topic Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes! in Credit Cards

PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

GB44 — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:20:23 GMT

Been trolling and I don't make a lot of post, but I had to comment on the changes at PSECU!

First off, I'm from out of state and was approved for membership in April under the parks and recreation. I originally joined because I wanted my EX FICO score. My plan was also to transfer funds into the checking/savings on a monthly basis and eventually apply for a combo when I was ready. For me, this is a good savings approach, because of PSECU being out of state and limited access to the account.

I certainly don't mean to knock anyone, but what happen to members of this board being financially and ethically responsible when dealing with PSECU?

Just because they will give out a 10k or 20k combo doesn't mean that you should request it. I'm not saying that everyone can't afford a 10k or 20k combo, but if you can't pay for it..........then is it financially responsible to request it? Also, is it fair to other members in or out of state, if you take a less that ethical approach to attaining membership? Ultimately, who is liable if someone fails to pay?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of people want to increase their Utilization rate by adding a big revolving account, but in doing so it doesn't necessarily give a realistic picture of what a person can afford. To me, it seems similar to the crash of the housing market!

In my opinion, I think it's good to see that PSECU is putting tighter controls on the membership process and limiting their liability. I'm truly sorry for those that want to get in but can't now. It only takes one bad apple to ruin it! And I think there has been more than a few lately. Just my 2cents!

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

-Cain- — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:35:11 GMT

Good points there GB.

I joined right around the same time and have nearly the same plans and thoughts for my relationship with PSECU. I was also drawn by the FICO, the fact my funds would be a bit harder to access than with my big bank, and their credit card/ PSL combo down the line.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:02:30 GMT

@GB44 wrote:
Been trolling and I don't make a lot of post, but I had to comment on the changes at PSECU!

First off, I'm from out of state and was approved for membership in April under the parks and recreation. I originally joined because I wanted my EX FICO score. My plan was also to transfer funds into the checking/savings on a monthly basis and eventually apply for a combo when I was ready. For me, this is a good savings approach, because of PSECU being out of state and limited access to the account.

I certainly don't mean to knock anyone, but what happen to members of this board being financially and ethically responsible when dealing with PSECU?

Just because they will give out a 10k or 20k combo doesn't mean that you should request it. I'm not saying that everyone can't afford a 10k or 20k combo, but if you can't pay for it..........then is it financially responsible to request it? Also, is it fair to other members in or out of state, if you take a less that ethical approach to attaining membership? Ultimately, who is liable if someone fails to pay?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of people want to increase their Utilization rate by adding a big revolving account, but in doing so it doesn't necessarily give a realistic picture of what a person can afford. To me, it seems similar to the crash of the housing market!

In my opinion, I think it's good to see that PSECU is putting tighter controls on the membership process and limiting their liability. I'm truly sorry for those that want to get in but can't now. It only takes one bad apple to ruin it! And I think there has been more than a few lately. Just my 2cents!

It's not really the same as the housing crash, at least not for everyone. The problem with the housing crisis was that people were taking out massive loans beyond their means, AND USING THEM.

Having 10k or 20k in available credit hurts no one. Whether or not someone chooses to use that credit responsibly is an entirely seperate issue.

Somone earning 200k a year can just as easily rack up 20k in debt and not pay it as someone making 30k a year. And it very well could be that the person earning 30k a year manages their money substantially better and makes all of their payments without issue.

I will agree that if you are a person who KNOWS they don't have the self control to not max out a credit card, then yes, going and apping for 10-20k is irrisponsible. I do not think this is why they are tightening their standards... I think they were having issues with fraud.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

wmarat — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:48:55 GMT

1. Available credit is not equal to debt. My available revolving credit is more than $400k, my current revolving debt is $3.6K which can be paid in one payment but why to pay 0% balance.

2. System is not ethical with me, why should I be ethical with system?

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

DI — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:58:55 GMT

@wmarat wrote:
1. Available credit is not equal to debt. My available revolving credit is more than $400k, my current revolving debt is $3.6K which can be paid in one payment but why to pay 0% balance.

2. System is not ethical with me, why should I be ethical with system?

Thanks for that comment! Made my day!!

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

android01 — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:26:15 GMT

@wmarat wrote:
1. Available credit is not equal to debt. My available revolving credit is more than $400k, my current revolving debt is $3.6K which can be paid in one payment but why to pay 0% balance.

