sites that pay you to add au?

[juggalo9er]

---

@Lin55 wrote:

---

@Joebunaga wrote:

I remember reading about it too, I think this one is it:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Capital-One-and-Chase-Freedom-cancelled-my-credit-cards...

Not worth the risk IMHO.

---

That was the craziest thread I have ever read on here!

---

+1 it was simply something I had read about. The difference that I can see is in this: if someone comes from a credit healthy family (generally associated with a wealthy family) they can add their sons and daughters with no moral dilemma, but if its done for a stranger its unethical? I really fail to see the difference as IMHO this only propagates the wealthy to remain that way as being an AU obviously boosts their score significantly. I would personally never do it but I see absolutely nothing wrong with it....People do it for each other everyday the difference is in profiting from it?  isn;t profit the very reason people on here have so many cards to maximize the reward benefits thus creating a profit?

[Lin55]

I guess it being ethical or not is up for debate but it's the same as selling your miles to strangers you earned on the Chase Airline cards. That's written in the T&Cs as not allowed. I am sure credit card companies and their lawyers are trying to finds ways to make "earning money for piggy backing" illegal.

[lexrjSD]

---

@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

Right on the spot!

The only reason I wouldn't do it's because the risk is absolutely not worh it.

First of all you're not gaming anything, you're playing by the rules that was established by lenders and credit bureaus. They are both businesses and their only interest is to profit as much as they can. If this was an issue hurting their profits, I guarantee that they would change their AU policies, it's very easy to stop this kind of practice without making it ilegal.

Ppl here are always scared of lenders and always kissing their a**es. Lenders are the first to jump out ship when they "see" a problem, we don't need them, they need us the customers. The day ppl realize that, things would change for the better very quickly. 

[Lin55]

I thought it was funny that the OP of that thread had no idea why his cards were being closed. 

[longtimelurker]

---

@sr383 wrote:

---

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.

---

First point: It may say a lot about credit worthiness (which I don't think it does as it happens!) but it doesn't mean you have the same profile as a person who is genuinely letting statements cut and just has a small balance on one.  It IS trying to manipulate the system, in the same way as piggybacking.

And backdating means you have a relationship.  Sorry, that is really stretching it.   One of the key points about the credit report is, for example, how many times I have been late.  Not being late in 29 years say does show a certain dependability.   But if you had a card 29 years ago for 1 year, and two years ago got another which got backdated, your "never late in 29 years" is really "never late in 3 years", and is again gaming the system.

You might feel they are different because one is purely for financial gain (getting money from strangers) but the others (especially backdating in my mind) achieve the same result, someones score is "artificially" changed, and motive etc doesn't really change that.

[juggalo9er]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@sr383 wrote:

---

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.

---

First point: It may say a lot about credit worthiness (which I don't think it does as it happens!) but it doesn't mean you have the same profile as a person who is genuinely letting statements cut and just has a small balance on one.  It IS trying to manipulate the system, in the same way as piggybacking.

And backdating means you have a relationship.  Sorry, that is really stretching it.   One of the key points about the credit report is, for example, how many times I have been late.  Not being late in 29 years say does show a certain dependability.   But if you had a card 29 years ago for 1 year, and two years ago got another which got backdated, your "never late in 29 years" is really "never late in 3 years", and is again gaming the system.

You might feel they are different because one is purely for financial gain (getting money from strangers) but the others (especially backdating in my mind) achieve the same result, someones score is "artificially" changed, and motive etc doesn't really change that.

---

wellwell said

[sr383]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

---

@sr383 wrote:

---

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.

---

First point: It may say a lot about credit worthiness (which I don't think it does as it happens!) but it doesn't mean you have the same profile as a person who is genuinely letting statements cut and just has a small balance on one.  It IS trying to manipulate the system, in the same way as piggybacking.

And backdating means you have a relationship.  Sorry, that is really stretching it.   One of the key points about the credit report is, for example, how many times I have been late.  Not being late in 29 years say does show a certain dependability.   But if you had a card 29 years ago for 1 year, and two years ago got another which got backdated, your "never late in 29 years" is really "never late in 3 years", and is again gaming the system.

You might feel they are different because one is purely for financial gain (getting money from strangers) but the others (especially backdating in my mind) achieve the same result, someones score is "artificially" changed, and motive etc doesn't really change that.

