New FICO08

[trusty]

EDITED!

Message Edited by fused on 12-21-2007 01:18 PM

[Anonymous]

I agree from a moral sense.  AUs just seem "wrong". 

I diagree from a statisical sense.  A person who is added as an AU to daddy's platinum AMEX is going to have a better chance of repaying a debt than someone who does not have such connections. 

Two caveats:

1.  One cannot be added as an AU by a "service".  One must be added by a family member or spouse.

2.  The bump in score by being an AU has to be less than if the CC were opened by the AU only.

Also, when you think about it, your "vouching is bad" theory applies to the entire credit rating system.  All the CRAs do, essentially, is ask (electronically) people (creditors) to vouch for the person.  It's just more efficient (less?) than calling them up and asking, "so Pauly, is the guy good or what?".

Message Edited by ALEXREDD on 10-25-2007 09:29 AM

[haulingthescoreup]

There should be a marital exemption from the AU change. There are too many stay-at-home spouses (99.9% women) who are threatened by this, and not every CC will allow an AU to convert to joint.

There are a lot of different ways of making a family economically strong, and one way is to have a full-time manager. It takes a lot of time to keep things moving smoothly and efficiently, and the person who's commuting to a cube every day doesn't necessarily have the time, energy, or interest to make it work. And I'm not even going to get into the area of who keeps an eye on the emotional and physical health of family members.

The problem of course is that with the very different look of a family these days, the credit industry doesn't even want to touch the topic of who qualifies as a spouse/ AU. So they just dumped the whole thing.

[smallfry]

---

@haulingthescoreup wrote:
There should be a marital exemption from the AU change. There are too many stay-at-home spouses (99.9% women) who are threatened by this, and not every CC will allow an AU to convert to joint.

There are a lot of different ways of making a family economically strong, and one way is to have a full-time manager. It takes a lot of time to keep things moving smoothly and efficiently, and the person who's commuting to a cube every day doesn't necessarily have the time, energy, or interest to make it work. And I'm not even going to get into the area of who keeps an eye on the emotional and physical health of family members.

The problem of course is that with the very different look of a family these days, the credit industry doesn't even want to touch the topic of who qualifies as a spouse/ AU. So they just dumped the whole thing.

---

I agree. Goes for Mr. Moms too.

[MeganML84]

---

haulingthescoreup wrote:
There should be a marital exemption from the AU change. There are too many stay-at-home spouses (99.9% women) who are threatened by this, and not every CC will allow an AU to convert to joint.

There are a lot of different ways of making a family economically strong, and one way is to have a full-time manager. It takes a lot of time to keep things moving smoothly and efficiently, and the person who's commuting to a cube every day doesn't necessarily have the time, energy, or interest to make it work. And I'm not even going to get into the area of who keeps an eye on the emotional and physical health of family members.

The problem of course is that with the very different look of a family these days, the credit industry doesn't even want to touch the topic of who qualifies as a spouse/ AU. So they just dumped the whole thing.

---

I am probably going to push a few buttons by saying this but, while I understand where you are coming from--in the grand scheme of things, from what I understand an AU is just someone authorized to use and do business on behalf of "the account". With that being said, why should someone just doing business on the account, although not responsible for payments, reap the benefits of the account in good standing?

No offense, but FICO does not measure someone's ability to keep their family members healthy, it measures someone's ability to pay/re-pay a debt. With that being said, the typical homemaker (assuming a wife) is an AU on her husband's card, I do not understand why she should get credit for HIM paying the bills. She does not pay the bills (I am talking strictly in financial terms), she does not bring in an income, and furthermore, could not pay the bills should something happen to her husband (discounting any savings, life insurance, etc. I am talking strictly about working income). I do not think it is "fair" that she get the benefits of HIS account in good standing.

From a FICO standpoint, AU vs. Joint--they are making the right decision. It is not fair, IMO for someone to hike up their score based on someone else's good payment history without being held accountable for that debt.