2. System is not ethical with me, why should I be ethical with system?

That's a fascinating question. An accepted definition of ethics is; "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation." Ethical generally means "conforming to accepted standards of conduct or behavior." Please elaborate on how you believe the system is not ethical, or practicing good ethics. Furthermore, please elaborate on why, if you believe that the system is unethical, it's right for you to behave or conduct business in an unethical manner.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:39:32 GMT

Our credit score, which we are denied detailed information regarding how it is calculated, is heavily influenced by utilization rate. We are penalized (I believe this is general consensus) for utilizing >10% of a credit line. To revolve a balance of $1900, which is less than 4% of the median annual US household income [2006 census] , once would necessarily require a $20k+ credit line. What's the issue?

Which is worse, I have a $20k credit line which the underwriters and actuaries at a bank calculate is a mathematically acceptable risk based on my income and credit history... and I use it responsibily... Or I get a $2500 credit line which is constantly past due, and I finally give up and default on?

What does the credit line have to do with it?

We are all responsible for our own actions, and our credit lines have nothing to do with our choice whether to pay or not.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

RockinRay — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:41:10 GMT

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

wmarat — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:03:03 GMT

1. There are tons of definitions of ethics. For example: the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture. Please note the difference with your "accepted" definition.

2. All those forums (myfico, creditboards, fatwallet etc) full of sob stories how the system is unethical. I, myself, have bad habit of paying my debts, so from my prospective it is unethical:

a. To lower score for credit inquiry

b. To pull HP for utlity accounts

c. To pull credit for employment, even so it is legal

d. To punish people for low/high util.

e. To deal with all 3 CB is a full time job.

f. To sell my credit score to me.

g. To sell my info to third party without asking my permition and paying any royalties.

3. Though an idea of credit reporting has its advantages, the current practice is outrageous.

4. FICO and other scoring systems predict nothing, but rule our life.

So, I do believe, that all the above give me moral right to get large credit lines abd artifically keep my util low, to bump inquiries off my reports and manipulate the system as much as I can.

Ethics generally means nothing. Ethics are the set of moral norms, which coincedentally help leaders to keep plebs under the rule.

I am firm believer in lex talionis, quintessence of which is :an eye for an eye" and there is my right to treat system exactly same way as system treats me.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

DI — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:23:26 GMT

Also the CRA's are liers! Both Kroger and US Bank said they asked the CRAs if changing the opening dates on accounts affect consumers credit score. She said of course they said no. Thankfully, US Bank and Kroger listened to its cardmembers and agreed that changing opening dates can have an affect on ones credit score.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

GB44 — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:04:03 GMT

It sounds like your financially responsible so my comment wouldn't apply to you. However, FICO scores have a direct correlation with the default risk rate. The utilization rate has a direct correlation with your FICO score. Raising the ceiling on the debt one owes instead of paying it off just makes no sense to me.

If you don't like the system, then don't use it! Also, what has PSECU done that was unethical?

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

wmarat — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:17:04 GMT

IMHO, FICO can predict nothing. Let's say there is a young, responsible person who can not imagine not to pay his bills and lives within his/hers means. Why such a nice person should be discremenated by FICO. On the other hand, Madoff had elite card (Amex if I am not mistaken) given to people with good FICO. Would you trust him with your money now?

Besides, I doubt very much, that America would have become the richest country in the world if current credit system had been in place in 18th century. Blind trust in FICO took out of American busineess the spirit of America (no freedom, adventure, calculated risk, etc.) Companies are ready to lose business, if they do not see desirable FICO. When I was shopping for my second car (having been living in the USA like 6 mos.) dealership did almost everything to sell car but they could not overstep FICO requirment, of course I refused 19.5% APR financing and eventually found 0.9% APR financing which was paid off within 15 mos instead of 36. Who lost?

If I make large purchase and faithfully pay it off, why should I be punished by FICO?

Again you do not diffirinciate between available credit and debt, it is not the same.

PSECU as well as my favorite financial institutions (PenFed, Navy, Lake Michigan and others) have done nothing unethical. CU's rarely do dirty tricks, usually banks are known for dirty tricks. Nevertheless, CU's are part of system and play by system's rules.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

fot1 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:44:25 GMT

@GB44 wrote:
Been trolling and I don't make a lot of post, but I had to comment on the changes at PSECU!

First off, I'm from out of state and was approved for membership in April under the parks and recreation. I originally joined because I wanted my EX FICO score. My plan was also to transfer funds into the checking/savings on a monthly basis and eventually apply for a combo when I was ready. For me, this is a good savings approach, because of PSECU being out of state and limited access to the account.

I certainly don't mean to knock anyone, but what happen to members of this board being financially and ethically responsible when dealing with PSECU?

