I agree. But only if husbands pay their stay at home wives the $134,121 per year that they are estimated to be worth.
Jamesus81801 wrote:
smallfry wrote:
Earn your own credit stripes. Your Daddy's credit ain't your credit. Now if we're talking stay at home marrieds that is a different story.Stay at home married people are no different. They weren't married from day one, they had time just like everyone else to prove their credit-worthiness. And just because they stay at home doesn't mean that they can't continue to maintain positive credit.I've said it before, and am going to again. I have nothing but respect and admiration for those people who choose to devote their time to their children and maintaining their home. All families should be so lucky to have the ability for this to happen.But if you feel you deserve good credit, prove it.IMHO.
Then they will have the income and get their own credit caedsI agree. But only if husbands pay their stay at home wives the $134,121 per year that they are estimated to be worth.
I bet they are worth at least that! But what I meant was that they had the opportunity to build their credit before they married and had kids... and if they chose not to even try to do this before marrying then it's their own fault that they can't get credit... Accountability!
As I understand, some CCC's, if not more than just some, allow you to complete an application with Total Household Income, which would allow for the wife, or husband, to take partial credit for their spouse's income on their application. This does not require that they apply for a joint account, unless I have misunderstood, so they should still theoretically be able to get their own credit cards... And happily allow their spouse to pay the bills if that's what they have worked out as a family...(I need to work out a deal like this 
).
). All I'm really getting at is that they had the chance to build their own credit, if they didn't take advantage of that, then they need to work just like the rest of us to build it now. Start with Secured cards, where's the problem with that?
@MidnightVoice wrote:I agree. But only if husbands pay their stay at home wives the $134,121 per year that they are estimated to be worth.
@Anonymous wrote:
@smallfry wrote:
Earn your own credit stripes. Your Daddy's credit ain't your credit. Now if we're talking stay at home marrieds that is a different story.Stay at home married people are no different. They weren't married from day one, they had time just like everyone else to prove their credit-worthiness. And just because they stay at home doesn't mean that they can't continue to maintain positive credit.I've said it before, and am going to again. I have nothing but respect and admiration for those people who choose to devote their time to their children and maintaining their home. All families should be so lucky to have the ability for this to happen.But if you feel you deserve good credit, prove it.IMHO.
That's the point. Additionally a lot of men and women have given up high powered careers to raise the kids. That's a heckuva lot different than some snot nosed kid benefitting from his Daddy's credit history. You don't earn it then you don't deserve it. Too bad and I am glad that FICO agrees with what I have been saying since I started posting here. No credit for AU.
Y'know, the good mortgage lenders and the good auto lenders already disregard AU tradelines when doing a manual review. Part of the AU "problem" was the excessive dependence on bare scores by lazy lenders and most of the CCCs. If the lenders and CCCs were a bit more thorough in their credit reviews, there would be no market for "seasoned tradelines".
However, IMHO, FICO could have been a lot more creative in devising a solution that stopped the fraudulent use of AUs, while retaining the intended benefits for spouses and children. This would have been my 2-cent idea:
(1) Add one piece of data for AU accounts only: the date that the AU was added. Then use that date for scoring, instead of the date the original account was opened. Nobody is going to pay $1000 for a TL whose history only starts on the day you buy it.
(2) Instead of giving the AU full credit for the entire CL, the AU tradeline would only be scored based on 10% of the AVAILABLE credit. If the CL=$10,000 and balance=$0, the AU would be scored as if he had a $1000 tradeline. If the CL=$10,000 and balance=$5,000, the AU would be scored as if he had a $500 tradeline. Just tweak the formula, using data that is already provided.
Currently, an AU tradeline that originally opened in 1987, with a CL of $30,000, could have a huge scoring impact and might be worth $500 or $1000 to someone trying to artificially inflate their FICO quickly. But if you applied the above two changes, that same TL would instead be counted as a brand new account with a $3000 CL - hardly a massive score booster.
(3) Require that AU accounts be immediately deleted from all CRs if the AU status is terminated. One of the things I noticed about the fraudulent AU stories was the fact that the seller would add the buyer as an AU, wait for the AU to post on the buyer's CRs, then immediately remove the AU from the account. As long as the buyer did not dispute his purchased AU account (and of course he wouldn't), it would remain on his CR long enough (probably at least 6 months to a year or more) for him to finish shopping for and obtaining a mortgage.
The point that FICO missed was that "family" AUs are generally long-term (children building credit starting in their teens, spouses building credit during the course of their marriage), while "fraudulent" AUs are generally short-term (inflate scores quickly in order to get an imminent mortgage approval). All FICO needed to do was inject ideas such as those above, ideas that would cripple the fraudulent AUs, while still maintaining the family AUs in a slightly diluted form. Plus, ideas like those above could have been implemented with only minor changes to the CRA data-gathering process. And there's no need to verify relationships or compare names - something Fair Isaac said would be too difficult - because the value of the AU account as a quick fix would be almost zero.
Oh, well, nobody asked me, and it's too late now.
Message Edited by Revike on 08-03-2007 08:21 PM
However, IMHO, FICO could have been a lot more creative in devising a solution that stopped the fraudulent use of AUs, while retaining the intended benefits for spouses and children. This would have been my 2-cent idea:
(1) Add one piece of data for AU accounts only: the date that the AU was added. Then use that date for scoring, instead of the date the original account was opened. Nobody is going to pay $1000 for a TL whose history only starts on the day you buy it.
(2) Instead of giving the AU full credit for the entire CL, the AU tradeline would only be scored based on 10% of the AVAILABLE credit. If the CL=$10,000 and balance=$0, the AU would be scored as if he had a $1000 tradeline. If the CL=$10,000 and balance=$5,000, the AU would be scored as if he had a $500 tradeline. Just tweak the formula, using data that is already provided.
Currently, an AU tradeline that originally opened in 1987, with a CL of $30,000, could have a huge scoring impact and might be worth $500 or $1000 to someone trying to artificially inflate their FICO quickly. But if you applied the above two changes, that same TL would instead be counted as a brand new account with a $3000 CL - hardly a massive score booster.
(3) Require that AU accounts be immediately deleted from all CRs if the AU status is terminated. One of the things I noticed about the fraudulent AU stories was the fact that the seller would add the buyer as an AU, wait for the AU to post on the buyer's CRs, then immediately remove the AU from the account. As long as the buyer did not dispute his purchased AU account (and of course he wouldn't), it would remain on his CR long enough (probably at least 6 months to a year or more) for him to finish shopping for and obtaining a mortgage.
The point that FICO missed was that "family" AUs are generally long-term (children building credit starting in their teens, spouses building credit during the course of their marriage), while "fraudulent" AUs are generally short-term (inflate scores quickly in order to get an imminent mortgage approval). All FICO needed to do was inject ideas such as those above, ideas that would cripple the fraudulent AUs, while still maintaining the family AUs in a slightly diluted form. Plus, ideas like those above could have been implemented with only minor changes to the CRA data-gathering process. And there's no need to verify relationships or compare names - something Fair Isaac said would be too difficult - because the value of the AU account as a quick fix would be almost zero.
Oh, well, nobody asked me, and it's too late now.
Message Edited by Revike on 08-03-2007 08:21 PM