But, it's so horribly unethical if the same person weren't lucky enough to know anyone to be added as an AU, and purchased it from a stranger to even the playing field?
Is a 30 year thick file with an 800 score really an accurate representation of stay at home spouse with no marketable skills, more so than 45 year old professional engineer, with no credit history, who has just immigrated here with a high paying job?
This mess reminds me of CA when the State allowed domestic partnerships for work benefits, which were originally meant for the "same" gender. The courts found it unfairly discriminated those of opposing genders, and eventually allowed "domestic partnerhips" without limitations. After a while, it ceases to have meaning, like the AU scoriing, which I'm sure many issuers would just dismiss, or customize a system minimize or eliminate its relevance.
There's no difference at all.
Not a risk I'd be willing to take. That being said, considering all the other ways people improve their credit, it's unreasonable to be judgmental over this issue.
This is called "piggybacking" and was a popular method of quickly raising your scores in the past. Like has been said above, however, is that many lenders caught on and started closing accounts.
I have no problem with family members, close friends, and such being added, but adding strangers to your accounts for monetary gains to beat the system is in essence, fraud. It could be a slippery slope.
Out of curiousity, I checked one of these websites, and even they state that cardholders who do that can either have their account closed or lose their ability to add AU. They also state that it terms of legality it's a grey area. However, as stated by others, I would not take the risk even it's legal. This is asking for trouble.
@drkaje wrote:
@Open123 wrote:Certainly not a risk worth taking, in my estimation.
At least, not unless they upped the price. This is not illegal, and breaks no laws. This practice only seeks to inflate Fico scores, and has nothing directly to do with Issuers, who only subscribe to the score, with many having their own or highly customized versions.
So, it's fine and ethetical for me to add my niece as an AU to jump start her history, though I wouldn't even give her the card? But, it's so horribly unethical if the same person weren't lucky enough to know anyone to be added as an AU, and purchased it from a stranger to even the playing field?
Is a 30 year thick file with an 800 score really an accurate representation of stay at home spouse with no marketable skills, more so than 45 year old professional engineer, with no credit history, who has just immigrated here with a high paying job?
This mess reminds me of CA when the State allowed domestic partnerships for work benefits, which were originally meant for the "same" gender. The courts found it unfairly discriminated those of opposing genders, and eventually allowed "domestic partnerhips" without limitations. After a while, it ceases to have meaning, like the AU scoriing, which I'm sure many issuers would just dismiss, or customize a system minimize or eliminate its relevance.
There's no difference at all.
Not a risk I'd be willing to take. That being said, considering all the other ways people improve their credit, it's unreasonable to be judgmental over this issue.
+1!
To my mind, this isn't very different from PIF before statement cuts on all but one card. That says very little about your real creditworthiness, but as an artifact of the algorithm, boosts your score. As does backdating by Amex, which has no real basis in creditworthiness. And the same is true for the "real" AU, that person wasn't responsible for the card, so why should the history impact their score?
But those things (especially the first!) are repeated endlessly here as good things to do. At least piggybacking has some potential for reward (as well as loss!)
Hence my earlier comment about if I don't do it, it's wrong. Which of course is sort of true, people avoid doing things they feel is bad, but at least be aware it really isn't very different from stuff you do do.
@longtimelurker wrote:
+1!
To my mind, this isn't very different from PIF before statement cuts on all but one card. That says very little about your real creditworthiness, but as an artifact of the algorithm, boosts your score. As does backdating by Amex, which has no real basis in creditworthiness. And the same is true for the "real" AU, that person wasn't responsible for the card, so why should the history impact their score?
But those things (especially the first!) are repeated endlessly here as good things to do. At least piggybacking has some potential for reward (as well as loss!)
Hence my earlier comment about if I don't do it, it's wrong. Which of course is sort of true, people avoid doing things they feel is bad, but at least be aware it really isn't very different from stuff you do do.
Advance PIFs require discipline and extreme attention to your expenditures and due dates. I think they say quite a bit about one's creditworthiness.
Backdating doesn't bother me because, however many AMEX cards you've got, you've got a relationship with the lender that dates to a certain point, and it don't think it's misleading to describe it in those terms.
Conversely, being an AU has nothing to do with creditworthiness, whether the user is a spouse or a stranger. I think it makes more sense to have credit card co-signers for those with thin files. The card-holder has skin in the game, but so does the "sidecard" user. This wouldn't be about backdating--it would be a chance for those near the start of their credit journeys to get experience with "keeper" cards and creditors.
@Joebunaga wrote:I remember reading about it too, I think this one is it:
Not worth the risk IMHO.
That was the craziest thread I have ever read on here!