---

I have never paid a credit card balance in advance of the statement. That's just more work than I think credit cards are worth. But I disagree that doing so is manipulating the system. Is it the same profile as that of someone who never spends more than 10 percent of available credit? No. But is it a lesser profile? If anything, it may well represent one who could manage a lot more credit than he or she yet has available.

Likewise, I have only one AMEX, and I've had it continuously. I have no idea what the numbers are, but I would imagine that fewer than 5 percent of all AMEX users fall into the "used to be--are again" camp.

I don't buy the argument that everyone games the system.

[longtimelurker]

Oh, I don't think that everyone games the system.   But many of those here do (by my definition anyway!) and so those are the ones that  I don't think are justified in attacking others approach.

No idea if your 5% figure for people with breaks in their Amex life is right, I would have put it higher.  But no good way of telling.   (I am one, you are not, so let's say 50%!)

[enharu]

---

@longtimelurker wrote:

Oh, I don't think that everyone games the system.   But many of those here do (by my definition anyway!) and so those are the ones that  I don't think are justified in attacking others approach.

No idea if your 5% figure for people with breaks in their Amex life is right, I would have put it higher.  But no good way of telling.   (I am one, you are not, so let's say 50%!)

---

Well to some, calling recon is considered as gaming the system!

Personally, I don't really care about this, or any other methods of gaming the system. As long as it's not illegal, and you think its worthwhile, then go for it. Most people on this forums are adults whom are supposed to be able to make decisions for themselves. 

Even if this forums manage to somehow convince all its members to be ethical about it and not game the system, a lot of people out there are still going to do it. Regardless of whether 5-20 people on this forums game the system, it's still bound to happen, and in the big picture, adding 5-20 people is insignificant.

Getting added as an AU isn't necessarily helpful as many would think. This loophole / trick only helps people who have limited or no credit history. It's not going to help someone with horrible credit history. Banks are not going to approve you for 5 digit CLs despite your recent BK just because you added a 30yr old account onto your CR as AU.

And there are also significant risks involved.

For example.

1. What if you pay the person, and he ends up not adding you for anything? Most of these transactions are done via cash or wire transfers. There's very limited ways for you to get your money back. 

2. Despite paying all that money, it may not even help your credit profile much, if any.

3. If the seller's account is closed and blacklisted by the bank, chances are you might be flagged too in that bank's systems. 

4. It's really not that hard to establish credit history. The biggest factor is just time. In my opinion, it's not worth paying thousands of dollars just for this shortcut. People whom resort to this are usually in the average to low income range as well. The reason why I'm saying so is because people whom have high income or lots of assets in general often have other methods to have the bank issue them a credit card, such as by securing part of their investments / assets as CL of the card. If your income isn't high enough to qualify for private banking status, just build your credit the traditional way. 

For a limited few, this method may be worthwhile. For instance the boost may be big enough to get you a better mortgage rate, which can be a significant difference.

YMMV I suppose.

[wHiTeSoL]

---

@juggalo9er wrote:

---

@Lin55 wrote:

---

@Joebunaga wrote:

I remember reading about it too, I think this one is it:

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Capital-One-and-Chase-Freedom-cancelled-my-credit-cards...

Not worth the risk IMHO.

---

That was the craziest thread I have ever read on here!

---

+1 it was simply something I had read about. The difference that I can see is in this: if someone comes from a credit healthy family (generally associated with a wealthy family) they can add their sons and daughters with no moral dilemma, but if its done for a stranger its unethical? I really fail to see the difference as IMHO this only propagates the wealthy to remain that way as being an AU obviously boosts their score significantly. I would personally never do it but I see absolutely nothing wrong with it....People do it for each other everyday the difference is in profiting from it?  isn;t profit the very reason people on here have so many cards to maximize the reward benefits thus creating a profit?

---

I respect your opinion and this has nothing to do with wealthy or not wealthy but I really have no idea how you can say you dont see a difference. Adding my wife on and adding a total stranger for money is completely different. As to why it isn't against the rules, its tough for the system to easily determine true authorized users and ones who only want an artifical score increase. There are plenty of reports of people paying just to get a better rate on a morgage or to get a house the cant afford, only to forclose on it, or the poster here last year who had no credit at all, found someone to add multiple 30+ year AU accounts and proceeded to ask for advice on how to get 100k+ in CCs overnight.