Flame away!

[haulingthescoreup]

Not a flame, but a reply.

A lot of this comes from the very different realities of today versus 30 or more years ago. For many couples back then, it would never have occurred to them to make the spouse (read: wife) a joint user. It was a REALLY different time back then. As a complete side-bar, I was 17 years old before I knew ANYONE whose parents were divorced. This would be somewhere around 1971. You simply must be willing to understand how things were then, and how they were different from now.

The reality is, that for a lot of these AU accounts, it was in fact the non-employed spouse who did all the work to keep the accounts paid on time. I am absolutely not discounting the work of the income-earner, I'm now one myself, but until you have lived in a household with only one income and tried to run things, you don't realize what goes on in terms of when do we get groceries, when do we fill prescriptions, when do we pay bills, and so forth.

Bringing home the check IS a big deal, but it is only the beginning. Running a household is a business, and it means balancing the income against the outgo, and staying on top of everything, and forecasting what might be coming up. Bunches of employed spouses (read: husbands) came home from work and handed their checks over to the little woman, who then made sure that everything was taken care of. The women (mostly) who did this have ABSOLUTELY earned their credit histories and lengths.

I am pretty negative on the subject of people getting credit from their AU status from when they were just kids in the household, with well-meaning parents trying to help them get a good start. Please note that this was according to the rules of the time and perfectly legitimate. But I am death on those who have purchased the credit histories of perfect strangers in order to improve their credit reports, and those who prostituted themselves in supplying their reports. Their actions have completely screwed over a lot of women (mostly) who have done their part in keeping their households going, and their AU status was completely kosher according to the standards of the time.

This is VERY MUCH a phenomenon of the time, and until you take the time to understand how things were at the time, you will not understand the validity of the AU status. I think that everyone, especially women, should honor what their mothers and grandmothers did. And this is from someone who joined NOW (National Organization of Women) in 1972, and worked for the ERA, spending hours and hours on the phone, and has proudly written Ms. in front of her name for a long, long time. A lot of opportunities that are now available to women have resulted from the efforts of previous generations, and I don't think that many younger women have take the time to understand what their predecessors went through. Do you have any idea what it was like to endlessly be called "honey," and expected to put up with butt grabs and boob grabs, and feel grateful for having the job? I don't think that most young women under the age of 30 can even begin to understand what it was like.

Just because things have been done the way that men have done them, doesn't mean that they are a good idea, and frequently, they are completely awful. Any fool can earn a paycheck. It's a whole different thing to be able to raise kids, keep everyone feeling validated, stay on top of everyone's physical, mental, and emotional status, and keep a household going. It is one of the most disrespectful things that have EVER been done to women to put the status of homemaker on the back burner, and to remove her right to be recognized as an equal partner in her husband's credit status.

Signed, a raving feminist, and proud of it!

[Anonymous]

---

haulingthescoreup wrote:
A lot of opportunities that are now available to women have resulted from the efforts of previous generations, and I don't think that many younger women have take the time to understand what their predecessors went through. Do you have any idea what it was like to endlessly be called "honey," and expected to put up with butt grabs and boob grabs, and feel grateful for having the job? I don't think that most young women under the age of 30 can even begin to understand what it was like.


Signed, a raving feminist, and proud of it!

---

You go girl!   Reminds me of when I worked for the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard as a Shipfitter  (say that 3 times fast...lol)  This was back in the day and working in a shop with all those men was entertaining to say the least.  Of course armed with a "nukie grinder" was a good way to fend off any grabs. I totally agree with everything you had to say.  From one feminist to another  

[Comet21]

When does the New FICO08 go into effect?

[MidnightVoice]

haulingthescoreup wrote:
Not a flame, but a reply.

lots of stuff, abbreviated for convenience 

Signed, a raving feminist, and proud of it!

You are absolutley correct

(signed, raving masculinist  )

[Anonymous]

I heard somewhere on here, some time in the first quarter of 2008.