Just because they will give out a 10k or 20k combo doesn't mean that you should request it. I'm not saying that everyone can't afford a 10k or 20k combo, but if you can't pay for it..........then is it financially responsible to request it? Also, is it fair to other members in or out of state, if you take a less that ethical approach to attaining membership? Ultimately, who is liable if someone fails to pay?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of people want to increase their Utilization rate by adding a big revolving account, but in doing so it doesn't necessarily give a realistic picture of what a person can afford. To me, it seems similar to the crash of the housing market!

In my opinion, I think it's good to see that PSECU is putting tighter controls on the membership process and limiting their liability. I'm truly sorry for those that want to get in but can't now. It only takes one bad apple to ruin it! And I think there has been more than a few lately. Just my 2cents!

Kinda looks like that old pot and kettle deal.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

GB44 — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:28:58 GMT

Topic is getting off the original subject. FICO could be discussed in itself all day.

What happen to people in this forum being financially and ethically responsible when dealing with PSECU? I believe if PSECU is treating you fairly, then you shouldn't try to take advantage of them. Pay for your membership and be responsible in using your account.

I agree that there is no proof that the recent changes are related to default on accounts. However, because of the recent post about additional financial records being required, it makes me wonder.

At the end of the day, anyone can justify their actions, but PSECU is the impacted party. Why can't we show them the same love that their showing us?

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:58:15 GMT

@GB44 wrote:
Why can't we show them the same love that their showing us?

?? I'm not sure what you mean? Any person that is a member of PSECU who lends PSECU money (deposit accounts), uses a debit card or credit card (transaction fees), or carries a balance (paying interest) is "showing love" by being a customer. Isn't that what most businesses want? Customers? Happy ones?

I'm happy to have PSECU. Pretty sure PSECU is happy to have me, as well.

Then again, I actually followed my own morality by actually paying for a membership in a club before I told them I had done so to make myself eligible. Also provided my real pay stubs and income when asked and gave them permission to view my credit history, per their rules... Probably like the majority of people here (though we not it's not the totality of the people here).

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

CS800 — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:17:10 GMT

There are more items that counts against us than in our favor. The CRA's as their name state are only 'REPROTING'. When there is a mistake, you dispute and they confirm with OC's.

What I blame and what I have been saying is that WE the people are judged by some 'Top secret' formula. The worst part you ask? Each CRA's has it's own FICO model. So FICO creates a formula that will be used to judge the people.

People don't have the right to know what they are being 'accused' of. That is what bothers me the most. On top of that the CRA's like EX, are given full discretion to decide who they would sell their FICO to.

Then the credit monitoring industry boomed with FAKO companies all promising and using the term FICO very losely. To the well advised credit person, we know they are useless, yet how many people pay thier hard earned money to get a FAKE score that means nothing? Who is allowing this to prosper? The feds claiming is on free market.

The FICO formula doesn't take into consideration if

- You were late because of exceptional circumstances i.e loss of job, divorce, deployment etc

Who decided that due to any of the circumstances above that we still be penalized for 7.5 years? Who came up with that number? Why not 4 years? Well there is a whole different industry that have boomed becasue of that. The sub prime ! So if someone was been making thier payments on time and paid collection i nthe past 2 years, they might still have a mid low to mid 600 FICO or SOmeone on a payment plan on a card with a balance of $10000 paying $100 month since that all they can afford. The sub prime sharks are out there even though you have been making effort to pay on time for over 12-18 months. So if you dont make much money and paying off your bills, you will be in the sub prime jail (higher interests) for a long time.

The system also doesnt protect the consumer. Ok I had a collection 2 years ago and paid it in full on a payment plan. The OC's got their money but lets hammer the poor customer for 7.5 years; we own you for 7 years basically (payback is a b*tch attitude from the OC). They have been given too much power to rule people's life.

I can go on and on but I have already digressed from the topic. It just flames me everytime I hear that we have to be ethical to a system that is out to s'crew us at the least occasion they get. We beg to have collections removed; although we have given the OC their money in full; most of the times what happens? failed GW's forever.

*Rant switch off**

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

Bourne — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 21:23:08 GMT

I'm confused as to why there is even a debate here! Anyone who thinks the current credit system is FAIR and ETHICAL toward us consumers is completely out of touch with reality.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

GB44 — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:17:44 GMT

Someone please lock this post............it's so off the original topic.

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

MarineVietVet — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:31:34 GMT

@GB44 wrote:
Someone please lock this post............it's so off the original topic.

You're absolutely right about that.

Folks how about getting back to the original premise of the thread?

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

Re: PSECU: Thanks for the changes!

DI — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:40:45 GMT

@Bourne wrote:
I'm confused as to why there is even a debate here! Anyone who thinks the current credit system is FAIR and ETHICAL toward us consumers is completely out of touch with reality.

You're right about that! This is one subject where out of touch politicians can agree with everyday people on.